In today's article from the series "Tuesday Mornings for Construction," we examine the latest interpretation published by the General Office of Building Control (GUNB) in its series "Interesting Interpretations of GUNB." This time, the topic concerns a practical issue that arises when investing near planned public roads: can a building's proximity to a planned road lead to the invalidation of a building permit?
The starting point was the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 December 2025, file reference II OSK 1567/23, in which the court referred to the relationship between the location of the building and the course of the road provided for in the local spatial development plan ("MPZP").
Dispute over the location of the building
The case concerned a building permit for a single-family house issued in 2012. The investment was carried out in an area covered by a local spatial development plan, which also provided for the route of a future public road.
The neighbors questioned the legality of the building permit, pointing out that the building was partially located in an area designated for a planned road. In their opinion, this prevented the road from being constructed in accordance with the local development plan, and thus constituted a flagrant violation of the law, justifying the invalidation of the building permit.
However, the construction supervision authorities disagreed with this position. They pointed out that the building was located primarily in an area designated for single-family housing, but the possibility of constructing a road had not been ruled out.
NSA: The distance refers to the building, not the road
In considering the case, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that an analysis of the documentation indeed indicated certain discrepancies in the building's location relative to the planned road. The court even found that the building was constructed, to a limited extent, on land designated for the road – specifically, on the part designated for the roadside.
However, this did not automatically mean that the decision on the building permit was issued in gross violation of the law.
Assessing the impact of this location was crucial. The Supreme Administrative Court emphasized that despite the building's proximity, the road's construction was still possible. The court also pointed out a very important practical principle: "It is the newly designed building that should be set back from the road by a specified distance, not the road from the building."
This means that the regulations specify the minimum distance for locating a building in relation to the road, but do not impose the obligation to "move" the planned road away from existing buildings.
In practice, even a faulty or risky location of a building does not necessarily prevent the subsequent construction of a public road in accordance with the local spatial development plan.
Not every violation means that the decision is invalid
The Supreme Administrative Court also recalled that the invalidation of an administrative decision is a unique institution. In order to eliminate a decision from legal proceedings, it is necessary to demonstrate a so-called flagrant violation of the law.
Not every violation will be of this nature. The violation must be obvious, qualified, and lead to unacceptable consequences in a state governed by the rule of law.
However, the risk remains with the investor
The Supreme Administrative Court's ruling also has significant practical implications for investors. The court clearly stated that anyone deciding to construct a building very close to a planned road must consider the consequences of such a location.
If the road is built in the future in accordance with the local plan, the property owner will be obliged to endure the associated inconveniences, such as increased noise, vehicle traffic and deterioration of the comfort of using the property.
Summary
The case in question and the judgment demonstrate that the mere proximity of a building to a planned public road does not necessarily mean that the project is inconsistent with the local spatial development plan or that the building permit must be revoked. The key factor is whether the road is still feasible.
This is an important signal for investors and developers that MPZP analysis should encompass not only current land use but also future infrastructure investments planned in the local plan. Even if a project formally obtains a building permit, its location may pose significant practical constraints in the future.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal status as of May 29, 2026.
Author / Editor of the series:
