Skip to content

Building law models must be made more sustainable: A possible solution

Last update: January 27, 2025

The housing shortage is having a major impact on the current market environment in the Swiss real estate sector. Central, well-developed locations are partic­u­larly affected. Spatial planning is often singled out as one of the scape­goats, respon­sible for the lack of building land reserves or insuf­fi­cient promotion of densi­fi­cation.

While inflexible zoning plans, a lack of an overar­ching, inter­dis­ci­plinary urban planning culture, and the high complexity and length­iness of special-use planning are rightly criti­cized, other factors must be taken into account. Changing investment markets – another driver of the housing shortage – are often insuf­fi­ciently considered in the discussion.

The few available building land reserves in central locations are often owned by the public sector. Allocating these reserves under building rights has been gaining in popularity in recent years and is becoming increas­ingly important given the demand for living space. Among other issues, choosing the right model is crucial.

Current building rights models

Two models are currently used for most building rights agree­ments: the classic model and the Basel model, which differ mainly in how the interest rates are calcu­lated and the adjustment mecha­nisms.

The classic model

In the classic building rights model, the building lease charge is deter­mined by applying a risk-adjusted interest rate to the derived land value. Adjustment mecha­nisms are then agreed in advance to allow building lease charges to be modified period­i­cally or if framework condi­tions (e.g. interest rate environment, construction adjust­ments, rent restric­tions) change signif­i­cantly. The advan­tages of this model are the trans­parent adjust­ments in regular cycles. The disad­van­tages, on the other hand, are as follows:

  • The adjustment mecha­nisms are usually complex and often become outdated over longer contract terms. For example, if the index to which the building lease rate should be adjusted is discon­tinued.
  • The building perfor­mance is only taken into account indirectly or insuf­fi­ciently.
  • Afford­ability can be jeopar­dized for the building lease­holder, partic­u­larly if interest rates rise sharply over the lease term.

These disad­van­tages can create not only conflicts but also tipping points that are detri­mental to both parties.

The Basel model

This is often referred to as a partnership model, as it is charac­terized by an equal partnership between the lessee and the lessor. Both parties share the risks and returns according to their value contri­bution: land value for the building rights grantor and investment in the building for the lease­holder. The building lease interest is calcu­lated using the following formula:

Building rights charge = net income * land value / (land value + building value)

If the parameters change, the building rights charge is adjusted every 10 years.

This model’s strength is its fairness, as both parties share the risks and returns equally. However, it is complex to apply, involves a high admin­is­trative outlay, and harbors great potential for conflict when deter­mining the parameters.

In both models, therefore, the disad­van­tages prevail, either because of an imbalance between parties or the appli­cation complexity. But could there be another way?

What makes a good rights contract?

In our view, a good building rights agreement should be market-driven and balanced. To ensure that the contract is balanced over the long term of the building lease, cost-effective to implement, and has a low potential for conflict, the following five charac­ter­istics should be present:

  1. Simplicity
  2. Flexi­bility
  3. Trace­ability
  4. Fairness
  5. Future-proof

The balance should be maintained not only when the building lease is concluded, but throughout the entire contract term. This can be achieved by selecting suitable adjustment mecha­nisms that best restore the balance if market condi­tions change.

As we have seen, many building lease agree­ments based on the classic or Basel model often only fulfill part of these require­ments. This is due to their complexity, potential for conflict, or lack of viability.

Is a revenue-based building rights model the future?

When attempting to design a simple, future-proof building rights model with low potential for conflict, the contractual content must therefore be fair, compre­hen­sible, and as objective as possible. In particular, the building lease charge must be decoupled from key figures that are difficult to assess objec­tively in the long term (e.g. land or building value).

Under this context, one more suitable key figure is a property’s rental income. So why not link the building lease interest rate to the future devel­opment of rental income and add interest to the property income? The revenue-based model minimizes the disad­van­tages of all current models while retaining the most important advan­tages:

  • Low complexity: The deduction of the building lease rate and its adjustment is very simple due to the interest on the annual income, and the principle is well-known in the real estate industry – for example, in turnover-based rental agree­ments for retail or restaurant spaces.
  • Future viability: The majority of the Swiss population lives in rental properties. As this is unlikely to change, the model will remain valid in the long term.
  • Low potential for conflict: Unlike land or building values, rental income is objec­tively measurable. Accord­ingly, the potential for conflict is low.
  • Fairness: Both parties benefit equally if property income rises or falls. Downward hedging is possible.
  • Intrinsic motivation: The interests of the grantor and the lessee are aligned within agreed guide­lines and any restric­tions on use (e.g. low-cost rent). Both intrin­si­cally strive for the highest possible rental or building lease income.
  • Versatile applic­a­bility: The income-based model is ideal for rental properties, regardless of their use. The model can also be used very easily for building lease­holders without revenue targets (e.g. cooper­a­tives). On the other hand, the income-based model reaches its limits with owner-occupied properties. Here, the rental value must be estimated, impairing the objec­tivity criterion.

Wüest Partner supports landowners in granting building rights
Are you planning to grant building rights for a plot of land? Wüest Partner supports and advises public author­ities and private investors in this process. Find out more here.

BWO
Study report “Building law under the micro­scope” on behalf of the Federal Office for Housing (BWO). Read the study here (in German or French).

Contact our experts to learn more