Practical regulations
Handling changes to common parts by a resident
Every resident may use the common parts of a building, but not without limits. Article 1102 of the Italian Civil Code draws the line between legitimate use and abuse: a resident may modify a common asset at their own expense to enjoy it better, provided the intended purpose is not altered and other residents are not prevented from making equal use of it. Distinguishing a lawful modification from an innovation that requires an assembly resolution is the most common source of disputes in Italian condominiums. This guide explains the concrete limits, the role of architectural decorum, when prior authorization is needed, what restoration entails, and how the property manager should handle a request before it turns into a dispute.
Article 1102 and the limits of individual use
Article 1102 of the Italian Civil Code allows each resident to use the common asset, provided its intended purpose is not altered and other co-owners are not prevented from using it according to their own right. This is the rule that permits, for instance, installing an awning on one's own balcony, opening a door on a shared wall to access an exclusively owned room, or placing a flue on the shared courtyard, as long as no harm is caused to others.
The key point is that the modification must be carried out at the expense of the resident requesting it, and it must not result in exclusive or excluding use of the common asset. If the intervention reduces, even partially, the ability of other residents to use the same common part according to its original purpose, it exceeds the powers of an individual owner and requires the assembly's consent.
- More intensive or convenient use of the common asset: allowed if the purpose is unchanged
- Exclusive occupation or taking space away from others: not allowed without a resolution
- Costs of the intervention always borne by the resident making the change
- Equal use by other residents must be preserved even in potential terms, not only in actual exercise
Architectural decorum as an independent limit
Even when a modification complies with Article 1102 from a functional standpoint, it may still be prohibited if it alters the building's architectural decorum, that is, the overall aesthetic resulting from the lines and structures that characterize the property. Italian case law treats decorum as an independent common asset, protectable regardless of whether the modification causes practical harm to other residents.
No radical alteration is needed: an appreciable impairment of the building's appearance is enough, assessed against the specific context (a historic city center protects decorum more strictly than an anonymous outlying building). Verandas, conspicuous awnings, visible air conditioning units on the main facade, and mismatched window frames are the most common disputes on this front.
When prior authorization from the assembly is needed
There is no general obligation to seek permission for every modification to common parts that falls within the limits of Article 1102: a resident may act on their own initiative. However, it is common practice, and often required by a contractual condominium regulation, to request prior notice or formal authorization for interventions visible from outside or affecting shared systems (facade, roof, courtyard, stairwell).
- Interventions affecting decorum: worth submitting to the assembly even without an explicit obligation, to prevent challenges
- Work on shared systems (drainage, riser pipes, the building's electrical system): always requires coordination with the property manager
- A contractual condominium regulation can impose stricter limits than Article 1102, and in that case it prevails
- True innovations (which change the essence of the common asset, Article 1120): always require a qualified majority in assembly, not individual initiative
Restoration and consequences of an unlawful modification
If a modification exceeds the limits of Article 1102 or harms architectural decorum, other residents or the property manager, acting on the assembly's mandate, can take legal action to obtain restoration of the premises at the expense of whoever carried out the unauthorized work. The action does not become time barred as long as the violation persists, because it constitutes an ongoing infringement of the co ownership rights of the other residents.
For the property manager, correct practice means documenting the unauthorized intervention with photographs and minutes, informing the assembly promptly, and assessing, before any legal action, whether there is room for a subsequent resolution to regularize it. Organized management of communications and resolutions, with software such as AmministraPro, helps track who communicated what and when, an element that is often decisive in a dispute.
Frequently asked questions
Can a resident install an awning on their own balcony without asking permission?
Generally yes, because it falls within the use of their own unit and does not affect the common part in a way that alters its purpose. The limit is architectural decorum: if the awning is visible from the main facade and differs in color or shape from the others, it can be challenged even without causing practical harm to other residents. Checking the condominium regulation before proceeding is still prudent.
Who decides whether a modification alters the building's architectural decorum?
Initially it is an assessment the property manager and the assembly can make preventively, but in case of a dispute the final word belongs to the judge, who evaluates the building's context, the visibility of the intervention, and its impact on the overall architecture case by case. There is no numeric threshold: it is a factual judgment based on expert reports and photographs.
What happens if a resident carried out an unauthorized modification years ago?
The passage of time does not automatically cure the violation, because the action for restoration due to impaired decorum or exceeding the limits of Article 1102 is considered not subject to a statute of limitations as long as the harmful situation continues. It is different if the assembly later approved the intervention with a resolution, which can have a curative effect going forward.
Can the property manager authorize a change to common parts on their own?
No, the property manager does not have the authority to independently authorize interventions that exceed ordinary administration or affect decorum: the request must be brought to the assembly. They can, however, receive the resident's prior notice, check compliance with the regulation, and prepare the item for the next meeting, keeping a formal record of the request and the resulting decision.
Can management software help track these modification requests?
Yes. Recording communications, photographic attachments, and resolutions related to a modification request in a structured way reduces the risk of future disputes over who knew what and when. AmministraPro allows communications and minutes linked to a building to be archived in an organized way, making it easier to reconstruct the history of a request in case of a dispute.
Try AmministraPro
Accounting, thousandths-based cost splitting, meetings, communications and artificial intelligence in a single Italian software, compliant with UNI 10801 and GDPR.