Swedish 3D Property in an International Comparison

The aim of the paper is to present the Swedish types of 3D property, how they are designed and related to each other, and to make a comparison with other types of 3D property that can be found internationally. The Swedish 3D property system is presented and compared with the international standard types of 3D property. In this comparison examples are drawn from e.g. Germany and the Australian states New South Wales and Victoria. It is possible to find a number of different types of 3D property when making an international survey. The main types are the independent 3D property, the condominium (apartment ownership) and indirect ownership. In comparison with these standard types, the Swedish forms of such property are very similar to each other. In the legislation, the condominium unit is even defined as a 3D property unit, but intended only for one residential apartment. The same regulations as for traditional 2D property will apply also to the 3D property, with only a few special regulations added. The Swedish tenant-ownership type is an indirect ownership form of 3D property right, which is more similar to the condominium type than the Swedish condominium form. The Swedish 3D property unit falls in between the independent 3D property unit and the condominium, e.g. since the boundaries usually relate to a construction and not coordinates and that there often is a formal association managing the common parts relating to the 3D property, similar to an owners’ association within a condominium scheme. A condominium property unit can only be formed for accommodation purposes and not e.g. offices, and only in new buildings, or buildings that were not used for accommodation during eight years before the property formation of the apartment units. Hence, there is a variety of types of 3D property existing in Sweden although differing somewhat from the more standard types. However, it can be noticed that certain elements are needed for all 3D property and the basic construction of the different forms is also rather similar even though the legal systems differ. A comparison of 3D property types may give input to a deeper understanding of 3D property in general and point to new solutions in the development of the concept of 3D property on a national level