Change of use, favored activity but within certain limits
The legislator has long since understood that the change of use must be a building activity permitted within the due limits but encouragedbecause if it is true that in our cities many abandoned buildings are starting to appear, this happens sometimes, even if not always, also due to the limitations or excessive complexities that can be connected to the recovery and, therefore, also to the change of use of the building or real estate unit.
This happens because many municipal urban planning tools are affected by a planning approach still tied to the urban planning concepts of the city prior to the advent of new technologies: since the internet has taken hold in mass culture, it has somehow influenced the whole approach to reality, even urban, also affecting the way people live, perceive and use real estate; think for example of the radical change that the advent of e-commerce has had on commercial premises, even if the change is not exclusively related to this. It is no coincidence that the most recently designed urban planning tools have generally an approach different and more free towards changes in use.
In other respects, the change of use remains a urban transformation that must remain within certain control limitsbecause just as it has the power to improve the usability of a building that is no longer suitable for use, on the other hand it can allow the installation of destinations with a greater urban planning load in urban areas that are already sensitive, overloaded or in any case unsuitable. Perhaps for this reason, the changes introduced are on one side please but on the other it is always emphasized that the change must in any case respect the prescriptions of the urban planning instruments (i.e. the master plan but also any other planning tool, with the conceptual limits mentioned above).
Change of use in the Salva-Casa: simplification of building permits
The innovations of Salva-Casa affect different aspects of the change of usewhich cannot all be covered in this article; it is considered useful to examine in depth the one linked to the fact that the legislator’s effort has gone towards the simplification of building permitsin fact subjecting it to SCIA all changes that may fall within the “new” cases of paragraphs 1 bis, 1 ter and 1 quater of art. 34 bis.
However, these do not represent all possible knowledge and, therefore, today the problem arises that changes in use that do not fall within the (broad) newly introduced cases continue to follow the previous general ruleswhich in some cases require a different qualification from SCIA.
Building permits for MdU: case studies
In this article we have tried to summarize the various cases which can be encountered today: the building permits indicated in the following list only take into account the change of use, but if connected to building works that require a building permit that is higher in hierarchical terms than the one indicatedas clearly specified in paragraph 1 quinquies, this will prevail and it will be necessary to present a title consistent with the works described below, but with excluding the specific case of properties located in the basement or first floor above ground (which is one of the other innovations of the decree and which represents a delicate topic that will be discussed separately):
- Relevant MdU, with or without works, in homogeneous territorial area of type Ain implementation of paragraph 1 ter, is subject to SCIA and the related charges related to the construction contribution only. The finding or monetization of differential urban planning standards is not required;
- Relevant MdU, with or without works, in zone A but where paragraph 1 ter is not applicable (as will be said, for example this applies to properties located on the ground floor and in the basement) and in any residual clause, is subject to a Building Permit (or SCIA alternative to it) with full payment of the construction fee due and with the obligation to find, or monetize if possible, the differential urban planning standards;
- MdU relevant with works, in homogeneous territorial areas other than Ais subject to SCIA and the related onerousness, unless the works require a “superior” title which in this case conditions the procedure. In the case of application of paragraph 1 ter and therefore in zones B and C, the onerousness is limited to the contribution for urbanization only, the finding or monetization of differential urban standards not being required;
- MdU not relevant with or without works, in all homogeneous territorial areaspursuant to paragraph 1 bis is always subject to SCIA (unless it falls into the category of the following point) and is generally not subject to the onerousness relating to the construction contribution, except in special cases such as if the works themselves are subject to it. However, if foreseen, it is necessary to find or monetize the differential urban planning standards since it is not expressly excluded under paragraph 1 bis;
- MdU not relevant with works that go beyond the jurisdiction of the CILA and SCIA, in all homogeneous territorial areasis subject to the building permit suitable for the works in progress, therefore presumably Building Permit or SCIA alternative to it (the indication reported here derives from the interpretation of letter b) of paragraph 1 quinqiues which is not outstanding for clarity but no other ways to interpret it are seen). What was said in the previous point applies with regard to the possible differential provision of urban planning standards.
As mentioned, the rule introduces innovations relating to the management of properties located on the ground floor or in the basement of the properties. In the event that the property is located on the first floor above ground or in the basement and is affected by a change of use between different general categories, from how the definitive rule is structured, it must be understood that paragraph 1 ter is not applicable at least until the specific regional rule intervenes. This This does not mean that changes in use cannot be made, but simply that they cannot benefit from the specific simplifications and exemptions in paragraph 1 ter. and which must therefore be implemented according to ordinary discipline, always in compliance with what is provided for by the urban planning instruments and, where applicable, with payment of all the costs, including those relating to the monetization of the urban planning standards not found. This applies to any homogeneous territorial area.
Urban planning standards
As regards the need for provision of urban planning standardsanother very delicate topic which deserves specific analysis outside of this article, paragraph 1 quater provides in a completely explicit manner that where it falls into the category (wide) of paragraph 1 ter, the intervention is not subject to the obligation to obtain (or monetize) urban planning standards.
However, this applies exclusively to paragraph 1b, while for paragraph 1 bis (change of use without change of general category) such exclusion is not foreseen. Well, it should be considered that there may be cases of changes in use that, even if they do not foresee a jump in general category, nevertheless foresee a change in urban planning standards, especially where the municipal urban planning tools have more detailed rules on calculation than the more general ones of the Ministerial Decree 1444/68. Therefore, be careful of the possible paradox that even though they are “simplified”, Change of use interventions within the same general category may however be subject to a charge which can be of a significant amount.
