The issue of building works carried out before 1967, the year in which the bridge law was introduced which extended the requirement for a building permit, continues to raise debates. A recent ruling by the Lazio TAR (sentence n° 19963/2024) rejected the appeal of an owner who claimed the regularity of some works built before that date, but who failed to present sufficiently solid evidence to support his thesis.
This case offers important insights into understanding when and how to demonstrate the legitimacy of dated building interventions.
What are the necessary requirements? And what happens if the evidence is not deemed adequate?
Advertisement – Advertising
The context of the matter: ordinance and disputes on the ground
The story originates from an ordinance issued by a municipality in Lazio, which required the demolition of some masonry works built on a ditch intended for the collection and drainage of rainwater. The structures, according to the local authority, had been built without the necessary building permits, in an area subject to landscape and environmental restrictions, and therefore had to be removed to restore the natural state of the places.
The administrative measure, however, was immediately contested by the owner of the land, who brought the matter to the Lazio Regional Administrative Court.
The defense was based on two main points:
- Construction date of the work: The owner claimed that the works dated back to a period before the introduction of building regulations requiring specific authorizations, such as the 1967 bridging law or subsequent landscape restrictions. According to this thesis, since these regulations were not in force at the time of construction, the works could not be considered abusive.
- Irregularity in the notification of the order: The appellant also denounced a procedural flaw, stating that the ordinance had not been notified to all the parties involved, in particular the owners of the other parcels affected by the work.
With these reasons, the owner requested the annulment of the ordinance, arguing that the Municipality had not sufficiently proven either the illegal nature of the works or the need for their demolition.
Advertisement – Advertising
The reasons for the sentence: the rejection of the appeal
The Lazio TAR rejected the appeal, deeming the demolition order fully legitimate. Firstly, the Court established that the notification of the measure is correctly addressed only to the owner of the property, regardless of whether the latter has carried out the illegal work or not.
This is because demolition, considered a restorative and non-punitive measurecan be ordered against the current owner, without requiring verification of his responsibility in the construction of the works.
Another crucial aspect of the ruling concerns theburden of proofwhich the TAR attributed to the owner of the land. In fact, it was up to him to demonstrate that the works had been built before the introduction of building regulations and landscape restrictions, such as the 1967 bridge law. However, the evidence presented was not considered sufficient to confirm that the construction had taken place in a period prior to these regulations.
The Court also reiterated that the demolition order is a binding and necessary act for the restoration of legality. This means that, once the illegality of a work has been ascertained, it is not necessary to balance public and private interests, since the public interest in the protection of the territory prevails by law.
Finally, it was excluded that the passage of time could legitimize the conservation of illegal works, underlining that the passing of years cannot transform an illegal construction into a situation compliant with the rules.
Advertisement – Advertising
The implications of the sentence: protection of the territory and responsibility of the owners
The Lazio TAR ruling reiterates some fundamental principles regarding urban planning and landscape protection, offering food for thought for both sector professionals and citizens. First of all, it clearly emerges that illegal works, regardless of who built them or the time that has passed since their construction, must be removed if they are not accompanied by a valid authorization.
This principle is rooted in the need to protect the territory from irregular interventions, ensuring compliance with regulations.
Another significant aspect is the weight placed on the burden of proof. Anyone who contests a demolition order must be able to demonstrate in a rigorous and documented manner that the work does not violate the regulations in force at the time of its construction. The simple declaration of an alleged dating prior to the urban planning rules is not sufficient, as demonstrated by the critical evaluation of the reports presented in the case examined.
Finally, the TAR’s decision underlines that the public interest in landscape protection always prevails over any private interests in the conservation of illegal works. This reinforces the message that there are no shortcuts or implicit amnesties based on the passage of time, reiterating the importance of respecting the rules from the beginning.
This sentence therefore constitutes a warning for all those who work in the construction sector or who intend to carry out interventions in restricted areas, recalling the importance of qualified consultancy and careful verification of regulatory requirements.
