>> Do you prefer the paperback version? You can find it on Amazon, click here
Verandas and simplified double compliance
The creation of a veranda, that is, the permanently closed of an uncovered area, it is always a intervention that increases the volume of the property because it allows a previously open space to be used as a living space. The fact that a glass window is used in this case, and a brick wall is not built, it is obviously not relevantsince the closure is considered permanent when there are frames that delimit the area and therefore allow the hermetic closure of the windows, exactly like any window, only a little larger.
With the new amnesty to comply with the regulations in this case it is necessary submit a SCIA with the attached declaration of the technician “simplified” double conformity. That is, it is necessary to certify that the intervention complies with the building regulations regarding habitability in force at the time it was carried out, and the urban planning regulations in force today.
So for example, if the veranda was built in 1993 to enlarge the kitchen, it is sufficient that it has a ceiling of at least 2.40 meters high, while if it is a room intended for another use, it must still have a height of at least 2.70 meters in compliance with the regulations in force at the time. Having carried out this check, it is still necessary check the current master plan. In fact, if the Municipality today, that is on the date of presentation of the SCIA, allows an increase in volume for that specific building within the limits in which it was, in fact, built, the amnesty is allowed.
Or if it is a sufficiently large house and a not excessively large veranda, you can refer to the construction tolerances and get it legitimate state without amnesty.
For example, let’s talk about a 4 square meter veranda in a 100 meter house, including the subsequently closed area.
The verandas are still outside the amnesty
However, they are not curable actual building abuses, that is, when the veranda was built without respecting the minimum distances from other houses and/or from the border, or the structural safety regulations. For example, if a porch was built that overhangs the facade of the villa and this was then closed, it will not only be necessary to verify the increase in volume obtained but, in fact, whether the overhanging part does not violate the rules on distances.
If the measures are not respected, the regularization cannot be requested and the abuse will remain as such without any possibility of access to simplified procedures to obtain legitimate status.
For restricted areas, the OK from the superintendency is always required
And if instead the veranda had been built on a property in aarea subject to constraint? In this case, the Salva Casa decree allows you to submit an application for regularization, but there remains the obligation to obtain the binding opinion of the reference authority for the restriction, both in reference to the possibility of carrying out the intervention in question, and for its methods.
So, for example, you could get the green light for the veranda but only if you use a certain type of window frames that have little impact on the decor and, obviously, are energy-saving. Or you could have to respect other specific rules in reference to the constraint (of the Fine Arts, landscape, park authority, etc.) that is foreseen to protect that specific area.
Non-compliant verandas and condominiums, stop the problems of legitimate status
A sigh of relief thanks to the decree, however, for those who find themselves living in a condominium with non-compliant verandas. Until yesterday, this was an issue that could have a significant impact on the possibility of carrying out redevelopment works for which CILA is required, since this act requires the technician to declare the legitimate status of the property, something that is effectively precluded by an irregularity of this type since it involves an increase in volume for all intents and purposes.
With the Salva-Casa the issue has been resolved without the need for any intervention and without any risk of disputes. It is in fact specified that any irregularities on privately owned properties have no relevance for the possibility of obtaining the legitimate status referred to the common parts. Therefore, the green light for the works even if there is an extra veranda.
