Changing the intended use of a property, such as transforming an apartment into a hospitality facility, is an increasingly widespread practice, but not without precise rules. To make significant changes to the function of a property, it is often it is necessary to obtain specific authorizationssuch as the building permit, especially if you are working in historic centers or in areas with particular restrictions.
A recent case examined by the Court of Cassation (sentence no. 42369/2024) clarified the limits and legal obligations linked to these operations. In the case, a residential property had been transformed into a holiday home without the necessary authorizations, leading to complaints of urban planning and anti-seismic violations.
What does the change of intended use entail? When is a building permit mandatory? And how to avoid mistakes that can result in sanctions?
Let’s find out together.
Advertisement – Advertising
The case examined: from home to holiday home
The case examined by the Court of Cassation began with construction works carried out in a property located in the historic center of an Italian city, originally classified as a residential home.
The works consisted of transforming the internal spaces to adapt them to a non-hotel accommodation business, specifically a guest house or holiday home type structure. The interventions included the creation of four bedrooms with related bathrooms, a spacious entrance hall and a laundry room, eliminating the kitchen, a characterizing element of the residential use.
This transformation resulted in a change of intended usefrom residential to tourist-accommodation, as defined by the art. 23-ter of Presidential Decree no. 380/2001.
According to the legislation, this change of intended use, involving a transition to a different urban planning category, required a building permit. Furthermore, the property was located in a seismic area, where the preventive deposit of building projects at the Civil Engineering Office is required, as established by articles 83 and following of the same Presidential Decree
These requirements are essential to ensure that the works comply with structural safety standards, an essential requirement in areas at seismic risk.
The defense argued that the interventions were among the modifications compatible with the original use and did not lead to an increase in the urban planning burden. Furthermore, the regional legislation governing non-hotel accommodation facilities was invoked, interpreted in such a way as not to require additional permits for guest house rental activities in cadastral category A properties.
However, the judges of merit found that the change of use, being functional and not just structural, required specific urban planning and anti-seismic authorizations.
Advertisement – Advertising
The Supreme Court ruling
The Court of Cassation, examining the case, confirmed the decisions of the judges of first and second instance, declaring the appeal is inadmissible presented by the accused. The key principle reiterated by the Court is that the change of intended use, even without significant structural changes, involves a transition between different urban planning categories and therefore requires the issuance of a building permit.
This principle is particularly stringent in historic centres, where even changes within the same homogeneous category must be authorized to protect the urban and architectural context.
In detail, the Court underlined that national legislation prevails over any more permissive regional interpretations. In this case, the regional regulations invoked by the defense, which regulate non-hotel accommodation activities, cannot waive the need for a building permit when the change of destination involves a significant functional change, such as that from residential to tourist accommodation.
Furthermore, the failure to file the plans with the Civil Engineering Office constitutes a significant violation, given the seismic zone in which the property was located.
The Court also rejected the request for application of the particular tenuousness of the fact, believing that, although the sentence inflicted was close to the statutory minimum, the contested crimes had a non-negligible gravity, especially in consideration of the omissions linked to structural safety.
Download the sentence
