Legal opinion on a property’s planning status

It must be clarified whether the objective is purchase, construction, extension, change of use, legalisation or authorisation of an activity. The same plot may have different risks depending on the project.

The minimum documents include the title, Land Register extract, cadastral plan, available planning certificate and project details. A technical conclusion may require an architect, cadastral surveyor, technical expert or other specialists.

• land use and permitted uses;
• site coverage ratio (POT), floor area ratio (CUT), height limits and setbacks;
• access, utilities and easements;
• protected areas and special approvals;
• planning documentation in force or in preparation.

Plans and regulations are read together with their approval decisions and validity periods. Information from an online map does not replace the official document or resolve inconsistencies.

The need for new planning documentation, possibility of derogation and approval procedure depend on the legal framework and local situation. The opinion must distinguish existing rights from matters dependent on future approval.

The planning certificate communicates the regime and list of approvals for the requested purpose; it does not grant the right to carry out works. The permit is obtained based on the required documentation and approvals, under statutory conditions.

Acceptance, registration of the building and any existing non-compliance must be analysed separately. Buying a property does not automatically regularise works carried out without the necessary documents.

The opinion should separate confirmed conclusions, reasonable interpretations and matters dependent on the authority or missing documents. Every risk needs an impact, likelihood and measure: a pre-acquisition condition, clarification request, redesign or withdrawal.

For investments, conclusions align with the preliminary contract and closing conditions. If the project depends on future approval, the price and risk must not be treated as though the right to build already exists.