The trail is not enough: if the pergoting is illegal, the demolition takes place a pergotal deemed illegal has led to the suspension of a commercial activity, despite the trail. The Lazio Tar confirmed the legitimacy of the measures due to lack of building compliance.

When starting a commercial activity, it is often taken for granted that the room is perfectly in compliance with a building and urban planning point of view. But what happens if building abuses emerge of which the tenant is not responsible?

And above all: who risks sanctions, demolitions or even suspension of the activity?

A recent sentence of the Lazio Tar has faced this case, clarifying the boundaries between the responsibilities of the owner and those of the manager of the activity, and reaffirming the importance of urban compliance in order to continue to administer food and drinks.

Is it really convenient to trust the owner’s statements? Just one SCIA (Certified Start of Activity Report) To get away from problems? What if a demolition is triggered, does the conductor have a say?

Advertisement – Advertising

The context of the appeal: between building abuses and suspension of the activity

It all begins with a managerial determination of the Municipality that ordered the demolition of two works considered abusive: one pergotia with PVC buffering and one wooden canopy. These structures, according to what is detected in an inspection of the local police, would have been built without any building title. The demolition order, however, was not notified to the manager of the commercial activity, but to owner of the property. Despite this, the manager promoted appeal in front of the TAR, in any case considering himself damaged by the provision.

In the appeal, the manager claimed that:

• there pergotia He had to return to the field of free construction, as retractable and without stable impact on the building;
• for the canopya application for building permit had been submitted in the past, and the silence-assentthus making the work legitimate;
• The procedure would have been spoiled by conflict of interestas one of the municipal officials involved would reside in the vicinity of the local object of the provision.

Subsequently, years later, the administration issued a second measurethis time also directly notified to the manager, providing for the continuation of the commercial activity for failure to adapt to urban planning prescriptions. The administration activity was in fact subordinate, according to current regulations, to full compliance with the building regulation.

The manager then presented added reasons to the appeal, also contesting the new act.

Among the complaints, a substantial question emerged: according to the applicant, the Municipality could have limited itself to suspending the activity only in the portion of the room where the disputed works insisted, avoiding one total closure of the activity, considered excessive and penalizing.

Advertisement – Advertising

The reasons for the TAR: conductor without direct legitimacy

With the sentence no. 4522/2025published on March 3, 2025, the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio rejected the appeal proposed by the manager of the commercial activity, judging it inadmissible and in any case inadmissibleand also rejected i added reasons.

The decision is based on some consolidated jurisprudential principles and reiterated in several points of the motivation.

First, the TAR declared the introductory appeal inadmissible because the contested demolition order was addressed exclusively to the owner of the propertyand not to the manager. According to the court, the tenant is not the owner of a direct and immediate interest to the appeal of a demolitional measure addressed to the lessor: “It must be considered that the conductor is not the owner of a direct and immediate interest in the appeal of the order of demolition given to the lessor, but of a mediated, reflected and indirect interest»(Point 4 of the sentence).

Also, the applicant did not challenge a second demolition measurenotified subsequently in 2022, also aimed at you as a alleged responsible for the building abuse. As a result, even if the first order had been canceled, the second would remain valid, making it the judgment for the abuse of interest is unprecedented (point 5 of the sentence).

As regards instead the prohibition of continuation of the commercial activitycontested with the added reasons, the TAR deemed unfounded All reliefs. The Court has confirmed that the administration activity cannot continue if the property presents abusive works and do not comply with the urban regulations. As mentioned in the sentence, «The legislation applicable to the case (…) conditions the exercise of the administration activity to full compliance with the building and urban planning legislation»(Point 6.2).

It was therefore considered correct by the Administration to proceed with the suspension of the entire activitywithout the possibility of limiting it only to the portions affected by the abusive works, as required by the applicant.

Advertisement – Advertising

What the one manages those who manage an activity in a non -compliant property

The ruling of the Lazio Tar represents an alarm bell for all those who manage commercial activities in premises for rent. Often, those who take over in a property already used for similar purposes are limited to presenting a Ski sub -entrytrusting that everything is in order.

But reality, as this case shows, is more complex and full of pitfalls.

One of the most important teachings of this decision is that The building regularity of the property cannot be taken for grantedand also falls on the manager the responsibility to verify it. It is not enough to have a lease and a trail: if in the property they are present building abuses (even if made by third parties or the owner), the administration can arrive at Suspend the entire business.

In addition, the manager cannot automatically defend himself by challenging measures intended for other subjects, such as the owner. As clarified by the TAR, the conductor’s interest is indirect and does not legitimize a direct appeal, unless an act is challenged that expressly involves it. This means that if it turns out that the property presents irregularities, the manager may find himself without direct legal tools To oppose, undergoing the consequences without the possibility of affecting the administrative procedure.

Finally, it is important to consider that urban planning, both national and local, imposes full building compliance To carry out economic activities: it is not possible, as the applicant suggested, to close only a part of the place and continue the activity elsewhere. If even a single part of the property is irregular, the entire authorization can fail.