Pergotende in condominium: distances, architectural decoration and right to the view, the limits to be respected

The problem of straight vision

The art. 907 cc establishes an absolute ban on building less than three meters from direct, oblique and vertical views, without any concrete evaluation of the obstacle. The owner of a floor of the condominium building can therefore exercise a direct view from his own openings up to the base of the building and oppose any work by his neighbor which, even indirectly, limits this right. There are no needs to reconcile with the right of property or with the privacy of the neighbor, because the balancing between these interests has already been accomplished by the legislator: art. 907 cc protects the essential function of the view, which guarantees light and air, essential elements for the hygiene of buildings and for the primary needs of those who live there (Cass. Civ., section II, 27/02/2019, n. 5732).

Jurisprudence has repeatedly recognized that even light structures, such as awnings or pergolas, can constitute a “factory” relevant for the purposes of the law when they are permanently anchored to the building. Recently the Court of Macerata deemed illegitimate some aluminum structures with retractable roofs, anchored to the facade using brackets and plates, equipped with front pillars resting on planters or on a brick, and equipped with rigid protective roofs approximately 60 cm wide. The CTU’s measurements confirmed that these roofs were located at distances of less than three meters from the applicants’ windows. The judge also noted a further profile of prejudice: the rigid part of the pergolas, protruding by approximately 60 cm, could have facilitated the climb to the balcony of the appellants, creating a risk for the safety of the house above (Trib. Macerata 14/01/2026 n. 27).

In terms of condominiums, when a product (pergola or similar structure) is built on a portion of exclusive property and rests on the perimeter wall of the building, art. 907 cc: the condominium owner must respect the minimum distance of three meters from the views of the property unit above. In such cases the regulation of the use of common property pursuant to art. 1102 cc, since the relationship between exclusive ownership and the views of the neighboring apartment is similar to that between adjacent properties, with consequent operation of the rules on legal distances (Cass., section II, 03/21/2024, n. 7622).

Pergolas and architectural decoration

By now consolidated jurisprudence, architectural decoration means the aesthetics given by the set of lines and ornamental structures that constitute the dominant note of the building, giving it its harmonious physiognomy (Cass. Civ., section II, 19/01/2026, n. 1107). According to a recent decision, the pergola installed by a condominium owner which essentially reproduces the same typology already present on another condominium property is to be considered legitimate. If the building already has similar artefacts, the addition of a similar structure does not affect its physiognomy or alter the original aesthetic balance. In this case, the pergola was inserted into the architectural line of the building without introducing elements of discontinuity (Trib. Savona 20 April 2026, n. 254).

Moreover, the decoration should not be evaluated in the abstract, but by observing the overall harmony of the building and also considering the previous uncontested interventions (Cass. Civ., section II, 12/06/2023, n. 16518).

However, when a structure installed on exclusive property assumes constructive stability, has a significant size, affects the shape of the building or is connected to common parts such as columns, parapets or facades, it can no longer be considered simple light furniture. Instead, it becomes an artefact that visually participates in the conformation of the property and, precisely for this reason, falls under the control of the condominium.

In this perspective, what is important is not the ownership of the area on which the work stands, but its impact on the overall harmony of the building (App. Roma 18 March 2026, n. 2242).

When the structure affects the external appearance of the building, interferes with the common areas or introduces an aesthetic discontinuity, the condominium can contest the work and demand its removal. In these cases, in fact, the threshold of architectural tolerability set by the regulation and the articles is exceeded. 1120 and 1122 cc

This principle also applies when the owner has obtained administrative authorizations or when the intervention concerns an area of ​​his exclusive property: what matters is not the ownership of the land, but the impact of the work on the common good and its function.

Pergola and damage to the panorama

The servitude of a panoramic view cannot be deduced from the mere pre-existence of the view, but must result from title or usucapitation ascertained judicially (Cass. Civ., section II, 22/06/2023, n. 17922). The condominium owner who has acquired an easement of view (through title, adverse possession or destination of the father of the family) can demand that the other participants in the condominium do not carry out works suitable for compromising the enjoyment of the protected view. Pergolas can also fall into this category: although they are free construction works, they can take on dimensions, stability or shape such as to appreciably obstruct the view guaranteed by the easement.

In any case, if the contractual regulation contains a clear and specific prohibition on installing pergolas on terraces or private gardens, the condominium owner can directly assert the violation of the regulatory rule, without having to demonstrate the existence of a panorama easement.