Pets in Italian Condominiums: What the Bylaws Can and Cannot Ban

The question of pets in condominiums is one of the most emotionally charged issues for owners and one of the trickiest for property managers to handle, because it touches on each owner's right to enjoy their home as they see fit while also protecting orderly cohabitation with the other residents. Italian lawmakers took a clear stance on one specific point, but that does not mean the topic is left unregulated: condominium bylaws can still intervene, within well defined limits.

The absolute ban under Article 1138 of the Civil Code

The final paragraph of Article 1138 of the Civil Code states unambiguously that condominium bylaws cannot prohibit owning or keeping pets. This provision was introduced with the 2012 condominium reform precisely to put an end to widespread litigation, in which many assembly bylaws contained clauses generically banning dogs, cats or other animals from residential units. Today, a clause of this kind, if included in bylaws of an assembly nature, is simply void and produces no effect, regardless of the majority with which it was approved.

Why contractual bylaws are the exception

The ban set out in Article 1138 expressly concerns bylaws of an assembly nature, meaning those approved by owners with ordinary majorities. Prevailing case law holds that contractual bylaws, drafted by the developer and accepted by every buyer in their respective deeds, or approved unanimously, may instead include such a ban, as an expression of the parties' contractual freedom, since they voluntarily accepted that restriction at the time of purchase. This is nonetheless a less common scenario in recent practice, precisely because the topic is now treated as sensitive from the earliest drafting stage of the bylaws.

Legitimate limits tied to decorum and hygiene

While owning a pet cannot be banned outright, its behavior and its consequences for condominium life can still be regulated. The bylaws may, for example, require pets to be kept on a leash in common areas, restrict their access to certain spaces such as shared gardens or swimming pools, and require owners to clean up after them. Provisions aimed at protecting the decorum of common areas and the hygiene of shared spaces are also lawful, as long as they do not amount to a disguised ban on keeping the animal.

Noise and disturbing emissions

One aspect that frequently causes complaints concerns noise produced by pets, particularly prolonged barking, which can constitute a relevant noise emission under Article 844 of the Civil Code when it exceeds the threshold of normal tolerability. In such cases, no preventive ban on owning the animal applies; instead, the ordinary remedies for disturbing emissions come into play, assessed case by case with reference to timing, frequency and intensity of the disturbance. The bylaws can usefully restate the general duty not to disturb others, without turning it into an absolute ban on keeping pets.

Pets and common areas: elevators, stairs and gardens

Another area frequently subject to regulation concerns pets' use of common areas. It is lawful, for instance, to require large dogs to use the stairs rather than the elevator during peak hours, or to limit access to shared green spaces with children's play equipment or make it subject to certain precautions. Here too the rule must serve the purpose of orderly cohabitation and cannot become so restrictive that it effectively makes normal pet ownership impossible for the owner.

The property manager's role in resolving conflicts

When disputes arise over the presence of pets, the property manager is often the first point of contact called upon to mediate between the parties. It is advisable to first check the nature of the bylaws in force, distinguishing between valid clauses and those that are void for conflicting with Article 1138, and to steer the discussion toward legitimate regulatory solutions, such as access hours for common areas or cleanliness obligations, avoiding assembly resolutions that would reintroduce, in another form, a ban that no longer has any legal basis.

What to do about clauses already in the bylaws

In buildings where the bylaws predate the 2012 reform and still contain a generic ban on keeping pets, it is useful for the property manager to point out to owners that the clause is no longer effective, and to suggest a formal update of the text at the next suitable assembly. This avoids interpretive uncertainty and reduces the risk that the obsolete clause is improperly invoked in the future.

Keeping an up to date record of the bylaws text, any amendments, and reports received from owners is a task that a good management software greatly simplifies. AmministraPro offers property managers tools designed specifically for this kind of document management: the features page describes the available options in detail, while the pricing section lists the plans suited to every administration firm.