Protected housing

The Supreme Court (TS) has analyzed a case regarding a specific modification of a metropolitan general plan that aimed to obtain public protection housing (PPH) on consolidated urban land . The discussion focuses on whether urban planning can impose “ceiling” reservations (building rights) for PPH on this type of land when building actions are carried out (e. g. building works), and, if that reduces profitability for the owner, whether compensation should be paid when that burden cannot be “equitably distributed” among owners. The appellant

argued, as a main idea, that these reservations for PPH cannot be required on consolidated urban land because —according to their thesis— the obligation would only be foreseen for VPP reservations cannot be required in consolidated urban land because —according to their thesis— the obligation would be provided only for urbanization actions , not for building actions. And, subsidiarily, it said, if the reservation is still admitted, then it represents a restriction on use or building capacity that, if it cannot be distributed equitably, should be compensated financially. The Superior Court of Justice had already rejected these arguments.

The SC confirms that decision. It explains that the autonomous regulations expanded the reservation of VPP and also allows its application in building actions on consolidated urban land , and recalls that this possibility was endorsed by recognizing a favorable criterion to place VPP on already urbanized land and in new or existing buildings. Additionally, it emphasizes that the real estate property right is not "absolute", but is conditioned by what urban planning dictates, there is no "right to veto " to allocate housing to VPP if the regulation allows it. "that housing is allocated to VPP if the regulation allows it.

Regarding the compensation , the SC indicates that, to claim it, the urbanistic limitation must be singular, exceed legal duties, cannot be distributed equitably, and, in addition, the owner must have actually incorporated the affected right into their assets (an expectation is not enough). In this case, since the reservation affects equally the owners, there is no singular limitation justifying general compensation; it would be necessary to analyze it on a case-by-case basis .

If you have suffered a financial loss that could result in the Administration's liability, our professionals can demand the corresponding responsibilities for the compensation of the damage caused