Urban planning

The Supreme Court (TS) has ruled in favor of a municipality in a dispute over who should bear the costs of constructing and demolishing some works carried out without a license . The key is that obtaining the permit after having executed them does not allow claiming those costs from the Administration if that authorization ends up being annulled.

The case begins when a property owner obtains a municipal license to renovate and expand her single-family home. A first part of the work is carried out with that permit, but then she introduces changes to the project and builds them without first requesting the corresponding authorization. The municipality opens a file to restore legality and, later on, grants a license that legalizes those modifications. However, the courts end up annulling both the initial licenses and the legalization ones, and the building ends up being demolished . The property owner then claims the construction and demolition costs .

The courts of first and second instance accepted to include in the compensation the modifications built without permission and later legalized. The owner argued that this subsequent authorization should produce equivalent effects to those of a license granted before starting. The town hall, on the other hand, argued that it should not pay for works that were already done when they were authorized.

The Supreme Court shares the municipal position . Its explanation is that the subsequent permit does not make the Administration responsible for the costs of works executed previously without authorization. It also does not allow justifying that construction was done relying on a license that did not yet exist. Except for exceptional circumstances, anyone who starts to build without the mandatory permit must assume the consequences , even if they later manage to regularize the work.

This does not mean that the owner loses all compensation. The damages corresponding to the works carried out with the licenses initials and to the authorized modifications before being executed. Excluded, on the other hand, are the costs of constructing and demolishing changes made without prior license. The decisive difference is, therefore, whether the permit existed when the work was done.

If you feel harmed and dissatisfied with an urban action, our professionals can advise you in the defense of your rights