A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 55.1-708.3, relating to Virginia Residential Property Disclosure Act; required disclosures; local permits.
HB477 would amend the Virginia Residential Property Disclosure Act to require sellers of residential real property to disclose, before a sales contract is executed, whether the local governing body issued certain permits or approvals for the property within the prior five years. The covered items include special exceptions, special use permits, variances, and other land-disturbing permits, including building permits and erosion and sediment control permits, so long as the seller has actual knowledge of them.
The disclosure would have to be made on a form provided by the Virginia Real Estate Board on its website. In practical terms, the bill adds a new seller disclosure obligation tied to local land-use and development history, giving purchasers more information about prior governmental approvals or permit activity affecting the property.
The bill would add a new section to Title 55.1 of the Code of Virginia, expanding the statutory disclosure duties of residential property sellers. It would affect owners of residential real estate in Virginia who know of recent local permits or land-use approvals for the property, and it would create a corresponding role for the Real Estate Board to provide the required disclosure form. The measure would also likely affect real estate transactions by increasing pre-contract disclosure obligations and potentially influencing buyer due diligence and seller compliance practices.
There is limited recorded discussion or voting history available for HB477, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from committee debate. The bill’s subject matter suggests a consumer-protection and transparency rationale, and its later incorporation into HB1518 by voice vote indicates it was not strongly opposed at that stage. Overall, the available record points to a generally neutral-to-supportive reception, with no documented controversy in the provided materials.
The main potential point of contention is the scope of the disclosure requirement: sellers would need to disclose a range of permits and land-use actions, including some that may not be obvious to a typical homeowner, but only if they have actual knowledge. That could raise questions about how much investigation a seller must do, whether the requirement creates additional transaction burdens, and whether the five-year lookback is appropriate. Another possible issue is the administrative burden of using a board-issued form and the risk of disputes over what counts as a covered permit or whether the seller truly had actual knowledge.