New building law and permit conditions:

Imagine that you finally obtain the long-awaited building permit for your development project – and then you discover that it contains a whole range of conditions. Some make sense, others leave you feeling uncertain. The new building law (Act No. 283/2021 Coll., effective from mid-2023) has changed the building permit process, but the authority of building authorities to set conditions remains key. For developers, misunderstood or unreasonable conditions can mean frustration, construction delays, and significant financial losses. In this article, we will therefore explain in clear terms what types of conditions the building authority can set in a permit, what the limits of its powers are, and what to do if the authority demands more than the law allows. The aim is to provide practical advice, boost your confidence, and encourage you to consult a lawyer in good time so that your dream project does not turn into a legal nightmare.

Author of the article: Mgr. Karel Huneš, ARROWS (office@arws.cz, +420 245 007 740),

What conditions can the building authority impose?

A building permit is not just a dry “Yes, you can build.” It is a complex decision that, in addition to the permit itself, also contains a set of conditions for the construction. According to the law (formerly Section 115(1) of the old Building Act), the building authority sets out the conditions for the construction and, where applicable, for its use, and these conditions ensure the protection of public interests. In other words, the authority allows you to build, but at the same time sets the rules of the game to ensure that the building is safe, technically compliant, and respects its surroundings.

Typical conditions relate to several areas:

Technical and safety requirements during construction:

The authority may impose conditions to ensure that the construction site does not endanger the surrounding area (e.g., securing excavations, limiting dust or noise, protecting trees in the vicinity, etc.). It also sets out the obligation to comply with specific technical standards and procedures in accordance with the project documentation and binding opinions of the relevant authorities (fire brigade, health authorities, monument conservationists, etc.) to ensure that everything is carried out in accordance with the regulations. For example, it may specify at which stages you must consult a structural engineer or that you must allow archaeologists to supervise the earthworks.

Deadlines and organization of construction:

Normally, the building authority sets a deadline for the start and completion of construction. The new law has introduced a certain simplification here—the permit generally expires if construction does not begin within a certain period of time, and after construction begins, the permit is valid for up to 10 years. However, authorities often add an indicative deadline for completion of construction. This is to prevent unfinished projects from lying idle for many years. The permit may also contain organizational instructions, such as that the construction must be carried out continuously and without unnecessary delays. If you are building on your own (which is not common in development projects), the authority will also appoint a qualified person to supervise the construction.

Specific requirements for the appearance and connection of the building:

In justified cases, the building authority may also impose more detailed conditions. For example, it may impose specific aesthetic or urban planning requirements, typically modifications to the facade, choice of plaster color, or roof shape, if this has been recommended by architects or conservationists. It also often sets conditions for transport connections: it may order the construction of a certain type of exit ramp, the installation of temporary traffic signs during construction, etc. These conditions ensure that the building is properly integrated into its surroundings and does not jeopardize the flow of traffic.

Conditions for future use of the building:

In addition to the conditions for “how to build,” the authority may also specify “operational” conditions before you receive a final building approval (approval for use). For example, in the case of noisy operations, it may be necessary to carry out noise measurements before final approval and submit the results to the health authority. For large complexes, the authority sometimes requires trial operation – i.e., that you use the building in trial mode for a certain period of time and monitor, for example, emissions, traffic load, etc. Again, this is all done to protect public interests such as human health, the environment, and traffic flow.

These conditions are not arbitrary: they are based on documentation from expert bodies and standards. The new Building Act has even introduced a rule that many specialists no longer issue separate opinions but formulate their part of the decision directly, i.e., the relevant conditions of the permit falling within their competence. Ideally, the building authority thus acts as a coordinator, incorporating the conditions from the relevant authorities into the permit and adding its own requirements as required by law.

Summary: Expect the building permit to contain a number of specific instructions on when, what, and how to do things during construction. These are intended to protect the public interest and ensure that your project complies with the law. For developers, these conditions are a de facto checklist that must be followed from the start of construction to the final approval.

Where are the limits of the authority's powers?

However, the building authority cannot impose anything. Its powers are limited by law – the authority may only impose conditions that are supported by legal regulations and relate to the construction being permitted. It is essential to know the limits here, because sometimes the authority (knowingly or unknowingly) goes too far in its requirements.

1. Conditions must serve to protect legitimate public interests. The authority may not impose anything that is not related to the project or does not represent a legitimate public interest. For example, it cannot require the investor to perform something that is in fact outside the scope of the Building Act – typically financial contributions to the municipality, donations, or other investments not directly related to the construction. The building permit should not include the assessment of a fee (e.g., administrative or local) or make the permit conditional on the conclusion of a contract with the municipality. Such requirements are beyond the authority of the building authority. If the municipality needs a contribution from the developer for infrastructure (kindergarten, park, etc.), this should be dealt with in a separate planning agreement, not through the conditions of the permit – the building authority has no legal authority to do so.

2. Conditions must not conflict with other decisions and regulations. The authority cannot use conditions to change what has already been approved in the zoning decision or require something that conflicts with the binding opinions of the authorities concerned. For example, if the zoning decision specified a certain connection to the road, the building permit cannot “override” this with a different condition. Similarly, it cannot ignore a binding opinion – if the health authorities allow operation without air conditioning, the authority cannot impose the opposite. However, it may, of course, adopt and specify the conditions proposed by the authorities concerned. The limitation is that the building authority is not a superior authority for specialized requirements – it is a coordinator, not a dictator in matters outside its expertise. On the contrary, the building authority is bound by the content of binding opinions and may not deviate from them.

3. Conditions must be specific, feasible, and understandable. Vague or ambiguous conditions are problematic – if you do not understand them, neither will the officials be able to check them during the final inspection. For example, stating that you must “minimize dust as much as possible” is not specific. The condition must say how to achieve this (e.g., regular watering of the construction site). Unclear conditions may even be considered illegal because they are unenforceable and unverifiable. In practice, a court has actually overturned a decision because of a condition that was so vaguely worded that it was unclear what exactly the builder was required to comply with. As a developer, you have the right to request clarification, and the authority has a duty to formulate conditions unambiguously.

4. The authority cannot circumvent the law through conditions. Sometimes there may be a suspicion that an official is using conditions to achieve something that the law does not directly allow. Example: if the law does not expressly specify a deadline for completion of construction, the authority should not arbitrarily shorten it to an unreasonably short period. (Historically, decrees set a two-year deadline, but the courts pointed out that the law did not give such authority. The new law now says: start construction within two years and you have up to ten years to complete it after commencement. If the authority required completion within two years for a large complex without legal support, it would be exceeding its powers. Such a condition could be challenged on the grounds of illegality. In general, permit conditions cannot replace penalties or transfer responsibility to the builder for broader problems in the area unless there is a legal reason to do so.

Contact our experts:

When the authorities go too far: a case study from practice

Let's look at a specific scenario that occurred recently and show how a developer can defend itself. Developer XYZ applied for a building permit for a residential complex in one of the city's districts. The building authority made the permit conditional on the developer building a public playground and park on adjacent municipal land at its own expense. This requirement was not part of the original project—it arose from pressure from the local government, which wanted to improve civic amenities in the area. The developer initially agreed because it did not want to delay the permit process. However, lawyers warned him of the risks of such a “gift.”

It is not just a matter of additional costs in the millions of crowns. The main problem is that such a condition is beyond the authority of the building authority and potentially illegal. In the case described, there was even a risk of what the courts had already pointed out in the past: if a municipal district accepts such a gift from a developer, the building authority of the same municipal district may be considered biased when granting a building permit. Opponents of the project could argue in court that the authority was not impartial (because the town hall acquired the park) and have the entire permit revoked. This is not theory – the practice of “something for something” has already led to the revocation of zoning and building permits, and developers need to be aware of this. In our case, therefore, legal representatives recommended not signing any agreement on the construction of the park as a condition of the permit, as this would jeopardize the entire project.

The developer ultimately filed an appeal against the building permit in the part concerning the disputed condition. The superior building authority (according to the new system, either the regional or the Specialized and Appeal Building Authority) reviewed whether the requirement to build a park was lawful. It concluded that it was not – such a condition has no basis in the Building Act or any other regulation and is not directly related to the building project itself. It therefore revoked the condition and confirmed the building permit without it. The result? The developer not only avoided additional expenses, but also prevented the possible annulment of the entire permit due to the authority's bias. The case also showed other investors that it makes sense to defend oneself when official requirements exceed the legal limits.

This case study illustrates that even in current practice, there are situations where building authorities (often in agreement with local government) set conditions that are at the limit or beyond their powers. Developers who are unsure about the legality of requirements should not hesitate to engage lawyers and seek defense through legal remedies.

Every month of project delay or every million spent on “extras” can have a significant impact on the business plan – and often unnecessarily.

Practical tips for developers: how to deal with conditions in the building permit process

Based on the above, here is some practical advice to help you, as a developer, navigate the conditions of a building permit without any problems:

• Involve a lawyer as early as the project preparation and application stage. A qualified legal audit of the project documentation prior to submitting the application will reveal potentially contentious requirements before they become “set in stone” in the permit. A lawyer will also ensure that the proposed solution complies with all regulations, thereby preventing a situation where the authorities impose additional strict conditions because something was not in order.
• Carefully read each decision and its conditions. Once you receive the building permit, study the decision and the reasons for it in detail. If you do not understand any condition or if it seems unreasonable, consult a lawyer or designer immediately. Do not downplay “strange” wording—what is vague to you will also be vague to the inspection authorities (and that is a problem). If you have any doubts, ask for an explanation or modification of the condition.
• Use remedies in a timely manner. The Building Act allows you to defend yourself against conditions, most often in the form of an appeal within 15 days of receiving the decision. The appeal authority may change or cancel the disputed condition without jeopardizing the entire permit. Don't worry about “upsetting” the authorities – this is a standard process. It would be worse to passively accept an illegal condition and then fight it during construction. In extreme cases (if the appeal does not help), it is also possible to defend yourself in court.
• Document the fulfillment of conditions. Take the conditions that remain in the permit seriously. Create an internal checklist of who will do what and when. Keep a careful construction log – record how you fulfilled individual obligations (securing the construction site, noise measurements, tests, etc.). During the final inspection, you will have to prove that you have complied with all conditions, and well-kept documentation will save you time and nerves.
• Communicate proactively with the authorities. If you encounter an obstacle in fulfilling a condition (e.g., a supplier is behind schedule or an objective problem has arisen), let the building authority know in a timely manner. You can request a change to the construction before completion or an extension of the deadlines if you have valid reasons. Ignoring a condition and “hoping it will pass” is a recipe for trouble—the authorities will notice this during the final inspection or audit, and you may face penalties. Open communication and, if necessary, requesting a modification of the decision is a better approach.

Conclusion: Don't underestimate the legal side and protect your investment

A building permit with its conditions is a milestone for any development project. It can pave the way for smooth implementation – or become a source of delays and disputes if it contains ambiguities or illegal requirements. As developers, you are under pressure from deadlines and budgets, but that is precisely why it does not pay to underestimate the legal aspects of the matter. In extreme cases, a single disputed condition can jeopardize the entire permit and cause additional costs or losses (for example, if a court revokes the permit due to a procedural error at the instigation of a competitor).

The good news is that with quality legal advice, most problems can be avoided. A lawyer knowledgeable in construction law will help you set up your project so that the authorities have no reason to impose excessive conditions and will ensure that the authorities remain within the limits of their powers. If a dispute does arise, they will advise you on an effective defense. This proactive approach can save you months of delays and hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention your peace of mind.

Challenge for developers: Don't wait for a problem to arise. Consult your construction plans in good time – ideally before submitting your permit application. The investment in legal certainty is negligible compared to the value of the project it protects. You will then be able to sleep soundly, knowing that your project is being watched over not only by architects and engineers, but also by legal guardian angels. And that is priceless certainty in the uncertain world of building permits. Your building will thus grow on solid foundations without unnecessary legal upheavals – and that is exactly what it should be. In the construction business, the saying “luck favors the prepared” applies twice over.

Don't want to deal with this problem yourself? More than 2,000 clients trust us, and we have been named Law Firm of the Year 2024. Take a look HERE at our references.