Demolition despite the amnesty: it counts abuse as a whole, impossible to split it, the Campania Tar confirmed the demolition of different works compared to a building amnesty, clarifying the limits of the assessment of compliance and the legitimacy of administrative silence.

In Italy, the theme of building unauthorism continues to represent one of the most complex and controversial issues of urban law. It often happens that, after obtaining a permit to build in amnesty for works already carried out, the owners feel legitimized to make further changes, perhaps considered minimal or motivated by personal needs. But is it really the case?

A recent sentence of the Campania TAR clearly clarifies i Limits of the building amnesty And it reiterates that each subsequent intervention must comply not only to the current legislation, but also to the title issued.

The case examined by the judges concerns a home subject to works considered illegal despite a previous regularization. The demolition order issued by the Municipality was challenged by the owner, which supported the legitimacy of the works for technical, landscape and even personal reasons.

But the TAR rejected the appeal, affirming a principle as clear as it is severe: It has not been enough to have obtained a amnesty, if the building rules then violate again.

What are the limits to be respected after a amnesty? When can a municipality legitimately order demolition? And which margins of defense does the citizen have?

Let’s see it together.

Advertisement – Advertising

The concrete case: what the Campania Tar decided

It all began in 2009, when the owner of a property obtained a building permit in amnesty, regularizing works already performed but not yet completed in the finishes. From that moment, the situation seemed to have settled. However, over ten years later, in 2021, the Municipality received a complaint in which new alleged building irregularities are reported.

Follow a technical inspection and the communication of the crime news: according to the investigations, some works were differ compared to what is authorized in the title in amnesty. For others, however, a qualifying title was completely missing.

The municipal administration, at that point, issues andemolition order towards the owner, who decides to challenge it in front of the TAR.

In the appeal, the town disputes the legitimacy of the provision, arguing that the works were modestly, some necessary for health reasons, others perfectly integrated into the urban context. In parallel, it also presents an application for assessment of urban conformity pursuant to art. 36 of the consolidated text of construction, to remedy the works subject to the dispute.

The TAR with sentence no. 1453/2025, however, rejects the appeal. According to the judges, the works carried out were in evident discrepancies entitled Building in amnesty. And precisely that title, the result of a previous evaluation of public and private interests, constituted the insurmountable limit within which it should be remained.

In essence, the demolition order did not need further motivations or investigations: it was one automatic consequence of the ascertained abuse.

The only recognized exception concerns the voluntary demolition, by the applicant, of a shack made without title: in that case, the TAR declared the subject of the dispute ceased.

Advertisement – Advertising

The disputed works: because they are abusive according to the judges

In detail, the building works finished under the TAR lens were numerous and of various kinds. Some had been made in expansion or modification of what has already been remedied, others completely new. The owner tried to justify them by appealing to technical, aesthetic or functional reasons, but for the judges none of these motivations could overcome the cardinal principle of conformity to the building title.

One of the main interventions concerned a Torrino Scalaor an emerging body on the roof that continued the staircase compartment: according to the Municipality, it had not been demolished as prescribed in the permit in the amnesty, and constituted one unauthorized elevation. The Tar confirmed this thesis, recalling a previous sentence that qualified similar works as true volumetric increases, subject to permit.

Then there was a fence wall Built on the solar pavement, also different from the authorized project. Also in this case, the jurisprudence cited by the TAR reiterated that the simple discrepancy from an approved project is sufficient to justify a demolition order, even in the presence of apparently minor interventions.

Another contested element was the Garden concrete flooringthat the owner claimed to have made for security reasons, due to a condition of personal disability. But for the judges, it was still a permanent transformation of the soil that changed the intended use of the area and, as such, would have requested a new building permit.

Even the milder changes – such as the replacement of aluminum fixtures instead of the wooden ones or the painting of the facade With different colors – they were traced back to the unitary evaluation principle of the building intervention.

The TAR has in fact reiterated that the abuse cannot be broken down into individual parts to minimize its impact: What matters is the overall effect on the building and landscape context.

Advertisement – Advertising

Refused assessment: the silence of the Municipality is legitimate if the abuse is evident

One of the most invoked tools by private individuals in situations of construction contestation is theassessment of conformityprovided for by art. 36 of the consolidated construction text. It is, in essence, a “posthumous amnesty”: the owner can ask to regularize an already carried out work, but only on condition that this is compliant both to the urban and building legislation in force at the time of the realizationand to that in force At the time of the request.

In the case addressed by the Tar Campania, the owner of the property had submitted this request after receiving the demolition order. In particular, he claimed that the contested works could be remedied, also by virtue of the fact that some had already been removed, as in the case of the shack. He had also attached a technical report and a communication of start -up start -up (Cila) to demonstrate good faith and intention to regularize the situation.

However, The Municipality has never replied to the application. And it is precisely this silence that the applicant wanted to challenge before the judge, considering him illegitimate.

But the TAR has been wrong to the owner: according to the judges, There was no possibility of accepting the applicationsince the works did not comply with the minimum requirements required for the assessment of conformity. Consequently, the silence rendered by the Administration was considered fully legitimate.

The motivation of the TAR is clear: An abuse cannot become legitimate only because it is asked, let alone because it “mitigates” it over time. If the works are different from an existing title, and not compatible with the urban planning regulations in force, there is no space for any regularization. And this also applies when the request is accompanied by technical documents or good intentions.