The urgency of the problem under investigation is caused by the contradictions between regional and federal legislation in the regulation of civil relations, which hamper the optimization and achievement of the balance of the Russian legislative framework. Such contradictions are most clearly seen in the field of transport law. The purpose of the article is to update the problematic issues of the correlation between the norms of regional and federal legislation, the issues of delimitation of private and public regulation. The leading approach to the study of this problem is dialectics, analysis, synthesis, deduction, formal-legal method. The analysis can help to understand the formative elements of law governing the legal field of private and public regulation, the adoption of regional instruments that contribute to the full and comprehensive regulation of civil relations, including the field of transport commitments.

The article discusses the main issues of the legal regime of public facilities in non-residential buildings, the system of management of such property. The relevance of the research topic is manifested in the following aspects. With the development of market economy, the need to use non-residential premises, including those located in buildings, has increased. The presence of material base is an essential condition for the development of entrepreneurial activity. However, legislative gaps in the field of common property management by owners of non-residential premises lead to deceleration of economic processes and adversely affect sustainable development and welfare of cities. For a long time, in theory and practice, there were different opinions about the possibility of extending, by analogy with the common property of the building, provisions on the common property regime of an apartment building. Despite the fact that the issue of legal vacuum was partially solved by the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation by the issuance of Resolution No. 64 of the Plenum of July 23, 2009, many questions on the legality of using the proclaimed analogy of the law still do not find an unequivocal solution in lawmaking and law enforcement activities of relevant legislative and judicial bodies.