I assumed from the two columns, one for inhabited and one for uninhabited, that there was more than one building involved.

The fact that the second entry is offset from the first ( across and down) led me to believe that the second building referred to the second family. Plus the fact that there is a ditto, for the second family, but at the same address. The same happens with other entries, even on that page, and I cannot see the point of it, if it all refers to one property.

Only the way I read it - am I taking the entry the wrong way, or is it open to this, or another, interpretation ?