A recent sentence of the Regional Administrative Court (TAR) of Lazio rejected the appeal presented against a demolition and restoration order of the state of the places relating to a property in the historic center of Rome.

The case concerns the change of intended use from cellars/deposits to commercial and administration premises unparalleledin addition to other works carried out in the absence of authorizations.

This decision raises fundamental issues for the construction and urban sector: how does the legitimacy of a intended use show? What are the responsibilities of owners and managers in the management of real estate? And above all, the recent Save Home Decree Could he have changed the outcome of the story?

Advertisement – Advertising

The case: change of intended use and building abuses

The affair was born from an inspection carried out by the municipal administration in a property located in the historic center of Rome. The inspection, conducted in the context of building checks, led to the discovery of interventions performed without the necessary qualifications.

Among the irregularities found, the central element of the dispute concerns the change of intended use of the basement, transformed by cellars and deposits in Commercial premises with administration of food and drinkswithout there being an authorization building title.

In addition to the change of intended use, other unauthorized interventions have been detected, including:

  • Internal structural changeslike the swabs of a door that connected the ground floor to the condominium cloister, intervention deemed abusive because it was built without a building, in violation of Presidential Decree 380/2001.
  • Installation of technological systems in the condominium cloister, with the addition of pipes for the placing of air in the basement and the installation of three external machines for air conditioning. These works were also considered illegal because they are carried out in the absence of authorization and without the necessary preventive opinion of the Superintendency.
  • Absence of commercial licensesemerged from administrative checks: authorizations were not issued for trade or administration of food and drinks within the property.

Following these checks, the Municipality has issued one management determination with which he ordered the demolition of illegal works and the restoration of the original state of the property. The provision imposed on the managers, or the owners and managers of the venue, to carry out the restoration interventions within a established term, under penalty of application of sanctions and any office execution at their expense.

The applicants challenged the ordinance in front of the TAR, claiming that:

  1. The commercial destination pre -existingsince the property, according to their thesis, had always been used for economic activities.
  2. A new building title was not necessarysince the change of intended use would take place in a period in which this change did not require specific authorizations.
  3. The Administration had not correctly evaluated the historical documentationwhich according to the applicants demonstrated the compatibility of the intended use.

With these arguments, the applicants asked for the cancellation of the municipal provision, claiming that the demolition order was illegitimate and based on an incomplete assessment of the building situation of the property.

Advertisement – Advertising

Tar’s decision: the rejection of the appeal

The Lazio Regional Administrative Court, with the Lazio Tar sentence n. 3423/2025, has rejected the appealconfirming the validity of the municipal demolition and restoration of the state of the places.

The sentence established that the interventions disputed constitute building abusesas it is made without the necessary qualifications, and that the change of intended use cannot be considered legitimate in the absence of clear and proving the pre -existence of the commercial activity.

One of the key aspects of the decision concerns the proof of the legitimate state of the property. The TAR recalled that, based on current legislation (art. 9-bis of Presidential Decree 380/2001), it is up to the owner or manager demonstrate that the changes made are compliant with urban planning and building legislation. In this case, the applicants have not been able to provide sufficient documents to demonstrate that the commercial destination was already legitimately in place before the contested intervention.

The TAR also specified that:

  • The cadastral classification “C2” (warehouses and deposits) of the property It was an element that confirmed the absence of an authorized commercial destination. Despite some subsequent cadastral variations, the judges stressed that the land registry has a value tax only And not urban planning, therefore it cannot constitute a sufficient proof of building legitimacy.
  • Previous administrative authorizationsas commercial or health licenses, are not suitable documents to demonstrate urban compliance and the actual building regularity of the change of intended use.
  • The absence of a specific building title For the change of intended use, he confirmed that the intervention had been carried out abusively and in contrast with the current legislation.

Finally, the court said the additional reasons for the appeal is inadmissiblesubsequently presented by the applicants, as they concerned instructive acts without immediate skimpy effectiveness.

With this sentence, the TAR reiterated a fundamental principle of the Italian urban system: any building intervention that involves a change of intended use must be supported by a valid qualificationand in the absence of it the administration has a duty to intervene with sanctioning and restoration measures.

Advertisement – Advertising

Could the Save Casa decree change the outcome of the sentence?

In the sentence, the Lazio TAR refers to theart. 9-bis, paragraph 1-bis, of Presidential Decree 380/2001underlining that the version applicable to chance is that preceding the entry into force of the Salva Casa decree (DL 69/2024). The Court clarifies that the new legislation Riones Temporis is not applicableor for temporal reasons, since the disputed facts occurred before its approval.

Article 9-bis of Presidential Decree 380/2001 establishes that it legitimate state of a property It is determined by the building securities that have regulated its construction or subsequent amendments. In the case in question, the TAR highlighted how The applicants have not been able to provide a valid building permit for the change of intended use of the property.

As a result, even if the Save Casa decree had been in force at the time of judgment, he could hardly change the outcome of the decision.

In fact, the TAR considered that The cadastral and administrative documentation produced by the applicants was not enough To demonstrate the urban legitimacy of the property. Also, he reiterated that The burden of proof of the legitimate state burns on the owner or manager of the property and that the absence of a specific qualification for the change of intended use confirmed the irregularity of the intervention.

Therefore, the TAR confirmed the validity of the demolition order and restoration of the state of the places, without considering the possibility of applying any more favorable provisions introduced by the Save Casa Decree.