The Supreme Court of Cassation’s Decision on the Question of Whether a Regulated Land Plot Can Be Acquired by Prescription When the Detailed Spatial Plan for the Settlement Is Approved with Specific Rules

The Supreme Court of Cassation, in its Decision No. 396/01.07.2025 on case No. 1081/2024, provides an answer to the question of whether it is permissible to acquire by prescription under Art. 200(1) in connection with Art. 19(6) of the Spatial Development Act (SDA) a real part of a regulated land plot designated for non-residential construction under Art. 19(6) SDA, if the plot is located in a settlement or part of a settlement of historical, archaeological, ethnographic, or architectural significance, and the detailed spatial plan for that settlement or part thereof is approved with specific rules and standards pursuant to Art. 19(7) and Art. 13(3) SDA.

Art. 19(7) SDA provides that the outlines of streets, squares, and regulated plots, as well as their sizes and the construction on plots in settlements or in parts thereof with historical, archaeological, ethnographic, or architectural significance, are determined by the detailed spatial plan itself. The legislator has not prescribed minimum area and frontage requirements for this category of plots but only requires that these indicators ensure the preservation of historical and architectural values, the environment, the characteristic volumetric-spatial and architectural-artistic form, and valuable tree vegetation.

Since the outlines and sizes of regulated plots are determined by the detailed spatial plan, any change can be made only in the same manner—through amendment of the existing plan or adoption of a new plan. This means that if a third party has possessed a real part of such a regulated land plot, it cannot acquire it by prescription, as this would violate the specific rules and standards for territories or parts thereof that enjoy special territorial planning protection (Art. 13(2) SDA). These requirements would not be violated only if the possessed real part of the land plot and the remaining part are delineated as separate regulated plots under the plan pursuant to Art. 13(2) SDA.

In its consistent practice, the SCC holds that Art. 200(2) SDA does not apply in cases of “factual annexation as a result of the incorporation of a real part of a plot into an adjacent one.” The exception concerns only cases where a part of a land plot is annexed to a neighboring plot under the conditions of Art. 17 SDA—during the initial regulation with a regulatory plan of previously unregulated plots, or when a real part of a regulated land plot is annexed to a neighboring plot if that part does not meet the requirements of Art. 19 SDA, which can only be done under Art. 15 SDA—by the general consent of the owners of the adjacent plots. An owner of a regulated plot who, under the SDA, has possessed a real part of a neighboring plot for more than 10 years cannot rely on Art. 200(2) SDA. Changing the boundaries of regulated land plots under Art. 19(7) SDA requires approval of a plan under Art. 15(3) SDA, which must assess whether the change violates the specific rules and standards for territories or parts thereof that enjoy special territorial planning protection.

If you need assistance on issues related to the application of the Spatial Development Act, please do not hesitate to contact us.