In Italy, the certificate of accessibility It represents a fundamental document to certify that a property has safety, hygiene and health requirements. However, often there is a tendency to confuse its value with an alleged “amnesty” implicit for any building or urban irregularities.

A recent ruling of the Lazio Tar has clearly clarified this aspect, rejecting an appeal based precisely on the incorrect interpretation of the certificate of usability.

In the case in question, the Court reiterated that the issue of this certificate does not guarantee the urban and landscape compliance of the property. Indeed, in the presence of illegal works, the certificate does not exclude the possibility of demolitions or other penalties.

Advertisement – Advertising

The case analyzed by the Lazio TAR: a contested demolition order

The affair was born from the issue of an order of demolition by the Municipality, which contested the construction of a series of building works without the necessary authorization qualifications. Among the works subject to the measure there were structures such as roofs, pergolas, an oven with relative coverage, a fountain and a garden area with tuff sidewalks and vialetti.

These works had been built in an area classified as “agricultural area of ​​environmental value”, subject to rigid landscape constraints (pursuant to Legislative Decree 42/2004), hydrogeological and seismic.

The owners, in the appeal to the TAR, tried to contest the demolition order arguing mainly on two points: on the one hand, they argued that the works in question were of an accessory or pertinent nature and, therefore, not subject to authorization; on the other, they leveraged theexistence of a certificate of accessibility Released for the real estate complex in 2014.

According to the applicants, this certificate would have indirectly certified the regularity of the works already existing at the time of release.

Advertisement – Advertising

The decision of the Lazio TAR: a reference to the protection of the territory

The ruling of the Lazio TAR (n. 553/2025) ended with the rejection of the appeal, confirming the legitimacy of the demolition order issued by the Municipality. The Court has based its decision on clear and consolidated legal principles, which underline the importance of compliance with urban and landscape regulations, especially in areas subject to stringent constraints.

In particular, the TAR highlighted that:

  1. Lack of qualifying securities: The contested works, although considered by the applicants of modest entity and accessory character, needed specific urban and landscape authorizations, not obtained. Their location in a tied area made the adoption of the demolition measure mandatory.
  2. Absence of legitimate assignment: The Court rejected the argument that the owner could rely on the existence of the certificate of usability or on the pre -existing state of the property. The demolition sanction, in fact, is real and is not subject to the subjective responsibility of the owner.
  3. Role of the landscape bond: Even precarious or cubic works, if they alter the external aspect of the places, they require landscape authorization. In the absence of this, the demolition order is to be considered a due act by the administration.
  4. Non -automatic sanitaryness of abuses: The TAR reiterated that the passage of time or the release of administrative certifications (such as usability) cannot remedy building irregularities. Abuses must be treated with proportionate measures, aimed at restoring legality.

The decision represents a clear reference to the centrality of compliance with the rules to protect the landscape and urban planning, placing the public interest above any other consideration. The sentence also strengthens an important message: no administrative document, not even the certificate of usability, can replace the necessary authorization qualifications.

Advertisement – Advertising

The role of the certificate of usability and its limits

One of the central aspects of the decision of the Lazio Tar is the clarification on the role of the certificate of viability. This document, often perceived as a sort of “seal of conformity” for a property, actually performs a different and limited function: it certifies that the property complies with the safety, health and hygiene requirements, necessary for housing use or functional.

However, it does not guarantee in any way the urban or building regularity of the works.

In the case examined, the owners attempted to argue that the issue of the certificate of viability in 2014 represented an indirect confirmation of the legitimacy of the works carried out. This interpretation was firmly rejected by the Court, which underlined a key principle of jurisprudence: the certificate of viability and the building title (such as the building permit or landscape authorization) operate on different and separate plans. In the absence of a valid qualification, the certificate of usability cannot in any way remedy any irregularities.

The TAR also clarified that, in the presence of illegal works, the demolition order represents a mandatory and independent of the owner’s good faith. This means that even if the owner has not directly created the abusive works, he is still responsible for reporting the property to legal conformity, as required by the system.

This principle finds support in numerous jurisprudential precedents, which underline that the automatic amnesty for the mere course of time is not contemplated in our regulatory system.

This point of the sentence highlights an important lesson for real estate owners: carefully checking the building and urban regularities of a property before purchasing is essential to avoid future problems, even if there is a certificate of accessibility.