The value of road buffer zones
It constitutes a peaceful principle in jurisprudence that according to which the road buffer zones, in implementation of the rules set by the highway code, do not constitute urban planning restrictions, but measures aimed at protecting road safety, which, however, lead to the unbuildability of the areas concerned and are for this purpose included in the primary urban planning instruments (1).
Furthermore, according to a consolidated orientation, the law must be interpreted in the sense that the constraint of the road or road buffer zones is of absolute non-buildability, translating into an absolute prohibition on building which makes the areas located in the road or motorway buffer zone unbuildable, regardless of the characteristics of the work carried out and the need to concretely ascertain the related risks for road traffic, operating directly and automatically (2).
The absolute nature of the no-build constraint is determined by the need to safeguard road safety and the safety of those who live in the areas surrounding the road arteries and to guarantee the possibility of widening the latter, or of creating structures connected to better road traffic, minimizing the impact of the occupation and expropriation of private land and, also, in the event that the expropriation becomes necessary, the financial outlay of the administration (in a manner consistent with the provisions of the art. 97, paragraph 1, Constitution).
The constraint of absolute non-buildability connected to the presence of a motorway artery is, therefore, also designed to avoid the increase in value of pre-existing properties, which may result from interventions that go beyond mere maintenance and conservation, which increase in value would in any case affect the compensation due in the event of a possible expropriation or a possible temporary occupation(3).
In areas where there is an absolute prohibition against building, following the construction of buildings, it must therefore be considered permitted to carry out only those interventions functional to maintaining the property in its original consistency (4).
The specific case: demo-reconstruction and compliance with road restrictions
The TAR Valle d’Aosta, in the sentence. 30 April 2026, n. 26, evaluated the specific case of the complete demolition of an existing building outside the town center and within the building area, with reconstruction within the same area, retreat from the road boundary, reduction of the covered surface area and slight increase in the height compared to the existing one.
According to the judges, although, on a building level, it could be recognized that complete demolition with reconstruction fell within the concept of the so-called. heavy restructuring, this does not detract from the art. 26, paragraph 3, of Presidential Decree 495/1992, as interpreted by administrative jurisprudence, clearly prohibits “reconstruction” within the buffer zone, regardless of the specific nomen juris of the intervention.
The legislation governing the motorway buffer zone refers in fact to any hypothesis of “reconstruction”, with the further clarification that, if the aforementioned provisions do not contain any reference to the notion of “building renovation, it is because the special legislation considers any reconstruction as subject to distances from the road border, without the possibility of excluding those interventions that the Legislator considers differently for other purposes (5).
In this regard it has been stated that “The literal and teleological interpretation of the special road regulations has the effect that the term “reconstructions” includes, regardless of the construction qualifications, all those interventions which, following the complete demolition of the work, determine its new construction”(6).
Notes
(1) Council of State, sec. IV, sentence. March 29, 2021, n. 2602.
(2) TAR Abruzzo, Pescara, sec. I, heard. 20 February 2026, n. 77; TAR Umbria, section. I, heard. 26 May 2025, n. 521; Council of State, sec. VI, sentence. 6 April 2022, n. 2565 and sent. 23 December 2024, n. 10315).
(3) Council of State, sec. IV, sentence. 16 March 2026, n. 2156.
(4) Council of State, sec. VI, sent, 23 December 12024, n. 10315, relating to a “demoreconstruction of a pre-existing and non-abusive structure”, and sentence. 19 February 2024, n. 1646, relating to “interventions that result in restructuring with expansion through recovery and use of pre-existing technical volumes”.
(5) Cassation civ., sec. I, heard. n. 2656/2015.
(6) Council of State, sec. VI, sent, 23 December 2024, n. 10315.
In collaboration with studiolegalepetrulli.it
Thank you for subscribing to the newsletter.
