Removal of Unauthorised Structures and Landscaping Works

A New Era in Construction Law: Why is an “Illegal Structure” a Ticking Time Bomb for Your Company?

Under the new Building Act (Act No. 283/2021 Coll.), an unauthorised, or colloquially “illegal,” structure is any construction carried out without the necessary permit from the building authority, in violation of such a permit, or in conflict with valid land-use planning documentation.

It is important to realise that this issue extends far beyond entire buildings. The problem can also concern seemingly minor things, such as unauthorised extensions, additions, changes of use, landscaping, paved areas, and even products that function as structures, like mobile homes or advertising pylons. For your company, this could mean an unpermitted warehouse, an expanded car park, or a fence built in violation of regulations.

It is also necessary to distinguish between an unauthorised structure (a public law issue handled by the building authority) and an unlawful structure, which is built on someone else's land and is primarily addressed through private law under the Civil Code. This article focuses on the public law aspects and the defence against actions taken by the building authority.

The new Building Act introduces a significant tightening of the rules. The former practice, where subsequent legalisation was almost the rule and demolition the exception, is now being reversed. The authority's default first step is now to order the removal of the structure, and its subsequent legalisation is possible only if very strict conditions are met. The legislator's aim is to streamline the entire process of detecting and removing unauthorised structures, signalling a much more proactive approach from the authorities, where one can no longer rely on the hope that "no one will notice."

One of the most serious facts is that the obligation to have a structure properly permitted is not subject to a statute of limitations. The building authority is obliged to initiate proceedings for the removal of a structure as soon as it discovers its existence, regardless of whether it was built a year ago or thirty years ago. 

This latent risk can be unexpectedly activated at the least opportune moment—for example, during a due diligence check before a company sale, when applying for a bank loan where the bank inspects the collateral, or based on a tip-off from a competitor. A problem that has been "dormant" for decades can thus become an acute threat, blocking a key business transaction or triggering unexpected and potentially ruinous costs.

How do proceedings for the removal of a structure work?

Once the problem with an unauthorised structure becomes official, you find yourself in a process where every step and every deadline is of crucial importance. Understanding this process is the first prerequisite for a successful defence.

The building authority initiates proceedings for the removal of a structure ex officio (on its own initiative) as soon as it reliably discovers the existence of an unauthorised structure. This is not a matter of choice but a legal obligation (cf. judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 24 June 2021, file no. 7 As 108/2021-54). The impetus for this discovery can be:

• The authority's own inspection activities (e.g., a site inspection).

• Comparison of data from the Land Register with an orthophoto map.

• A report from a third party (typically a neighbour, but it could be anyone).

The proceedings themselves are formally initiated on the day the building authority delivers the notice of commencement of proceedings to all known parties. This moment is absolutely crucial, as it marks the start of binding procedural deadlines.

The circle of parties is precisely defined and primarily includes:

• The owner of the structure and the builder (if not the same person).

• The owner of the land on which the structure stands.

• The owners of adjacent land and structures whose ownership or other real rights may be directly affected by the decision.

Correctly defining the circle of parties is a fundamental procedural condition. In practice, the situation can be complicated because the law defines the parties slightly differently for the removal proceedings themselves and for the subsequent proceedings for a permit. The authority's failure to include even a single party constitutes a procedural defect that can be effectively challenged as part of the defence.

From the moment the notice is delivered, it is essential to act quickly and strategically. Any delays or unprofessional steps can have irreversible consequences. We strongly advise against underestimating the situation and recommend seeking specialised legal assistance immediately.

The ARROWS team offers a service of representation in proceedings before building authorities, where we will handle all communication with the authority, analyse the situation, and ensure the protection of your rights from day one. Contact us at consultation@arws.cz for an immediate consultation.

Why is applying for a subsequent permit a key step in your defence?

In the entire process of defending against a demolition order, there is one single moment that decides everything. It is the submission of an application for a subsequent permit for the structure. Missing this opportunity means an almost certain end for your building.

In the notice of commencement of proceedings for the removal of a structure, the building authority must inform you of the possibility to apply for a subsequent permit. You have a strict and non-extendable deadline of 30 days from the date of commencement of the proceedings to submit this application.

If you fail to submit the application within this 30-day period, the possibility of subsequently permitting the structure is definitively and irrevocably lost. The building authority then has no choice but to issue a decision ordering the removal of the structure without further examination (cf. judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 24 June 2021, file no. 7 As 108/2021-54).

Furthermore, the new Building Act introduces another crucial tightening of the rules: if your application for a subsequent permit is rejected with final effect, it cannot be submitted again. There are no second chances. The combination of a short deadline and the impossibility of re-application transforms this step from a mere administrative act into a single, decisive strategic manoeuvre. There is no room for errors, incomplete documentation, or poorly formulated arguments. 

The application must be perfect and complete from the very beginning, as all documentation required for a brand-new building permit must be gathered within these 30 days. By submitting a flawless and complete application for a subsequent permit in time, you achieve a key objective: the proceedings for the removal of the structure are obligatorily suspended, and the building authority begins to fully focus on your application for legalisation. This not only buys you time but, more importantly, gives you the space for a substantive defence and to prove that your structure meets all legal requirements.

Given the time pressure and the complexity of the required documents, the assistance of a legal expert is essential. ARROWS will prepare the complete documentation for the subsequent permit proceedings for you, including securing the necessary opinions and expert reports, so that you do not miss this crucial deadline. Contact us at consultation@arws.cz.

Substantive Defence: What Strict Conditions Must You Meet to Save the Structure?

If you have successfully submitted an application for a subsequent permit, the proceedings move to the substantive level. Now you must convince the building authority that your structure meets all the legal, so-called substantive conditions for legalisation. This is where the fate of your investment is decided.

The builder must prove that the structure meets the general conditions for permitting projects under Section 193 of the new Building Act, which in practice means that it is consistent with the public interest and all relevant regulations. In addition, however, it must also meet specific, stricter conditions for a subsequent permit:

1. Compliance with land-use planning documentation: The structure must be in accordance with the valid zoning plan of the municipality. For example, if you have built a warehouse in an area designated for greenery, the chance of legalisation is practically zero. This is the most common and most difficult obstacle to overcome.

2. Prohibition of exemptions from other regulations: The structure must not require a decision granting an exemption from prohibitions established by other legal regulations. This typically concerns regulations on nature and landscape protection (e.g., construction in a protected landscape area), protection of water resources, or heritage preservation.

3. Prohibition of exemptions from construction requirements: The structure must not require an exemption from the general requirements for construction. This relates to, for example, minimum setback distances from neighbouring plots and buildings, sunlight parameters, the number of parking spaces, and other technical standards.

This point represents a fundamental change and tightening of the rules. Previously, it was possible to apply for these exemptions; now it is excluded. The only small exception concerns requirements for the siting of structures, where an exemption can be granted if the builder provides the written consent of all affected neighbours. However, this gives neighbours enormous bargaining power—they can effectively block legalisation or demand financial compensation for their consent.

4. Payment of the imposed fine: The last, but no less important, condition is that the builder must pay the fine for the administrative offence, if one was imposed in parallel offence proceedings. It is therefore not possible to wait for the outcome of the permit proceedings and postpone payment of the fine.

Procedural Defence: Can You Overturn the Proceedings Despite Formal Shortcomings?

Even in a situation where meeting the substantive conditions seems difficult, all is not lost. Administrative proceedings are a formalised process with strict rules, and if the building authority violates them, it opens up space for an effective procedural defence. The key to success is to rely on the established case law of the Supreme Administrative Court (NSS).

It is absolutely essential to understand that the case law of the NSS strictly distinguishes between proceedings for the removal of a structure and proceedings for a subsequent permit. Although they are procedurally linked, they are two separate procedures with different purposes (cf. judgment of the NSS of 6 September 2024, file no. 7 As 188/2024-23). This implies the need to use the right arguments at the right stage of the proceedings:

• In the proceedings for a subsequent permit, all substantive legal arguments are applied: you prove compliance with the zoning plan, technical standards, public interest, and other conditions under Section 256 of the new Building Act.

• In the proceedings for the removal of the structure (which continue after the rejection of the application for a subsequent permit), these arguments are already irrelevant. Here, one can only argue that the structure is not unauthorised (e.g., it was permitted, but the documents have not been preserved) or that it has already been subsequently permitted. The courts consistently rule that at this stage, neither the authority nor the court considers whether the structure complies with the zoning plan.

Many owners make the mistake of arguing substantive reasons in their appeal against a demolition order, which belong in the proceedings for a subsequent permit. Such an appeal is doomed to failure. A successful strategy requires precise timing and targeting of arguments, which is the know-how that the specialised Czech legal team at ARROWS brings to you.

As part of our procedural defence, we focus on the errors of the building authority. The most common include:

• Incorrectly defining the circle of parties to the proceedings.

• Insufficiently established facts of the case (the authority did not obtain all necessary documents).

• Unreviewability of the decision due to a lack of reasoning or internal inconsistency.

• Violation of a party's right to inspect the file or to comment on the evidence before the decision is issued.

• Bias of an official.

Identifying such a defect can lead to the annulment of the decision in appeal proceedings or in subsequent proceedings before an administrative court, and the case being returned for a new hearing. The ARROWS team will prepare a comprehensive legal opinion for you, which will analyse the entire course of the proceedings, identify any errors by the building authority, and propose an optimal strategy for an appeal or administrative action. Discuss your specific situation with us at consultation@arws.cz.

Financial and Reputational Risks: What is Really at Stake if Legalisation Fails?

If the structure cannot be subsequently permitted, the consequences for your company can be devastating. It is not just about the loss of the structure itself, but a cascade of financial, operational, and reputational risks.

• High fines: The new Building Act has significantly increased the rates of fines for administrative offences. For constructing a building without a permit or in violation of one, the fine can be up to CZK 2,000,000. If the structure is located in a specially protected area, a protection zone, or on non-developable land, the penalty can reach up to CZK 4,000,000.

• Demolition costs: The owner of the structure is obliged to pay all costs associated with its removal. For a smaller structure, this can be hundreds of thousands of crowns; for commercial and industrial buildings, the costs can easily climb into the millions.

• Enforcement of the decision (execution): The previous reluctance of municipalities to enforce demolition costs is a thing of the past. Now, financing and enforcement are taken over by the state, which has much more effective tools. If the owner does not carry out the demolition themselves and does not pay the costs, the state will ensure the enforcement of the decision and will recover the costs, including through execution against the company's assets.

Cross-Border Development and Investment: How We Address Issues with an International Element

Problems with unauthorised structures do not only affect local companies. Foreign investors and developers entering the Czech market may unknowingly acquire a property with a hidden legal defect in the form of an illegal structure, which can seriously jeopardise their investment plan.

Thanks to our ARROWS International network, built over ten years, we have extensive experience in resolving legal issues with an international element. On a daily basis, we assist foreign clients in navigating the specific environment of Czech construction law and help them protect their investments.

We provide comprehensive legal advice for foreign investors, including in-depth property due diligence before acquisition, representation before Czech authorities, and explaining all risks in the context of their international business.

Why Entrust Your Defence to ARROWS?

Proceedings for the removal of a structure are a complex and high-risk process where any mistake can mean the loss of an entire investment. Our experience working for a portfolio of more than 150 joint-stock companies, 250 limited liability companies, and 51 municipalities and regions gives us a unique overview and the ability to anticipate the steps of the opposing party and the authorities.

At ARROWS, we do not just provide partial advice. We offer a comprehensive strategy that combines both substantive and procedural defence. We analyse your case in depth, prepare flawless documentation, represent you at all hearings, and, if necessary, will uncompromisingly defend your rights before the administrative courts.