In recent years, the growing attention to building per building has brought to light many cases of constructions carried out without the necessary authorization titles. Often these are interventions that, at least apparently, seem Innocui: a closed veranda, a more obtained room from a terrace, a small mezzanine or a masonry shelf.

However, behind these transformations, complex legal implications are hidden, capable of conducting also to orders of demolition by the Municipalities.

This is precisely the case addressed in the sentence no. 5549/2025 of the Lazio TARin which the administrative judges have traced a clear border between what can be considered a simple internal modification and what, on the contrary, configures a real building abuse.

But when does a building work turn into abuse? In which cases is a simple communication sufficient and when, on the other hand, the building permit is needed?

And above all: what can a citizen do when he receives a demolition order?

Advertisement – Advertising

A complaint and an inspection give way to the procedure

It all began in 2016, when a condominium on the ground floor of a Roman building filed a complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The reason? The alleged realization of a illegal veranda on the entire terrace of the top floor. In fact, a real real would have been built within the structure masonry compartmentcomplete with a fixed roof, used as an extension of the main home – in fact, a real salon.

Although the criminal investigation closed with the storage, the report still triggered the intervention of the technical offices of Roma Capitale, which in September 2020 carried out an inspection at the property. A long series of building differentitycompared with the original project filed with the municipal archives.

Specifically, the authorities found:

  • there Change of the Torrino coveragewhich from two aquifers has gone to four pit -style slopes;
  • there Closing of two doors-fowwith the transformation into a single window;
  • theIncrease in the volume of the Torrinoobtained by closing the landing of the condominium scale and the side overlooking the washlift.

To these were added further works already contested in 2017, including:

  • there Edit of internal partitions of the apartment;
  • the presence of mezzanines not accessible but still fixed;
  • a masonry shelf built on the terrace;
  • there transformation of the sink into a bathroomcomplete with shower and health workers;
  • there laying of plasterboard panels in the veranda closed with aluminum and glass fixtures;
  • theinstallation of a wooden staircase with locks that can be opened for access to the terrace above.

On the basis of these results, Roma Capitale issued a managerial determination with which he ordered the Removal or demolition of all works considered abusive, pursuant to art. 33 of Presidential Decree 380/2001 and art. 16 of the LR Lazio 15/2008.

Advertisement – Advertising

The reasons of the owner: between legitimate assignment and vices of form

Faced with the demolition order issued by Roma Capitale, the owner of the apartment decided to challenge the provision before the regional administrative court. In his appeal, he claimed that the ordinance was illegitimate For several reasons, starting from an alleged violation of the rules on the administrative procedure (Law 241/1990) and the consolidated text of construction (DPR 380/2001).

One of the main topics brought to light by the applicant concerns theexcess of power On the part of the Administration: according to his thesis, Roma Capital would not have sufficiently motivated the demolition order, limiting himself to a generic list of alleged abuses without clearly specifying the violations committed and the link between the contested interventions and the building regulations in force.

Another central defense point was the invoked principle of legitimate assignment: The owner claimed that the contested works had been present for several years and tolerated over time, which would have generated the belief in her – incorrect, but in good faith – that they were now “consolidated” and no longer contestable. In summary: “If nobody said anything for years, why do I ask me to demolish everything now?”

Finally, he also underlined how some works, including the changes of internal partitions, did not involve any relevant transformation of the property or impact on the urban structure, which is why they would not have been subject to building permit, but at the most to a simple one Cila (Communication of the start of the works crushed).

Advertisement – Advertising

The Tar decision: not everything is abuse, but much yes yes

The Lazio TAR, with sentence no. 5549 of March 18, 2025, analyzed the contested works in detail, distinguishing between actually abusive interventions and changes that, although irregular, do not justify an order of demolition.

At the opening, the judges point out that theorder of demolition is a bound act (art. 33 of Presidential Decree 380/2001), which the Administration can adopt once the construction of building works in the absence of title is ascertained, limiting itself to describing the facts and indicating the violated rules.

This setting was considered correctly applied in the case examined: the municipal determination provides a motivation “synthetic but sufficient“, And identifies the abuses clearly, as also emerged from the examination of the complaints presented by the same applicant (point 6 of the sentence).

Among the qualified works such as illegally made and therefore subject to demolition include:

  • the modification of the tower cover from two to four slopes;
  • the volumetric increase of the tower by closing the scale and side overlooking the sink;
  • the transformation of the sink into the bathroom (due to the presence of shower and sanitary);
  • the wooden staircase and the skylight to access the terrace above;
  • plasterboard panels inside the veranda;
  • the unable to do not practicable.

For all these works, the judges recall the administrative jurisprudence according to which, When the intervention determines a significant urban transformation or affects the volume and the shape of the buildingit requires building permit.

In support, the sentence cites Tar Campania, Naples, section VIII, sent. October 1, 2021, n. 6146, which strengthens the principle according to which the actual impact on the territory prevails over the formal classification of the intervention.

In addition, the thesis of the legitimate assignmentsupported by the applicant, since – reiterates the TAR – “The long time passed by the realization of the illegal work is not suitable for rooting the private person concerned any legitimate assignment“(Reference to the Judgment of the Council of State, section V, n. 1637 of 26 February 2021).

Advertisement – Advertising

A partial victory: the plots should not be demolished

If most of the complaints have been rejected, however, there is a point on which the TAR accepted the owner’s reasons: the Edit of internal partitions. According to the judges, in fact, this type of intervention It does not affect structural parts of the building and does not alter the volume or the shape of the property. Consequently, it cannot be qualified as building abuse to be sanctioned with a compulsory demolition.

In similar cases, the Court recalled, It is not necessary to build permissionbut it is sufficient to present a Cila (communication of the start of the crushed works), pursuant to art. 6-bis of Presidential Decree 380/2001. The failure to present Cila, despite being an irregularity, does not legitimize an order of demolitionbut involves one administrative sanction of the pecuniary type.

This evaluation therefore brought to thepartial cancellation of the municipal provision, limited to the part relating to the internal partitions. The rest of the demolition order has remained fully valid, and must be performed within the times and ways provided for by the legislation.