In demolition illegal works: building abuse is not justified with the need and with the past time the Lazio Tar has confirmed that the building abuse is always pursued, regardless of personal needs and the past time. No assignment is possible on the stay of the abuse. Urban planning legality always priority.

The Regional Administrative Court (TAR) of Lazio has recently issued a judgment of great importance for the construction sector and urban planning sector. With decision no. 2581/2025, the judges reiterated that the building abuse cannot be justified by personal needs, not even in the presence of serious housing needs.

The case examined concerned a property in Rome, where illegal works had been carried out to adapt the intended use of the building in favor of a disabled family member. The owners had filed an appeal against the demolition order issued by the Municipality, supporting the legitimacy of their modification.

However, the TAR rejected the appeal, stating that the building offense is always pursued and cannot be remedied on the basis of personal reasons.

But what are the implications of this sentence? What should citizens find themselves in similar situations?

Let’s find out in detail.

Advertisement – Advertising

The case examined by the Lazio TAR

The appeal examined by the Lazio TAR concerned an demolition order issued by the Municipality of Rome against some abusive works carried out on a property located in the city. The owners of the building had changed the intended use of a portion of the property to adapt it to the housing needs of a disabled family member.

However, these changes had been made in the absence of suitable building securities, thus configuring a building abuse.

Faced with the demolition order imposed by the municipal administration, the applicants had decided to appeal to the TAR, raising various grounds for appeal. Among the main arguments given, it was the need to guarantee a adequate housing solution to the family member with disabilitiesa circumstance that – in their opinion – should have been assessed by the public body before adopting the sanctioning measure.

In addition, the applicants claimed that the administration had not considered the fact that the property was about to be regularized and formally divided between several subjects.

A further reason for appeal concerned the time factor: According to the applicants, the building abuse had been carried out many years earlier and, by virtue of the long time spent without repressive interventions by the Municipality, the demolition order should have been considered illegitimate. In their opinion, the silence of the administration over the years would have consolidated a sort of assignment to the stability of the existing situation, preventing a late repressive intervention.

The Municipality of Rome, for its part, rejected these disputes, reiterating that the contested building intervention had been carried out without any authorization and that the law requires the removal of the illegal works, regardless of the reasons that led to their realization. Furthermore, he underlined that the urban planning legislation does not recognize the so -called “abuse of necessity“As a suitable element to justify the violation of the building rules.

After examining the documents and listened to the parties in question, The Lazio TAR has decided to reject the appealconfirming the legitimacy of the demolition order issued by the Municipality and reiterating some key principles on building abuse and protection of the urban structure.

Advertisement – Advertising

The principle of “abuse of necessity”

One of the most relevant aspects of the Lazio Tar sentence concerns the principle of “abuse of necessity“. The applicants had argued that the modification of the property had been built to meet urgent housing needs, linked to the presence of a disabled family member. According to them, this circumstance should have been considered by the municipal administration before issuing the demolition order.

However, the TAR rejected this argument, clearly affirming that the Italian legal system does not recognize the so -called “abuse of necessity” as a valid justification for the realization of illegal works.

This means that, even in the presence of personal or family motivations of extreme relevance, it is not possible to derogate from the urban and building standards.

The sentence underlines that the right to home and respect for personal needs, although protected by the system, cannot prevail over the need to guarantee building and urban planning legality. In other words, current legislation establishes that compliance with the building rules has a function of general interest, aimed at protecting the correct development of the territory and preventing the proliferation of illegal constructions that could compromise urban decorum, safety and urban structure of the cities.

In addition, the TAR has shown that, in particular cases, the system provides for alternative tools to guarantee the right to home to people with difficulties, such as access to public housing solutions or support measures for the adjustment of properties in compliance of current legislation. However, these tools must be requested ordinary and cannot in any way justify the execution of illegal works without authorization.

Advertisement – Advertising

The permanent character of the building abuse

Another central aspect addressed in the sentence concerns the permanent character of the building abuse. The applicants had argued that the contested works had been made a long time before and that the long period spent without the municipal administration intervened should prevent the adoption of the demolition order.

The TAR, however, rejected this argument, clarifying that building abuse has a permanent legal nature, which means that the offense remains pursued independently of the time spent from its realization.

In other words, There is no sort of “prescription” of the building abuse that can prevent the administration from intervening even years later.

This position is based on a consolidated principle in administrative jurisprudence: until an abusive construction exists and is not regularized through the tools required by law (such as the building amnesty, where applicable), the Municipality maintains the power-duty to restore urban planning legality. Even if the abuse has been tolerated for years or has not been discovered immediately, this does not make it automatically legitimate.

To strengthen this interpretation there is the fact that the urban planning legislation clearly establishes the obligation for local administrations to supervise the territory and to intervene to combat building abuses. The goal is to guarantee compliance with the regulatory plan and building standards, preventing situations of urban degradation and guaranteeing the safety of construction.

The TAR then reiterated that The Municipality of Rome had full legitimacy to issue the demolition order, regardless of the era in which the abusive works had been carried out. Furthermore, he underlined that the passage of time can never legitimize an urban violation, nor to create a right to maintain a property in conditions of irregularities.