This qualitative research report aims to investigate and make proposals for improvement regarding solutions between municipalities and property owners when it comes to accessibility issues. More specifically, it's about the movement between a property and public street, thus, streets that are managed by the municipality. That society should be accessible to everyone regardless of disability is nothing new, but it still requires a lot of work to achieve the targets set. For new construction, this does not tend to be a problem, factions involved achieve high accessibility in most cases. But for older buildings that have never had these requirements when they were built, it looks a bit different.A basis for how the current situation is was obtained by exploration and inventory of a defined area in Piteå containing two streets. These have various complicating physical conditions, Storgatan is a narrow street and Uddmansgatan have high gradients. With the help of a literature study along with interviews made with several of the parties involved this binds together the results and the analysis.The analysis and the results show that the accessibility of Piteå is fairly widespread. Both of the streets that had been studied had entrances with exceptional accessibility and entrances that were beneath contempt. There is then little material statistically to say that there is any fundamental difference between the two of the streets. Nor are there different property owners who are better or worse than anyone else. However, it is slightly different view of the availability of the property owners and the municipality. Something that is perfectly understandable when the municipality works a lot more to this than the property owners actually do. Property owners does in no way have a negative attitude towards the accessibility work, just not as positive as the municipality.The conclusions drawn from the report is the need for an update in the law to deal with the problems that arise in a city center with old buildings. There are several ways to go to achieve these results and the best thing is probably to use both a carrot and and stick. Negative sanctions if nothing is done to improve the availability and support in the form of grants primarily for property owners looking to build on its entrance. An idea about the negative sanctions is to introduce a clause in the law that says that when a building is old enough it shall no longer be possible to argue that the obstacles to the building is not easily remedied and because of that they should not have to be taken care of. In this report, it has been suggested that this should affect buildings that are older than 50 years. That which will be inevitable is the fact the it is going to cost to eliminate the inaccessible society. One of the biggest problems that this report has encountered is the interview study. Many of the prospective interviewees did not have time for an interview simply. When the law was studied in more detail, there were certain aggravating circumstances as it was in the middle of a update. Some of the laws that were studied were changed as late as the first of January 2016. This meant that some parts of the work took a very long time as there was a lot of proofreading. The assessments made during the inventory can be discussed as these were carried out by only one person and only one template has been applied. To make the report better, there should possibly have been two people working on it and several different templates should have been used. However, such a thing would mean that the whole report would be only inventory work.To make sure the report's conclusions are valid, similar studies need to be done. A smaller focus can then be on the case study and the actual accessibility and a greater focus on interviews with stakeholders. It would also be ideally if it was made by one or more persons with a deeper legal knowledge to also investigate what the implications of these ideas would entail.