Difference between Privatized and Non-Privatized Apartments. In many cases, housing obtained from the state can be privatized. What does this procedure entail? Is it beneficial, and how does a privatized apartment differ from a non-privatized one? Let’s attempt to answer these questions.

Procedure Essence

The term “privatization,” derived from the English “private,” refers to the officially confirmed transfer of state (municipal) housing – a house, apartment, etc. – into personal ownership. Before this procedure, a person utilizes the square meters under a social rent agreement.


The opportunity to acquire the right to own residential space from the government offers significant advantages. After such a transaction, a person can perform any desired actions regarding the property, which was previously restricted. Some choose to bequeath or gift a privatized apartment, while others sell such real estate for financial gain or use it as collateral when taking out a large loan. All these actions are legal. Meanwhile, with housing owned by the state, such actions are not permitted.

Another difference between a privatized and non-privatized apartment is that in the former case, a person cannot be forcibly evicted due to accumulated debts for utilities. In such a situation, only the property can be seized. However, if the apartment is not privatized, authorities have the right to confiscate it and provide in return a space that meets the norms of communal living for various reasons.

The owner decides whom to register in the privatized apartment. Additionally, if no will is drawn up, and the owner passes away, the property automatically transfers to the heirs according to the law. In contrast, someone using a non-privatized apartment must plan ahead and draft a will if they want the property to go to a specific person rather than revert to the state.

It’s worth noting that privatization is generally a advantageous deal. However, there are cases when it may not be advisable. For instance, privatizing a communal apartment is likely not worth it. There is still a chance to receive assistance from the authorities to improve the living conditions, but finding a buyer for such housing can be a long and futile process.

The system of necessary payments for housing with different statuses also has its peculiarities. Let’s examine the difference between a privatized and non-privatized apartment from this perspective. Private ownership of residential space entails the obligation to pay property tax, as well as contribute to repairs and other maintenance costs.

In the case of municipal housing, users are exempt from such expenses but must pay a certain amount for rent. Importantly, some benefits are provided for low-income citizens residing in state-owned property. In general, for a single, childless, not overly wealthy person, acquiring residential space in private ownership may be unnecessary.

What else might make one hesitate about privatization? The knowledge that, in the event of various undesirable incidents, such as a fire or building collapse, owners of private apartments can only rely on themselves. It is advisable to insure such real estate. If an unfortunate event occurs with municipal property or a building is demolished, former residents receive alternative housing, sometimes even more spacious, or a monetary compensation.