Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
7 comments 
The Brazilian Civil Law Provides That the Owner Can Become a Joint Owner of an Existing Party Wall, Even Without Prior Agreement and Regardless of the Age of the Construction, As Long As He Pays Half of the Current Value of the Work and the Corresponding Land.
The civil legislation guarantees the adjoining owner the right to enter into joint ownership of a wall already built on the boundary at the exclusive initiative of the neighbor.
The entry does not depend on prior agreement or the time of existence of the work.
To exercise the right, it is sufficient to pay half of the current value of the wall and the strip of land it occupies; until the payment or deposit is made, the use of the structure remains prohibited.
-
The new Civil Code could revolutionize marriages in Brazil with “express divorce” and changes that could exclude spouses from inheritance.
-
Banco do Brasil sues famous influencer for million-dollar debt and intensifies debate on delinquency, risks of seizure, and direct impact on Gkay’s credibility.
-
The Senate approves a bill that criminalizes misogyny, hatred, or aversion towards women, and includes the crime in the Racism Law with a penalty of up to 5 years.
-
Chamber Approves Bill That Allows Pepper Spray for Women Over 16 and Imposes Strict Rules for Purchase, Possession, and Use as Self-Defense
Legal Basis and Scope of the Right
The foundation lies in the necessary condominium provided for in the Civil Code.
The rule establishes that the owner who has the right to mark the property with a fence, wall, ditch, or equivalent structure can acquire a share in the neighboring party wall, compensating the neighbor 50% of the current value of the construction and the respective land.
The legal text does not condition the right to the existence of an agreement between the parties nor restricts its exercise by the lapse of time.
By adopting “current value” as a reference, the law itself indicates that the assessment must reflect the moment in which the right is exercised.
Still in the same chapter, the Code determines that, in case of disagreement on the price, the amount will be fixed by expert appraisal, at the expense of both adjoining owners.
The provision gives an objective solution for the absence of consensus: if there is no agreement on values, professionals define the calculation basis, following engineering and market criteria.
Conditions for Use and Practical Effects
Until there is payment or deposit of the amount due, the interested party cannot lean against, alter, raise, or use the party wall.
The prohibition protects the integrity of the work and prevents the free use of someone else’s property before the condominium is established.
Once the share is paid, the rules of party wall apply, including concerning the possibilities of compatible use and maintenance responsibilities.
In practice, the procedure usually occurs in three steps.
First, the owner expresses the intention to acquire the share of the existing party wall, indicating that it is a construction on the boundary line between the properties.
Next, he presents a technical assessment regarding the state of the wall, its divisional function, and the area of land it occupies.
If the disagreement on the price persists, the solution is appraisal, which determines the value.
Only after payment or deposit is the legal use of the wall permitted.
Documentary records—communications, reports, and receipts—are advisable for any possible legal disputes.
What Defines the Party Wall
The legal hypothesis applies to works that are effectively intended to separate two contiguous properties.
This is the typical case of the wall built on the boundary line, recognized as the boundary marker.
The assessment considers the divisional nature, the state of preservation, and the position of the element concerning the boundary.
The payment includes half of the current value of the structure and, inseparably, the share of the strip of land it occupies, reflecting the establishment of the condominium over both the wall and the land under the work.
Rules of Party Wall After the Share
Once the joint ownership is established, the specific provisions of the Civil Code regarding party walls apply.
In places where building is done on the alignment, the co-owner can construct on the party wall, provided that the structure supports the intervention and that the duties of compensation, safety, and communication are observed.
The owner who builds first can set the party wall up to half the thickness on the neighboring property, respecting legal precautions and without losing the right to receive half the value if the other owner later constructs.
It is possible to raise the wall, assuming all expenses of the added portion; if the neighbor also acquires a share in the extended section, the costs are divided according to legal proportion.
All these rights presuppose structural stability, compliance with technical standards, and prior notice to the other co-owner.
Relationship With the Right of Tapagem
The right to acquire a share interacts with the right of tapagem, which allows the owner to fence or wall his land and to proportionally share the expenses of construction and maintenance of boundary markers.
While tapagem deals with the establishment and maintenance of the common boundary—allowing for the demarcation and renewal of markers—it is joint ownership that resolves existing situations, where the party wall exists because one of the neighbors built it in isolation.
Instead of imposing demolition and new joint construction, the law allows the entry of the other owner into the joint ownership, through payment calculated at the current market value.
What Should Not Be Confused With the Share
It is important to distinguish the share from the discourse on “adverse possession of walls”.
The Civil Code does not treat the party wall erected by one neighbor as property automatically subject to adverse possession by the other solely due to the lapse of time.
The indicated legal pathway is that of acquisition of the share for consideration, with objective calculation and, if necessary, arbitration by experts.
The legal emphasis on present value confirms that old walls do not freeze rights or prices: the reference is always to the assessment contemporary to the exercise of the right.
Interference from Local Laws and Technical Cautions
Civil legislation coexists with building codes and municipal regulations that govern wall heights, setbacks, clearances, security, and construction standards.
These laws do not negate the share provided for in the Civil Code but must be observed in subsequent interventions after entering joint ownership.
Any supportive, heightening, or modification work must respect engineering requirements, safety rules, and local inspections, in addition to the general duty of not causing damage to the neighboring building, with responsibility for any eventual damages.
O muro de divisa foi construído dentro das divisas do lote lindeiro.
O novo vizinho é obrigado a construir um novo muro em paralelo ao existente?
Meu muro fiz dentro do meu terreno, morreu zerado na divisa do terreno. Não vejo porque teria que vender metade..
A reportagem nao deixou claro quando o o muro é erguido inteiramente dentro do terreno do proprietário, ou seja, o muro é erguido da linha divisória para dentro do terreno.
Dentro da propriedade é seu e nao pode ser tocado. Nem para um varal. Ele deve costruir um paralelo e no proprio terreno.
Exatamente..matéria muita vaga. Quando se constrói sobre a linha divisória, ambos devem arcar com as despesas passando a ter direito ambos. Por outro, se o muro é construído como você menciona, o vizinho não pode usar como parede-meia…
Por isso nos cálculos já estão os dois valores: o valor atual da obra(material e mão de obra do muro+valor da metade de faixa de terreno que ele ocupa) pois mesmo construindo dentro do meu terreno, o vizinho pode comprar metade do muro e o pedaço de terreno, independente do aceite de quem construiu. Assim mesmo sem aceitar, sou obrigado por lei a vender metade, infelizmente é assim!!!
Isso abre um precedente para o imóvel inteiro, é só um juiz mal intencionado dar ganho pra alguém que terá casos de ser obrigado a vender tudo por um valor venal. Só cuida o direito a prioridade indo pro brejo.