In Italy, compliance with building and landscape regulations is a fundamental principle to guarantee the protection of the territory. However, it often happens that abusive works are tolerated for years, creating the mistaken belief that the passage of time can legitimize them. A recent ruling by the Lazio Regional Administrative Court firmly reiterated that the passage of time does not make what was initially considered illegal legitimate.
The case examined concerns works carried out without authorizations in a restricted agricultural area, for which the Municipality has issued a demolition order. Although the abuse dates back decades, the court confirmed that violation of building and landscaping regulations always requires the intervention of the administration to restore legality.
But why doesn’t time erase illegal construction? What are the rules that protect the landscape and how are they applied in similar cases? Let’s discover together the details of this important ruling.
Advertisement – Advertising
The case examined: building abuse in a restricted area
The case dealt with by the Lazio TAR concerns land located in an agricultural area qualified as “of landscape value” by the General Master Plan of the Municipality of Bracciano. In 2020, during an inspection, the Local Police ascertained the presence of building works carried out without the necessary permits. These include a 138 square meter concrete yard, a masonry staircase, a retaining wall made of tuff blocks and a small building, complete with residential systems and finishes.
The works have been contested because without building permits and landscape authorizationsrequired for interventions in areas protected by environmental restrictions. The Municipality, therefore, issued a demolition order to restore the original state of the places and enforce the regulations in force.
The owner challenged the order claiming that the abuses had taken place before 2009the year in which the area lost its building purpose to become agricultural and restricted. Furthermore, he argued that some works were necessary to guarantee the stability of the land, characterized by particular orographic conditions.
The TAR, with ruling no. 20116 of 2024, has the appeal was rejectedunderlining the absence of evidence demonstrating the actual implementation of the interventions in a period prior to the change of use of the land. The sentence reiterated that the passage of time can never cure a building abuse, particularly in areas subject to landscape restrictions. Any problems with the stability of the land, according to the court, must also be addressed in the enforcement phase, but do not constitute a valid reason to cancel a demolition order.
Advertisement – Advertising
The regulation violated
The Lazio Regional Administrative Court’s ruling is based on the rigorous application of various building and landscape regulations, which the owner of the land did not respect when carrying out the works. In particular, the provisions cited in the sentence recall the Presidential Decree 380/2001known as the Consolidated Construction Law, and the Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code (Legislative Decree 42/2004). These two regulatory pillars regulate both construction activity and the protection of restricted areas.
Specifically, the Municipality contested the failure to acquire the building permitmandatory pursuant to Article 3 of Presidential Decree 380/2001, for all works that permanently modify the state of places, especially in areas subject to landscape restrictions. Furthermore, the absence of the landscape authorization required by article 146 of Legislative Decree 42/2004, essential for interventions involving protected areas, was highlighted.
Another relevant aspect is the violation of articles 94 and 95 of Presidential Decree 380/2001, relating to reinforced concrete works. For this type of intervention, the legislation requires prior reporting to the Civil Engineers, together with authorization, to guarantee structural safety and prevent risks for the surrounding environment.
The TAR clarified that the absence of these authorizations constitutes a serious violation, regardless of the time that has elapsed since the construction of the works. The legislation on demolition (article 31 of Presidential Decree 380/2001) was also decisive: it provides that the demolition order is issued automatically in the presence of proven abuse, without the need for further assessments by the administration.
In this context, the ruling reiterated that the landscape constraint always prevails over private interestalso recalling precedents of administrative jurisprudence, such as the rulings of the Plenary Meeting of the Council of State. These have established that the protection of the territory and the environment is an absolute priority, and the obligation of demolition is a necessary act to re-establish legality.
