Compliance with construction rules is not just a bureaucratic issue, but a fundamental obligation to avoid sanctions and legal conflicts. A recent case dealt with by the Regional Administrative Court (TAR) of Campania, Salerno section, saw an owner contesting an ordinance from the Municipality which required the restoration of some premises to their original state.
These spaces, originally intended as a cellar and garage, had been transformed into mini-apartments without the necessary permissions. The ruling highlighted the limits within which private individuals can intervene on properties and the role of administrations in ensuring compliance with regulations.
But what are the legal consequences of unauthorized changes to a property?
Advertisement – Advertising
The legal and administrative context
The story began with an ordinance issued by the Municipality which required the owner of some condominium premises to restore them to their original state. The rooms, originally intended as a cellar and garage, had been transformed into mini-apartments through the union of several spaces, the installation of water and electrical systems, and the creation of functional environments for residential use, such as the bathroom and living room.
These interventions, according to the Municipality, constituted a significant change in the intended useresulting in an increase in housing volume and urban planning load, elements that mandatorily require a building permit pursuant to Presidential Decree no. 380/01.
In particular, article 33 of the Consolidated Construction Law regulates the repression of building abuse, establishing that any intervention carried out in the absence of the necessary building permit must be sanctioned with a restoration or demolition order. This principle is strengthened by a consolidated orientation of jurisprudence, which sees the demolition order as a due and binding act, aimed at protecting the public interest in the correct use of the territory.
In the specific case, the municipal administration had based its provision on inspections and technical reports which highlighted the illegal transformation.
However, the owner contested the order before the TAR, raising various grounds of appeal, including the insufficiency of the description of the property and the absence of an adequate investigation by the administration. The matter has therefore taken on not only technical but also legal relevance, placing the limit between free construction and interventions subject to building permits at the center of the debate.
Advertisement – Advertising
The reasons for the appeal
In the appeal presented to the TAR, the owner raised numerous objections against the Municipality’s ordinance. The first point concerned the insufficient description of the contested premises and works, deemed too generic to allow an adequate defense.
According to the appellant, the ordinance did not clearly identify either the building abuse or the imputed change of intended use, making the provision insufficiently motivated.
Another crucial aspect of the appeal was the alleged inadequacy of the investigation conducted by the Municipality.
The owner claimed that the disputed modifications – such as the merging of the rooms and the demolition of some internal partitions – had been carried out in remote times, while the subsequent interventions concerned exclusively extraordinary maintenance or adaptation works, which could be carried out without the building permit .
Furthermore, it stated that the premises could not be considered residential because there were no definitive connections to utilities and their furnishings did not have a real residential vocation.
The appellant also invoked the application of simplified rules such as the CILA (Asseverated Notice of Commencement of Works), arguing that the works were attributable to extraordinary maintenance or conservative restoration interventions, exempt from the requirement for a building permit. In this line of defense, a concession in amnesty issued to a neighboring condominium owner for similar interventions was also cited, which according to the owner would have legitimized her actions.
However, the Municipality contested the validity of these arguments, stating that the works carried out constituted a real transformation of the spaces, resulting in an increase in the urban planning burden, an element that makes the building permit indispensable.
Advertisement – Advertising
The arguments of the TAR
The Regional Administrative Court examined in detail the reasons for the appeal, rejecting the objections raised by the owner and confirming the legitimacy of the municipal ordinance.
On the first point, the TAR considered that the demolition order was sufficiently motivated. The description of the property and the illegal works was clear, as was the regulatory reference to article 33 of Presidential Decree no. 380/01, which specifically regulates building interventions carried out in the absence or non-compliance of the building permit.
An important aspect of the decision concerns the burden of proof. The TAR has established that it is the private individual who must demonstrate the date of completion of the disputed work, especially when he claims that the works date back to a period in which they could have been authorized with simplified or unnecessary procedures.
In the case in question, the appellant failed to provide sufficient elements to demonstrate the temporal compliance of the modifications, and the Municipality’s technical findings highlighted that the premises had clearly been transformed for residential use.
The TAR also underlined that the change of intended use – which involves an increase in the urban planning burden – cannot be considered an extraordinary maintenance or free building intervention. The transformation of rooms into mini-apartments, with the addition of systems and internal divisions to create living spaces, goes beyond the concept of “minor works” and requires a building permit.
Finally, the amnesty concession obtained in the past by a nearby condominium owner had no weight in the decision. This authorization, however, was subsequently canceled in self-defense, making any analogy inapplicable to the appellant’s case.
Advertisement – Advertising
Conclusion
The sentence of the TAR of Salerno highlights how crucial it is to comply with building and urban planning regulations, not only to avoid sanctions, but also to contribute to an orderly and sustainable use of the territory.
The case discussed has shown how unauthorized modifications, even on ancillary spaces, can generate significant legal consequences, forcing private individuals to restore the state of the premises and pay legal costs.
This verdict raises an important question: how aware are private individuals of the legal implications of their building choices? The hope is that events like this will encourage greater respect for the rules for the common good.
