Neighbouring party action against dental practice in general residential area: VGH Munich strengthens planning certainty and limits neighbouring rights

On the legal background of neighbouring party actions: neighbour protection between area preservation and duty of care

Neighbouring party actions againstbuilding permits for medical practices or comparable uses in residential areas are a perennial issue ofpublic building law. Plaintiffs regularly rely on thearea preservation claim and on theduty of care under building planning law. However, both of these legal positions are inherently limited from the outset and do not provide any entitlement to preserve a purely residential status quo.

In thegeneral residential area (§ 4 BauNVO) the regulation-maker has deliberately permitted a certain mixing of uses. In addition to residential use, in particularnon-disturbing freelance activities are permitted. § 13 BauNVO expressly permits the use ofrooms for the professional practice of self-employed professionals, which undoubtedly regularly includesmedical and dental practices. This permissibility is, however, subject to the proviso that the professional use does not characterise the building and does not have anyeffects incompatible with the area or unreasonable within the meaning of § 15 BauNVO.

The distinction between permissible practice use and breach of neighbouring rights must always be made on the basis of atypifying assessment. What matters is not the subjective perception of individual neighbours, but the objective question of whether the project, by its nature, still corresponds to the character of the residential area.

That was precisely the issue: neighbouring party action against dental practice in new building

The decision of theVGH München vom 15.01.2026 (Az. 9 ZB 25.1437) was based on a classic constellation. A permit had been granted for the construction of a residential building, in the ground floor of which aorthodontic practice was to be operated. The upper storeys were intended exclusively for residential use. The project site and the neighbouring sites were within the scope of a development plan which designated ageneral residential area.

The dental practice was to be operated as apure appointment-based practice without emergency service and staffed with1.5 orthodontists. In terms of area, approximately36 % of the useful floor area was allocated to the practice and about64 % to residential use. Externally, the building appeared as a unified residential house, with a common entrance and stairwell.

The neighbouring party action challenged the building permit on the grounds that a dental practice of this size wasincompatible with the area. They specifically objected to:

• an erroneous floor area calculation,
• an alleged defining effect of the practice,
• considerabledrop-off and pick-up traffic (in particular by parents of minor patients),
• unreasonablenoise and traffic nuisances in the traffic-calmed area.

TheVG Würzburg dismissed the neighbouring party action. The application for permission to appeal was directed against this – without success.

The decision of the VGH Munich: permitted dental practice, no breach of neighbouring rights

The VGH Munich rejected the application for permission to appeal and thus the neighbouring party action. The first-instance decision was fully confirmed. The reasoning is particularly instructive for practitioners.

Permissibility of the dental practice pursuant to § 13 BauNVO

The Senate makes clear that a dental practice – including an orthodontic practice – generally constitutes a freelance use within the meaning of § 13 BauNVO. In a general residential area, such uses may be in rooms provided that the building is not alienated from residential use through predominant professional use.

It is decisive that the practice use here is significantly subordinate in terms of floor area. The frequently cited 50% threshold is clearly not reached. When calculating floor area, only rooms for occupation are to be taken into account. Corridors, sanitary facilities, X-ray rooms or technical ancillary rooms do not count. Even on a generous calculation, the practice remains clearly within the permitted range.

Nor is there any cubic capacity and external appearance of the building that would suggest a commercial character. The practice is fully integrated into the residential building and is not recognisable from the outside as an independent use.

No incompatibility with the area due to patient traffic

The VGH particularly clearly rejects the extensive submissions in the neighbouring action regarding patient drop-off and pick-up traffic. Whilst a dental practice is typically associated with arrival and departure traffic, it is precisely this that the regulation-maker has already taken into account on a standardised basis in the approval of freelance uses in § 13 BauNVO.

A practice with 1.5 practitioners, fixed appointments and without emergency operations is not an atypical phenomenon. The fact that it is an orthodontic practice with predominantly minor patients does not change this. Drop-off and pick-up traffic, brief stopping of vehicles, door slamming or conversations are typical accompanying phenomena and do not per se lead to incompatibility with the area.

What is decisive is solely whether a project is by its nature capable of disturbing residential use in the general residential area. The Senate expressly denies this.

Duty of consideration and environmental protection

Nor is there a violation of the duty of consideration (§ 15 BauNVO). To determine what is reasonable, the VGH applies the standards of environmental protection law. The building permit contains binding ancillary provisions whereby all noise emanating from the dental practice must comply with the immission limit value of 49 dB(A) during daytime hours – taking into account background noise in the area.

These provisions are sufficient to protect neighbouring interests. There are no indications that the limit values could not be complied with. Noise immissions resulting from social coexistence are regularly to be accepted as socially adequate. There is no right to absolute silence.

Classification and practical significance

The decision of the VGH Munich provides considerable legal certainty regarding the permissibility of dental practices and medical practices in a general residential area. It confirms the established line of case law that neighbouring actions succeed only if a freelance use actually displaces residential use or causes atypical, unreasonable disturbances.

At the same time, the decision exemplifies that detailed descriptions of possible disturbance scenarios cannot replace a standardised assessment. For permit authorities as well as for developers, this is an important signal.

Recommendation from a legal perspective – beyond the individual case

What the VGH Munich has decided for the dental practice applies in substance equally to other freelance uses: what matters is not professional designations, but rather floor area ratios, external appearance, operational organisation and immission protection.

Our law firm, which specialises inter alia in administrative law AVANTCORE Attorneys at Law in Stuttgart advises and represents you on all matters relating to building permits, neighbour disputes and the admissibility of self-employed activities in residential areas.

Contact us – we ensure legally compliant planning and consistent enforcement of your interests.

We have already published several articles on building law and the duty of consideration: