The recent sentence of the Piedmont Tar n. 459/2025 ignited the spotlight on a matter of great importance in the construction sector: the difficulty of obtaining a building amnesty when an intervention is carried out in discrepancies compared to the authorization title And it falls into an area subject to landscape constraints.

The case in question concerns a company that asked the Municipality of Turin the assessment of landscape compatibility for an intervention of demolition and reconstruction of a canopy modified compared to the approved project.

Despite the favorable opinion of the Superintendency, the Municipality rejected the application, believing that the intervention constituted a new construction with an increase in volume and useful surface, and therefore not remediable pursuant to current legislation.

During the judgment, the company’s defender tried to obtain a postponement of the cause, leveraging the recent changes introduced with the so -called “Save Home” Decree. This new legislation, in some cases, allows the amnesty also for interventions that have entailed volumetric increases, overcoming the limits envisaged by the previous discipline.

However, the TAR rejected the request for postponement, believing that the company had not yet formally presented a new request for amnesty on the basis of the new legislative provisions.

But what are the specific reasons behind the refusal? And what implications does this sentence have for anyone who wants to regularize construction works carried out without the necessary authorizations?

Advertisement – Advertising

The context of the case

The story starts when a company, owner of a property located in Turin, presents the Municipality a request for assessment of landscape compatibility for a building intervention already performed. The work concerned the demolition and reconstruction of a canopypreviously condoned pursuant to Law 47/1985, and intended to cover an external area.

The building permit issued in 2008 authorized only the renovation of the roof, which provided for the Replacement of Eternit slabs With a new cover in Coppi, in addition to the reinforcement of the vertical wooden poles with the addition of “C” metal putrelle. However, during the execution of the works, the company found a serious structural deterioration of the wooden poles, considering them no longer suitable for supporting the coverage.

Consequently, he decided to completely remove the poles in wood and replace them with steel pillars, thus changing the static structure and architectural of the intervention.

This variation had two significant effects:

  • A significant structural modification, which led the Municipality to consider the intervention a “new construction” pursuant to art. 3, lett. and, of Presidential Decree 380/2001.
  • An alleged increase in volume and useful surface, which made the work that cannot be remedied according to the current legislation on landscape compatibility (art. 181, paragraph 1-ter, of Legislative Decree 42/2004).

Although the Superintendency has expressed a favorable opinion on the amnesty with the sole prescription to paint the metal structure to improve its landscape insertion, the Municipality has in any case denied the request, claiming that the intervention exceeded the limits envisaged for the amnesty in the bound area.

Advertisement – Advertising

The use of the TAR and the position of the Municipality

Following the refusal of the Municipality, the Company decided to challenge the provision before the Regional Administrative Court (TAR) of Piedmont, claiming that the intervention carried out did not constitute a new construction, but included in an operation of extraordinary maintenance of the pre -existing structure.

According to the applicant, the replacement of the wooden poles with steel pillars was necessary to ensure the safety of the work and had not led to an increase in volume or useful surface compared to the original canopy.

In the appeal, the company has contested the refusal of the Municipality for various reasons, including:

  • Violation of art. 3 of Presidential Decree 380/2001, claiming that the intervention was not a new construction, but a mere replacement of structural elements.
  • Erroneous assessment of the de facto and legal conditionsstating that the Municipality had adopted an interpretation too restrictive of the urban and landscape legislation.
  • Contradiction of the refusalas the Superintendency itself had expressed a favorable opinion, with a prescription easily implemented (the painting of the pillars).

On the other hand, the Municipality of Turin was tried to sustain the legitimacy of the refusal, highlighting that:

  • The same company had presented Two instances of amnestyone for landscape compatibility and one for the building permit in amnesty, thus admitting the discrepancy of the work with respect to the authorized project.
  • The Municipality considered that the intervention was not attributable to a simple extraordinary maintenancebut to a new construction, prohibited by urban planning regulations in force in the area where the property is located.
  • The realization of the work had led to a Increase in volume and useful surfaceaspect that, according to the administration, precluded the possibility of accessing the amnesty pursuant to art. 181, paragraph 1-ter, of Legislative Decree 42/2004.

The TAR, after examining the positions of the parties, focused on a crucial aspect that determined the outcome of the cause: the failure to appeal the refusal of the building permit in amnesty.

Advertisement – Advertising

The central knot: the failure to appeal the refusal of building amnesty

One of the key elements that led the TAR to declare the appeal is inadmissible It was the lack of appeal by the company of the refusal of the building permit in amnesty.

In fact, in parallel to the request for ascertainment of landscape compatibility, the company had submitted a request for building amnesty pursuant to art. 36 of Presidential Decree 380/2001, which was rejected by the Municipality with a separate measure on March 16, 2020. However, while the company contested the refusal of landscape compatibility, He did not challenge the refusal of the building permit in amnestyletting that measure become definitive and incontrovertible.

The TAR clarified that, according to administrative jurisprudence, landscape compatibility is a necessary condition, but not sufficient to obtain the building amnesty.

In other words:

  • If a work is declared not compatible from a landscape point of view, it cannot be remedied from a building point of view.
  • But even if a work is compatible with landscape, this does not automatically mean that it is remediable from an urban-building point of view.

In the specific case, the refusal of the building permit in amnesty was not based exclusively on the failure to ascertain the landscape compatibility, but also on other reasons related to local urban legislation. The TAR then stressed that the company He should have contested both measuresbecause the only cancellation of the refusal of landscape compatibility would have had no effect on the possibility of remedying the work from a building point of view.

Since the refusal of the building amnesty has become definitive, the appeal for landscape compatibility has lost interest, making the declaration of inadmissibility by the TAR inevitable.

Advertisement – Advertising

The new perspectives with the “Save Home” decree

During the trial, the company’s defender attempted to obtain a postponement of the case, referring to the recent regulatory changes introduced with the so -called “Save Home” decree. This decree has included art. 36-bis, which could offer new possibilities of amnesty also for interventions that have led to an increase in volume or useful surface.

However, the TAR rejected the request for postponement, underlining that:

  • The company had not yet submitted a new request for amnesty on the basis of the updated legislation.
  • A possible request for amnesty pursuant to art. 36-bis could have been evaluated by the Municipality in a new procedure, but would have had no influence on the current appeal.
  • The new rule allows the amnesty only in specific conditions, which should however be verified on a case -by -case basis.

This aspect is particularly interesting because it shows how regulatory evolution can open new possibilities, but only if the requests are presented correctly and timely.

For those in similar situations, the lesson to be drawn is that legislative changes can offer new roads for the amnesty, but it is necessary to act promptly and in compliance with the legal procedures.