Building abuse: who is responsible for building abuse? the limits of the owner’s responsibility A ruling by the Lazio TAR clarified the limits of the responsibility of non-responsible owners in cases of building abuse, distinguishing between restoration obligations and financial penalties.

Construction abuses represent one of the most complex problems in the Italian regulatory landscape, often involving not only those who commit the irregularities, but also the owners of the properties, even when the latter do not have direct responsibility.

The recent ruling of the Lazio TAR n. 21367/2024 sheds light on a delicate aspect of the matter: when can an owner be held responsible for building violations carried out on a property? And what are the consequences in terms of sanctions and obligations?

Let’s discover together the details of this important pronouncement.

Advertisement – Advertising

The context of the dispute

The dispute develops around land located in the municipality of Albano Laziale, belonging to multiple co-ownersincluding the appellants. Building interventions had been carried out on this land in breach of the authorizations, without the necessary authorization. The Municipality, in application of Presidential Decree 380/2001, had issued an order ordering the demolition of the illegal works and threatening the application of financial penalties in case of failure to comply.

A peculiar aspect of the case is represented by the fact that the appellants they had never had the material availability of the land nor had they participated in the carrying out of the abuse. However, the order had been notified to all the co-owners, as holders of shares in the property, and not exclusively to the person responsible for the irregular interventions.

The issue is further complicated due to previous civil disputes between the co-owners, which had already led to sentences that ascertained the exclusive use of the land by one of the family members. Despite this, the Municipality had decided to consider all the owners potentially involved, believing that, by virtue of their relationship with the property, they had the obligation to collaborate in restoring the state of the places.

The appellants then presented an administrative appeal, contesting the legitimacy of the order in the part in which it involved them and requesting the annulment of the sanctions envisaged.

Their main argument was based on the principle that the non-responsible owner should not be the recipient of sanctions, although he may be called upon to ensure compliance with planning provisions.

Advertisement – Advertising

The decision of the Lazio TAR

The Lazio TAR, analyzing the issue, established that the ordinance issued by the Municipality of Albano Laziale, although formally correct, was partly inapplicable against the appellants. The ruling highlighted how the owner who is not responsible for carrying out building violations, although obliged to collaborate in restoring the state of the place, cannot be subject to financial sanctions.

This principle, already affirmed by previous jurisprudential decisions of the Council of State, was reiterated in the specific case.

In particular, the TAR recalled article 31 of Presidential Decree 380/2001, which identifies both those responsible for the abuse and the owners of the property as recipients of the demolition sanctions. However, while the owner may be obliged to guarantee the removal of the abuses by virtue of his relationship with the property, the pecuniary sanctions must be applied exclusively to the subjects who physically carried out the irregular interventions.

The TAR also underlined that the Municipality, despite having correctly notified the demolition order to all the co-owners, he could not impose any sanctions on them in the absence of an assessment of their direct responsibility.

The sentence therefore declared the appeal inadmissible due to lack of interest, specifying that the order did not produce any current prejudice towards the appellants, since no financial penalty had been applied to them.

Advertisement – Advertising

Concluding considerations

The sentence of the TAR Lazio n. 21367/2024 represents an important point of reference in the management of proceedings relating to building violations. On the one hand, it confirms the principle according to which the demolition order can also be notified to non-responsible owners, underlining their role in restoring urban planning legality. On the other hand, it reiterates that financial sanctions cannot burden those who have not actually committed the abuse, thus protecting innocent owners from unjust consequences.

This ruling invites municipal administrations to conduct a thorough investigation and to carefully consider the specificities of each case, in order to avoid errors that could generate further litigation. At the same time, it highlights the importance for owners to monitor activities on the assets they own and to act promptly in case of irregularities.

The ruling therefore lays the foundations for a more fair and effective management of proceedings relating to building violations, providing useful ideas for both public administrations and the private individuals involved.