Jak postupovat při změně územního plánu

Spatial Planning as a Fundamental Pillar of Investment Certainty and Development

It is a living, highly complex regulatory tool that ultimately defines the economic value of land, the feasibility of any construction project, and the level of investment risk. The zoning plan determines what can be built, where, in what volume, and under what conditions, thereby directly influencing the return on investment (ROI) and the total value of a portfolio's assets.

With the new Building Act No. 283/2021 Coll. (hereinafter the "NBA" or "New Building Act") coming into effect, the legislative landscape of the Czech Republic has dramatically changed. This recodification of public building law, one of the most extensive in recent decades, brings new opportunities to accelerate processes but also introduces new institutes and procedural challenges that require a sophisticated, multi-layered legal strategy. 

It is no longer enough to simply "meet the conditions"; it is necessary to actively manage the process, anticipate the political reactions of local governments, and effectively use new tools, such as planning agreements, to achieve consensus.

This report, prepared by the expert team at the ARROWS law firm, serves as a comprehensive, in-depth manual for navigating the process of changing a zoning plan. Its goal is not merely to restate legal provisions but to provide analytical insight into application practice, the case law of administrative courts, and the mechanisms of negotiation with municipalities.

 Here, we analyze not only the text of the law but also the practical impacts that can determine the success or failure of a development project. We transform the administrative process into a managed investment strategy, and should you require an individual strategic consultation, our team is ready to act.

Legislative and Theoretical Framework: The New Building Act and a Paradigm Shift

The adoption of Act No. 283/2021 Coll. was not a mere amendment but an attempt at a systemic change in the approach to construction permitting and spatial planning. Although the original ambitions for a complete centralization of the building administration have undergone political corrections, it is crucial for an investor to understand how the balance of power has shifted between the municipality (self-government), the state (delegated powers), and the developer. Understanding these nuances is the first step toward successfully pushing through a change.

Continuity and Discontinuity: The Zoning Plan as a Measure of a General Nature

Even under the New Building Act, the zoning plan remains in the legal form of a so-called measure of a general nature (MOGN). This is an absolutely fundamental statement for any legal strategy. A measure of a general nature is neither a legal regulation (a law or decree) nor an individual decision. It is a specific hybrid act that applies to a specifically defined territory (the municipality's cadastral area) but to an indefinite circle of addressees (all owners, future investors, the public).

Two critical consequences for the investor arise from this legal nature:

1. Binding Nature: The zoning plan is a binding basis for decision-making in the territory, especially for issuing project permits. It cannot be deviated from by agreement of the parties, unless the law provides for exceptions.

2. Judicial Review: A classic appeal cannot be filed against a measure of a general nature, but a motion for its annulment can be filed with the regional court (so-called incidental or abstract review). This gives a powerful weapon to opponents (associations, neighbors), but also to the investor if the municipality were to act unlawfully.

Digitalization is another pillar of the change. The new legislation emphasizes the unification of processes and their transfer into digital form. The National Geoportal of Spatial Planning is becoming the central point for the publication and registration of spatial planning documentation. All newly initiated changes must be processed in a uniform standard, which facilitates readability but places higher demands on the technical quality of the proposal.

The Role of Self-Government and State Administration: A Dual Track of Power

Two key entities appear in the process of changing a zoning plan, whose roles and motivations often differ, which the investor must reflect in their strategy:

1. The Municipal Council (Political Will):
The council is the supreme political body of the municipality, which decides within its autonomous competence. It has an absolute "veto right" at the very beginning of the process (the decision to initiate the change) and at its end (issuing the change in the form of an MOGN). The council cannot be forced by a court or administration to approve a zoning plan change unless it conflicts with higher-level documentation or the law.

Their decision-making is primarily political, driven by the interests of voters, the municipality's budget possibilities, and often the subjective preferences of the council members. The council also appoints a so-called "designated council member," who cooperates with the acquirer and forms a bridge between politics and the official process.

2. The Acquirer / Spatial Planning Authority (Professional Legality):
The acquirer is an expert body of the state administration (usually the municipal office of a municipality with extended powers, a city hall, or a regional authority) that manages the process from a formal and legal standpoint. The acquirer ensures that the process complies with the law, that all opinions from affected authorities are obtained, and that the proposal is discussed with the public. However, the acquirer does not decide whether the change will happen – that is within the power of the council.

A successful zoning plan change requires a dual-track strategy. You must have a flawless legal and technical proposal that satisfies the acquirer and the affected authorities (state administration), and at the same time, you must have a convincing, beneficial, and politically viable project for the council (self-government). Underestimating one of these levels leads to failure.

Strategic Preparation Before Submitting the Proposal: Due Diligence and Terrain Analysis

Many development projects fail not in the construction permit phase, but at the very beginning, due to underestimating the preparatory phase before submitting a proposal for a zoning plan change. The "pre-proposal" phase is often more important than the administrative process itself.

Analysis of Ownership Relations and Standing

Not just anyone can submit a proposal to initiate a zoning plan change. The law strictly defines the circle of authorized proposers. According to Section 46 of the NBA (and analogously under previous regulations during the transitional period), this is:

• A public administration body.

• A citizen of the municipality (a natural person with permanent residence).

• A natural or legal person who has ownership or similar rights to land or a building in the municipality's territory.

• An authorized investor (specifically for public infrastructure).

For investors who are still in the process of acquiring land (e.g., through option contracts or preliminary contracts), a critical risk arises. If you are not the owner registered in the Land Registry at the time of submitting the proposal, the authority may reject your proposal for lack of standing.

It is essential to secure procedural standing contractually. Either the current owner must submit the proposal (based on a contractual obligation to the developer), or the developer must be authorized, or they must acquire at least a minority share or another right in rem that establishes standing. The sample forms clearly show the necessity of documenting ownership rights.

Screening the Political and Environmental Terrain (Political & Environmental Due Diligence)

An analysis of case law and practice shows that municipal councils often reject proposals for reasons that appear "populist" or "protectionist." Often, these are concerns about increased traffic, a lack of school places, or the loss of the municipality's character.

Even before submitting the proposal, it is necessary to identify:

• Environmental limits: The presence of protected species, NATURA 2000 sites, flood zones, protection of the agricultural land fund (ALF) of I and II protection classes. If the project conflicts with NATURA 2000, the fast-track procedure for changing the zoning plan is excluded, which extends the process by years.

• Infrastructure limits: A major obstacle can be the insufficient capacity of the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) or water supply. The Supreme Administrative Court has repeatedly confirmed that insufficient public infrastructure capacity is a legitimate reason for declaring a building freeze or rejecting development. If a municipality has no water, a court will not force it to permit the construction of a housing estate.

Even before formally submitting the proposal, initiate informal but structured negotiations with the municipal leadership. Identify the "designated council member" and the mayor. Present the project not as a "request," but as a partnership project. Find out what "troubles" the municipality (a missing sidewalk, kindergarten, park), and consider whether the solution to this problem can be part of your project.

Planning Agreements: A Revolutionary Tool for Building Trust and Infrastructure

One of the most significant innovations that the New Building Act codifies, refines, and expands is planning agreements (Section 130 et seq. of the NBA). For developers, this is a key tool: on the one hand, they represent a financial burden (contributions), but on the other, they provide previously unattainable legal certainty and enforceability of the municipality's obligations.

The Essence of a Planning Agreement and its Public-Law Nature

A planning agreement is a public-law contract between a municipality and a developer (investor). Its purpose is not, as is often mistakenly believed, simply to "collect protection money" for a stamp. The purpose is the transparent, predictable, and timely alignment of public infrastructure needs with a business project.

A fundamental change in the NBA is the explicit establishment of so-called public-law obligations (Section 131 of the NBA). If the agreement contains these obligations and is approved by the council, it becomes directly enforceable, and disputes arising from it are resolved by administrative bodies (regional authorities), not civil courts, which speeds up conflict resolution.

Typology of Obligations: What Can Be the Subject of an Agreement?

The agreement can contain a wide range of mutual performances:

Investor's Obligations:

• To build technical infrastructure (sewerage, water supply, roads) and transfer it to the municipality free of charge.

• To provide a financial contribution for the development of the municipality (investment contribution).

• To create a public space, park, or playground.

• To provide a portion of the housing stock for the municipality's needs (social housing).

Municipality's Obligations:

• To provide cooperation in changing the zoning plan (but beware: the municipality cannot commit to how council members will vote, as this would be void for conflicting with the free exercise of their mandate – see the Šantovka Tower case).

• Not to change the conditions in the territory for a certain period (stabilization of the territory).

• To take over the built infrastructure into its ownership and administration.

• To implement connecting infrastructure from its own resources.

Contribution Methodologies: Prague, Brno, and Transparent Calculation

To avoid suspicion of corruption and unequal treatment, large cities have adopted sophisticated methodologies for calculating investor participation. These methodologies serve as a "price list" for a zoning plan change. For example, Prague uses a Participation Methodology where the calculation is based on Gross Floor Area (GFA). It distinguishes between tariffs, where Tariff T1 (compliance with the zoning plan) is around CZK 700/m² of GFA and Tariff T2 (zoning plan change - appreciation) is approx. CZK 2,300/m² of GFA.

 Brno applies Principles for Cooperation, which set the investment contribution individually according to the type of building and land burden coefficients, with an emphasis on coordination with municipal companies. In the case of smaller municipalities (SMEs), a methodology is often lacking, which leads to ad hoc negotiations about the appreciation of the land, often in the form of building specific infrastructure (e.g., a sidewalk), which increases unpredictability and the risk of unforeseeable demands.

ARROWS Expert Tip: Agreeing to a planning agreement and making a transparent contribution offer is one of the strongest arguments for convincing a hesitant council. It transforms an abstract "developer's profit" into a concrete benefit for the municipal budget. If you propose: "For every meter of an apartment, we will give the municipality CZK 1,000 for a new kindergarten," the debate shifts from "whether to build" to "what the municipality gets for it."

Procedural Steps for a Zoning Plan Change: A Detailed Step-by-Step Guide

The procedure for initiating a zoning plan change is a highly formalized process. The New Building Act introduced the option of a so-called fast-track procedure, which is the most attractive option for investors.

Phase 1: Submitting a Proposal to Initiate a Change (Section 46 of the NBA)

The process begins with the investor's activity. The proposal is submitted to the municipal office for whose territory the plan is being prepared (or electronically via the developer's portal/geoportal, once fully functional).

Content requirements of the proposal:

1. Identification of the proposer: Precise name, ID number, address, proof of ownership rights (extract from the Land Registry).

2. Subject of the change: What specifically do you want to change? (E.g., changing the functional area from "Agricultural Land" to "Mass Housing," changing height regulation, changing the built-up area index). A graphic drawing on a cadastral map must be attached.

3. Reasons for the change: This is the make-or-break point. It is not enough to write "I want to build." You must argue for compliance with the goals of spatial planning, municipal development, and public interest (e.g., "providing housing for a growing population," "development of services").

4. Proposal for cost reimbursement: The investor must explicitly state in the proposal that they undertake to cover the costs of initiating the change.

5. Opinions (for the fast-track procedure): If you are aiming for the fast-track procedure, you must attach to the proposal an opinion from the nature protection authority (Regional Authority) that the change does not affect NATURA 2000, and an opinion from the spatial planning authority that it is not necessary to prepare variants.

If the proposal does not contain all the requirements, the acquirer will ask for it to be supplemented. Inaction leads to the rejection of the proposal without discussion by the council.

Phase 2: Council's Decision on Initiation (Go / No-Go)

This is the first and most important political milestone. The acquirer assesses the proposal and submits it with a recommendation to the municipal council. The council can decide in three ways:

1. Approve the initiation of the change: The process begins via the standard route.

2. Approve initiation via the fast-track procedure: The process is significantly accelerated (see below).

3. Reject the proposal: The council can reject the proposal even without giving complex reasons (e.g., "it is not in the interest of the municipality"). Defense against this resolution is very difficult, practically impossible, unless it involves discrimination. The council can make the initiation conditional on the conclusion of a cost reimbursement agreement or a planning agreement.

Phase 3: Proposal Preparation and Discussion (Standard vs. Fast-Track Procedure)

Here the process splits. It is key for the investor to strive for the fast-track procedure (Section 55a and Section 55b of the original NBA, now Section 111 et seq. of the NBA). The standard procedure requires the preparation and approval of "Terms of Reference."

The fast-track procedure skips this step, as the terms of reference are already part of the proposal for initiation. This saves 3–6 months. Another difference is the work with variants; in the standard process, solution variants can be prepared, while a condition of the fast-track procedure is their absence, which saves months of analysis. 

Joint meetings with affected authorities are often merged or accelerated in the fast-track procedure, saving another 1–2 months. The public hearing remains the same. A significant time saving (6–12 months) also occurs in the SEA (EIA) process, which is not carried out in the fast-track procedure if the nature protection authority agrees.

Critical moments of the proposal phase:

• Selection of the planner: Although the planner (urbanist) is formally selected by the authority or designated by the acquirer, in practice, for changes initiated by an investor, the investor often recommends or directly pays for the planner. It is crucial to have a capable urbanist who can defend the solution before the public.

• Affected authorities: Before the public hearing, the proposal must get "stamps" from hygiene, firefighters, transport, and the environment department. Here the process often gets stuck on technical details (noise studies, dispersion studies).

Phase 4: Public Hearing and Objections

This is the phase of greatest conflict with the public. The proposal is publicly displayed and a public debate takes place.

• Comments: Can be submitted by anyone (even a citizen of another municipality). The council must address them, but does not have to grant them or issue a formal decision on their rejection.

• Objections: Can only be submitted by affected owners (neighbors, owners of land in the concerned area), the authorized investor, and a representative of the public. The council must formally decide on objections (grant/reject/partially grant) and this decision must be justified.

Risk for the investor: The quality of the justification for the decision on objections is the most common target of lawsuits. If the council rejects a neighbor's objection with the words "not granted because we want to build," the court will annul the change for being unreviewable. The justification must be factual, lawful, and proportional.

Phase 5: Issuing the Zoning Plan Change

If the process gets past the objections, the council votes on issuing the change in the form of a Measure of a General Nature (MOGN).

• The change takes effect on the 15th day after the public notice is posted.

• After issuance, it is necessary to prepare a "full version" of the zoning plan (a consolidated version), which is a technical step again paid for by the investor.

Financing the Change: Costs and Fees

When a zoning plan is changed at the investor's initiative, an unwritten but firm rule applies: "Whoever wants a change for their profit pays the costs of the process." It is necessary to distinguish between three categories of costs.

Administrative Fees (Marginal)

According to the schedule of administrative fees (item 120), the fees for submitting a proposal are negligible (in the order of hundreds to thousands of crowns). These amounts do not represent any barrier for the investor.

Acquisition Costs (Substantial)

According to Section 91 and Section 92 of the NBA, the municipality can (and in practice always will) make the initiation of the change conditional on the payment of costs. These costs include:

• Processing of the change by the planner: The fee for an authorized architect for the change proposal and the preparation of the full version. Amounts range from CZK 50,000 (minor changes) to hundreds of thousands or millions of CZK (extensive changes, SEA).

• Map data: Purchase of data from the Land Registry.

• Impact assessment (SEA): If ordered, the costs for the SEA report preparer are borne by the proposer.

• Administrative costs: Some municipalities also charge a flat rate for their administration if the contract allows it.

Cost Reimbursement Agreement:

This agreement is concluded at the beginning of the process. Its key risk is that the obligation to pay the costs is not tied to the outcome. If you pay CZK 200,000 for the planner and the council ultimately does not approve the change (e.g., due to public opposition during the hearing), the money is not returned. The planner did their job, the authority conducted the process. This risk is borne entirely by the investor.

Infrastructure Contributions (Crucial)

This refers to performances from planning agreements. Here we are talking about amounts in the order of millions to tens of millions of crowns, depending on the size of the project and the location (Prague T2 tariff). Although these costs are the highest, they are an investment in the value of the land and relations with the municipality.

Judicial Review and Defense: Lessons from the Šantovka Case and Case Law

Even an approved zoning plan is no guarantee of safety. Opponents of construction can challenge the zoning plan change in administrative court. It is crucial for the investor to know the principles by which courts decide in order to preemptively eliminate weak points.

The Proportionality Test

The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) applies a so-called proportionality test when reviewing MOGNs. It examines whether the interference with rights (e.g., of neighbors or the public interest) was:

1. Suitable: Does it allow the intended goal to be achieved?

2. Necessary: Is there no less intrusive way?

3. Proportionate (in the narrow sense): Is the harm to the rights of the affected persons not disproportionate to the benefit of the change?
   If the court finds that the zoning plan change "steamrolls" the rights of neighbors without sufficient reason, it will annul it.

Specifics for Foreign Investors and FDI Screening

The Czech Republic is an open economy, but in the area of strategic investments, there are regulatory mechanisms that can complicate the process, especially for investors from non-EU countries.

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Screening

Act No. 34/2021 Coll., on the screening of foreign investments, introduced a mechanism for controlling investments that could threaten state security or public order.

Although ordinary residential development is generally not subject to screening, investors should be cautious in these cases:

• Critical infrastructure: If the project includes an energy facility, a data center, or extensive water management infrastructure.

• Proximity to strategic objects: Land near military areas, airports, or objects important for state defense.

• Investor from "third countries": If the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) comes from a non-EU country (e.g., China, Russia, but also the USA or funds from tax havens with an unclear structure), the transaction may be subject to a notification obligation to the Ministry of Industry and Trade. The screening process can take months and, in an extreme case, may lead to the prohibition of the transaction or the imposition of restrictive conditions.

Acquisition of Real Estate

Currently, there are no general restrictions in the Czech Republic on the acquisition of real estate by foreigners (including legal entities with foreign ownership), with the exception of specific sanction lists (e.g., in connection with the war in Ukraine, sanctions against Russia and Belarus). A foreigner has the same rights as a Czech citizen. However, it is necessary to expect stricter checks under AML (Anti-Money Laundering) regulations during financing and registration in the Land Registry.Risk Management

• Standard procedure: 18 to 30 months.

• Fast-track procedure: 9 to 15 months (if no complications arise with the affected authorities).

• Warning: Larger cities (Prague, Brno) have longer processes due to the complexity of discussions in committees and councils.

It cannot directly "force" you from a position of power beyond the statutory fees, but it holds a stronger card: it simply won't approve the zoning plan change. The municipality can argue that without a new WWTP, the zoning plan change would burden the area beyond its capacity (which is a legitimate reason for rejection). In practice, therefore, the investor financing the WWTP (or a share of it) is a necessary condition for the change to be approved. It is a matter of business negotiation about the planning agreement. 

The council has the right to terminate the process at any stage before the change is issued. If this happens, the investor usually loses the costs incurred for the planner. The only protection is a high-quality planning agreement, which, while it cannot forbid council members from voting "against," can stipulate penalties for breaching the obligation of cooperation or compensation for wasted costs if the municipality acts arbitrarily without objective reasons.

You do not have to be the exclusive owner of all the land in the concerned area, but you must prove your right to submit the proposal (ownership of at least a part, or authorization). If you propose a change on others' land without their consent, you risk that these owners will file objections that the council will grant, or that a court will annul the change for disproportionate interference with their rights. Consolidating ownership or consents before submitting the proposal is key.

Conclusion and Recommendations from the ARROWS Law Firm

Changing a zoning plan is one of the most complex processes in construction law, where law, high politics, public opinion, and hard business directly collide. Success in this process is not guaranteed merely by a great architectural design, but primarily by a precise, long-term procedural strategy and the ability to find a sustainable consensus with the municipality.

The New Building Act, despite its initial growing pains and transitional periods, brings clearer rules to the game. The institute of planning agreements with public-law effects opens the door to transparent cooperation. Investors who approach the municipality as an equal partner and offer fair participation in the development of the territory (backed by a clear and enforceable agreement) have a manifold higher chance of success than those who rely on pressure or old lobbying methods.

Key steps for your success:

1. Analysis before action: Do not underestimate the due diligence of the land, infrastructure, and political climate.

2. Contractual certainty: Use planning agreements. Offer the municipality development in exchange for your investment certainty.

3. Procedural discipline: Monitor every step of the acquirer. Every procedural error, every missing justification is ammunition for opponents in court.

Do you need to carry out a zoning plan change, set up relations with a municipality, or check the riskiness of a project? The experts at the ARROWS law firm are ready to help you with a comprehensive legal analysis, negotiation of planning agreements, and representation throughout the entire administrative process. Turn risk into a managed investment.

Don't want to solve this problem alone? The ARROWS law firm is trusted by more than 2,000 clients and we have been awarded as Law Firm of the Year 2024. Take a look at our references HERE and it will be our honor to help you solve your problem. The inquiry is free of charge.