Construction amnesty denied, but canceled demolition: can the saving decree make a difference? The Lazio Tar confirmed the denial of amnesty for an abusive work in the bound area, but canceled the demolition order for procedural defects, underlining the importance of administrative participation.

The theme of building amnesty It has always been the subject of debate in Italy. On the one hand, it represents an opportunity to regularize works built without authorization; on the other, public administrations must guarantee compliance with urban and environmental rules, preventing the territory from being compromised by building abuses.

A recent judgment of the Lazio Tar (n. 3934/2025) has faced a case that highlights precisely this delicate balance.

A citizen had seen himself deny the required amnesty For a small room of about 4 square meters, intended for tool deposit, built on a terrace. The Municipality rejected the request and subsequently ordered the demolition of the artifact. However, the court partially accepted the appeal, canceling the demolition order for procedural defects.

When an abusive work can be remedied? What are the limits imposed by national and regional laws? And what changes with the new regulations (Salva-Casa decree) on building tolerances?

Let’s find out in detail.

Advertisement – Advertising

The case examined by the Lazio TAR

The case in question originates from the request for amnesty presented by a citizen for a small artifact of about 4 square metersmade on a terrace and intended for tool deposit. The work, of a pertinent nature with respect to the main building, had been built without a building and subsequently subjected to a demand for amnesty pursuant to the third building amnesty governed by the decree-law of 30 September 2003, n. 269, converted with changes in the law 24 November 2003, n. 326.

After a careful investigation, the Municipality of Anzio has denied the request for amnestymotivating the refusal with the presence of landscape and urban planning constraints in the area where the artifact was located. According to the local authority, the Lazio regional legislation excludes the possibility of amnesty for certain buildings located in areas subjected to bond, regardless of their size and their intended use.

Subsequently, the Municipality adopted an even more incisive repressive measure: one ‘demolition orderwith which he ordered the owner to remove the work and restore the original state of the places. Forced demolition represents one of the most drastic measures in the context of the building regulation, as it can involve high costs for the citizen and, in the event of non -compliance, the direct execution by the Municipality with charge of expenses.

Faced with this double unfavorable decision, the owner decided to challenge both measures before the regional administrative court for Lazio (Tar Lazio), raising several illegitimacy profiles.

In particular, he contested:

• THE’incorrect application of the rules on the building amnesty, believing that the construction was of modest entity and therefore remediable;
• The violation of the principle of legitimate assignmentsince Condone’s request had been presented for years without receiving immediate feedback;
• THE’absence of a notice of demolitionwho would prevent the citizen from talking with the administration to find any alternative solutions.

Advertisement – Advertising

The third building amnesty and regional restrictions

To better understand the decision of the Lazio TAR, it is essential to analyze the reference regulatory framework. The Third building amnestyintroduced by the decree-law of 30 September 2003, n. 269 ​​and converted into the law 24 November 2003, n. 326, represents the last large amnesty expected at national level for building abuse.

However, compared to previous amnesties, this measure has introduced more stringent limits, especially in relation to the bound areas.

The state legislation establishes that the properties built in areas subject to landscape constraintsenvironmental and archaeological cannot be condemned, unless they are modest interventions such as extraordinary maintenance works, conservative remediation or restoration.

This restriction was further strengthened by the individual regions, which have had the power to regulate the application of the amnesty in their territory in more detail.

In the specific case of Lazio, the regional law of 8 November 2004, n. 12, modified by regional law 17/2005, introduced even more severe rules. In particular, Article 3, paragraph 1, letter b) of the regional legislation establishes that they cannot be healthy abusive works made on properties subject to constraints imposed by state and regional laws, regardless of that these constraints have been affixed before or after the construction of the abuse.

This provision had a significant impact on the decision of the Lazio TAR. The Court also attracted important judgments of the Constitutional Court (n. 208/2019 and n. 181/2021), which confirmed that the regions can adopt more restrictive criteria than those provided for by national legislation, especially to protect goods of landscape and environmental interest.

In the case in question, the artifact included in an area classified as a homogeneous area B1-Saturo, subjected to landscape protection constraints (sub-category c.2.2). Consequently, the TAR confirmed that the Municipality of Anzio had correctly applied the legislation, rejecting the request for building amnesty.

Advertisement – Advertising

Because the TAR canceled the demolition order

If on the one hand the Lazio TAR (sentence no. 3934/2025) confirmed the legitimacy of the refusal of the building amnesty, on the other it accepted the additional reasons for the appeal, canceling the demolition order issued by the Municipality of Anzio.

The main motivation of the cancellation concerns the violation of the right to participation in the administrative procedure. The Court has in fact highlighted that the Municipality, before adopting the demolition measure, should have notified a notice of startup of the procedure to the owner, as required by article 7 of the law of 7 August 1990, n. 241.

According to the TAR, the local administration should have granted the citizen the possibility of interningespecially considering two fundamental elements:

• The reduced extent of the building abuse: Being a small 4 sqm artifact, the situation could have returned to the building tolerances, a category of interventions which, although not compliant with urban planning rules, can be regularized in some cases.
• The entry into force of the Salva-Casa decree: The recent legislation introduced with the decree-law of 29 May 2024, n. 69, converted into the law 24 July 2024, n. 105, has expanded the possibilities of amnesty For some types of building discrepancies. This could have offered the owner an alternative solution to demolition, if he had been given the opportunity to present additional observations or documentation.

The TAR also recalled several judgments of the Council of State (including n. 5433/2023 and n. 3710/2024), underlining that the obligation of preventive communication also applies to bound building measures, when the situation requires a specific investigation to evaluate the applicability of new rules or any alternative solutions to demolition.

Ultimately, the demolition order was canceled for procedural defects, without however questioning the fact that the artifact was actually abusive and non -condonable. The Municipality, therefore, could adopt a demolitional measure again, but must first guarantee the citizen the possibility of actively participating in the procedure.