Objecting to overbuilding: the owners' rights

Objecting to overbuilding is the tool by which owners can prevent or stop a construction above the top floor that harms their rights. Article 1127 of the Italian Civil Code grants the other owners the power to object when the overbuilding harms the building's architectural appearance or significantly reduces air and light to the floors below. It is an individual right, belonging to each owner and requiring no decision by the owners' meeting, and it must be exercised on specific grounds.

The grounds for objection

Objection is not a generic power of veto: it rests on the typical grounds set out by law. The first is prejudice to the building's architectural appearance, that is, an appreciable alteration of the lines and style that make up its unitary character. The second is a significant reduction of air or light to the lower floors, affecting the healthiness and livability of the apartments below. Outside these cases, and apart from the separate limit of structural conditions, the right to build above remains full.

An individual right, not the meeting's

Standing to object belongs to the individual owner. No resolution of the meeting is needed, because what is at stake is a subjective right of the lower-floor owner to protect their own unit and the common asset. This means that even a single owner may act, regardless of the others' position, and that any majority approval does not deprive the dissenting owner of the power to assert their prejudice, where the grounds exist.

How to assert the objection

In practice the owner who intends to object can act on several levels. Out of court, they can formally warn the person building, pointing out the prejudice and requesting the suspension or amendment of the project. In court, they can ask the judge to declare the work unlawful and to remove the harmful structures, in addition to any damages. It is good practice to document the state of the premises and the prejudice suffered from the outset.

• gather photographic and technical documentation of the previous state of the premises
• have a technician verify the aesthetic prejudice or the reduction of air and light
• send a formal warning to the person carrying out the works
• consider court action for a declaration and removal of the works
• keep the issue of objection distinct from that of the indemnity, which remains due

Objection and indemnity are different things

The distinction between the right to object and the right to the overbuilding indemnity must be kept firm. Objection aims to block or amend an unlawful overbuilding on aesthetic or health grounds. The indemnity, by contrast, is always due, even for a perfectly lawful overbuilding, as consideration for the exploitation of the air column and of the notional share of common land. An owner who has no grounds to object still keeps the right to receive their share of the indemnity.

The manager's role and conflict prevention

The manager, while not holding the individual right of objection, has a role of information and oversight over the common parts. Promptly reporting to the meeting the start of an overbuilding, gathering technical opinions and coordinating communications helps to prevent disputes or manage them in an orderly way. With a management platform such as AmministraPro the manager can send tracked communications to owners and store technical documentation in an organised way; the features for communications and archiving are described on /funzioni, while plans are on /prezzi.