Fines from the Building Department for building without a permit: what you risk and how to defend yourself

Quick answer: the fine for building without a permit is imposed by the Local Police Court, not by the municipality, and article 20 of the General Urban Planning and Construction Act sets a very wide range: between 0.5% and 20% of the budget of the works, or between 1 and 100 monthly tax units where there is no budget. That very width is the strongest line of defence available today, because the Constitutional Court has declared the rule inapplicable in specific cases for lack of objective criteria. And there is one thing worth knowing before anything else: even if the fine goes away, the irregularity does not.

The usual scene starts with a letter or a summons. Someone reported the extension, the Building Department confirmed it, and the matter went to the Local Police Court. The first reaction is to search online for the limitation period. That is a reasonable question, but it is not the one that solves the problem.

Who fines you, how much, and who can report you

The roles are worth separating, because they get confused constantly. The Municipal Building Department inspects and reports. The Local Police Court is the body that hears the infringement and imposes the penalty. The municipality does not issue you a fine the way a traffic warden does: it files a complaint before a court.

The part that surprises people most. The complaint may be filed by the municipality, by the Regional Ministerial Secretariat of Housing and Urban Development or by any person. You do not need to be a neighbour or to show an interest. That is why most of these proceedings start with a neighbour dispute rather than with an inspection.

The defence that is actually working: the discretion in the fine

This is the most useful part of this article, and a line that is rarely discussed outside litigation.

The range in article 20 is so wide that the penalty cannot be anticipated: two people in the same situation may receive radically different fines depending on the judge. On that basis the rule has been challenged repeatedly before the Constitutional Court by way of inapplicability, and the court has declared it inapplicable in specific cases because the statutory margin is excessively wide.

These are the arguments that get raised, and they are worth knowing because they are the ones you can put forward in your own case:

• Legality of the penalty. Article 19 number 3 of the Constitution requires the penalty to be properly determined by law, not left to the assessment of the judge.
• Due process. The indeterminacy prevents the person affected from knowing with any certainty what they are exposed to.
• Equality before the law. The same facts can attract very different penalties with no stated criterion.
• Proportionality. There is no link between the seriousness of the conduct and the amount imposed.
• Right of property. A fine set at the top of the range can affect assets out of all proportion to the breach.

Two honest caveats. The Constitutional Court has also rejected several of these applications, and a declaration of inapplicability has effect only in the case where it is granted: it does not repeal the rule for everyone. The discussion remains open and new applications were filed in 2026. But for someone facing a disproportionate fine today, this is a real route and not a theory.

On limitation periods, frankly

The idea that these fines lapse after a fixed number of years circulates with a great deal of confidence. We have not found a provision of the General Urban Planning and Construction Act that sets that period expressly for the infringements heard by the Local Police Court, and for that reason we are not going to repeat a figure we cannot support.

What can be said is how the argument is framed. Limitation depends on how the infringement is classified and which regime is considered applicable, and it is a plea that has to be raised within the proceedings, not something that operates by itself. In practice, and this is the important part, limitation is rarely the best defence: while the building is still standing, the situation continues over time and the argument loses force.

If someone gave you a specific period, ask for it in writing with the provision. It is the fastest way to tell apart someone who knows the subject from someone repeating what they read. And if your case is already before the Local Police Court, the plea has to be raised inside the proceedings and in good time, not afterwards.

The real trap: the fine gets paid, the irregularity stays

This is the point that costs people the most money, and it is independent of any discussion about time limits.

Paying the fine regularises nothing. The building is still without a permit and without final approval, with everything that carries. Article 145 of the same Act provides that no works may be occupied or put to any use before their final approval, and it allows the works to be declared unfit and even the occupants to be evicted by order of the Mayor at the request of the Director of Works.

And in terms of your assets, which is where it is felt:

• The property cannot be sold properly, because square metres without final approval are neither valued nor financed.
• The bank will not take as security what is not recognised.
• Insurance covers what was declared, and the rest sits in a grey area when a claim arises.
• The problem is inherited: whoever receives the property receives it with the property.
• A fresh complaint can restart the cycle, because the underlying situation has not changed.

What to do if you have been summoned

The order matters, and the first decisions shape the rest.

• Do not ignore the summons. The proceedings continue with or without you, and appearing lets you argue the amount, where there is far more room than on the existence of the infringement.
• Gather the records of the works. When they were built, on what budget, who carried them out. The date decides whether the works later qualify for the simplified regularisation route, and the budget feeds directly into the calculation of the fine.
• Ask for the file. What exactly was reported, by whom, and what the Building Department found. Sometimes the complaint describes something different from what is there.
• Assess whether the amount is disproportionate. If the fine sought is high relative to the works, that is where the Constitutional Court line comes in.
• Start regularising in parallel. Arriving at court with regularisation under way changes everyone’s disposition, and it is what has to be done afterwards in any event.

The real way out is to regularise

Everything above manages the problem. What ends it is obtaining final approval, and there are two routes depending on when the works were built.

There is one exclusion worth checking first: if there is a pending complaint for breach of urban planning rules, the simplified route is not available while that remains live. That is why resolving the Local Police Court proceedings and regularising are not separate things: they are the same strategy in two stages.

Frequently asked questions

Can they demolish my house?

The Act does provide for demolition of what was built in breach, and the court may order it. In practice it is reserved for serious cases, typically where what was built affects third parties, occupies public space or sits in a risk area. For a family extension that can be regularised, the usual outcome is a fine and a requirement to regularise.

If I pay the fine, is it all settled?

No. The fine penalises the infringement, it does not legalise the works. The building remains without a permit or final approval, with the same consequences for selling, mortgaging and insuring. It is the most expensive mistake of all: paying and relaxing.

Can I argue that the building is very old?

Age matters, but not in the way people usually assume. It is less an argument about limitation than the key that opens the simplified regularisation route, which requires the works to predate 4 February 2016. That is where age works in your favour, and with hard evidence: dated photographs, receipts, historical satellite imagery.

I bought the house like this. Am I the one who answers for it?

The planning infringement follows the property, and the Building Department will address whoever owns it today. What you may claim from the seller who concealed the situation is a separate matter, a civil claim of its own with its own deadlines.

Is there any point appearing if the breach is obvious?

Yes, a great deal. Even where the infringement exists, the amount sits between a minimum and a maximum that are very far apart. Appearing with records of the real budget, of the nature of the works and with regularisation started is what moves the penalty towards the lower end of the range.

What if the person who reported me was a neighbour with a grievance?

The complainant’s motive does not change whether the infringement exists, and any person is entitled to file a complaint. What is worth checking is whether what was reported matches what is actually there, because many neighbour complaints describe things inaccurately.

How we work on this

When a summons arrives, the first step is to read the file and measure two things: what exactly is alleged, and how much is being sought relative to the real size of the works. That proportion decides whether the defence targets the amount, the classification of the facts, or simply negotiating time to regularise.

In parallel we check whether the works qualify for the simplified route, because arriving at court with the regularisation file lodged changes the conversation entirely. The survey and the drawings are done by our own surveying and architecture team, so that part moves without waiting on third parties. To get a sense of the cost there is the regularisation cost calculator.

If the problem turns out to be older and sits in the title, we resolve it with a title study and with regularisation of title where appropriate. And if it has to be litigated, whether before the Local Police Court or against the seller who concealed the situation, that is a matter for our litigation practice.

Send us the summons or the letter from the Building Department together with the property tax roll number, and we will tell you what is alleged, what you really risk, and whether it is better to defend, to regularise, or to do both at once.