Horizontal condominium with buildings flanked: is the roof common part?

The condominium connectionpresupposed by the attribution rule pursuant to art. 1117 cc, can be seen in various construction types, developed both vertically and in a horizontal sense; However The different parts must be equipped with load -bearing structures and common essential systemsas precisely exemplifyingly listed in art. 1117 cc, with the reserve “If the opposite does not result from the title”. In other words, the notion of condominium in the proper sense is configurable not only in the hypothesis of buildings that extend vertically but also in the case of Adjacent constructions horizontally (as in particular the so -called terraced houses), as they are equipped with the load -bearing structures and the essential plants indicated by the aforementioned art. 1117 cc

Also in order to be able to configure the existence of a horizontal condominium an essential element is represented by the necessary joint of the property right on the common parts of the building (a avenue, a courtyard, a common system), in relation to the specific function of the latter to serve for the use and enjoyment of the building itself.

Problems can however arise to establish the ownership of the roof. If the latter is common owned pursuant to art. 1117 cc The expenses must be divided among all condominiums in proportion to the value of the individual exclusive properties, pursuant to the first part of art. 1123 cc in this regard deserves a recent decision of the Cremona Court (sentence no. 206 of 16-04-2025).

The story

The story developed as part of a horizontal condominium consisting of Four buildings in their own right, adjacent to horizontally and inserted in a single real estate complex. A condominium challenged a resolution with which it was decided to proceed with the execution of the works of Extraordinary maintenance of the condominium roofconsisting in the reclamation of the covering mantle in fibercement-asbestos slabs. According to the actor, the roof was not common, existing instead Four different covers to cover the different factory bodies.

In the opinion of the condominium, the conformation of the properties clearly indicated the separation of the roofssuggesting that they were not a single common entity but pautonomous speakers linked to their respective real estate units. Consequently, he argued that the cost of the intervention was divided only among the condominiums of the real estate units covered by the roof or portion of the roof subject to remake, using the criteria referred to in Articles 1123 cc, paragraph 3 and 1126 cc

The decision

The court was wrong to the condominium. The judge observed that the roofas well as the other common parts of a condominium building listed in art. 1117 CCN 1 (the soil on which it stands, the foundations, the masters, the bearing beams, the solar paves and the facades), It is part necessary for the same existence of the condominium buildingsince once it has been built, it is incorporated into the individual real estate units of the building, blending inseparably with them and with the entire building organism.

The judge observed that the actor condominium has not tried eitherexistence of a title aimed at demonstrating the exclusive property of the roof (or parts of it)nor the existence of a partial co -ownership of the same (or of parts of it), limiting itself to producing the metric calculation of the maintenance works prepared by the condominium technician, some drawings placed in accompanying it, as well as an aerial image of the roof, unidone elements to overcome the rigid presumption of co -ownership of the roof or to demonstrate that the same is objectively intended for the exclusive benefit of one or more real estate units.

After all, the office technical consultant (CTU) clearly stated that The roof, due to its structural characteristics, is objectively unique and destined to cover the entire building. The analysis conducted by CTU led to further important conclusions regarding the structure of the building and its roof. From the study of the construction project and the certificate of habitability, it emerged that in 1958 a factory body was added as an expansion of the original construction. The roof of the expansion was carried out in continuity with the already existing one, forming a single coverage for the entire property. This technical evidence has strengthened the idea that the roof was one common partbeing structurally united and functional to the protection of the entire building.