News
Important to Know: The Calculation of the Width of Building Exclusion Zones on Coastal Properties Has Been Clarified
Important to Know: The Calculation of the Width of Building Exclusion Zones on Coastal Properties Has Been Clarified
An amendment to the Nature Conservation Act entered into force at the beginning of September, clarifying how the width of protection zones along water bodies is to be calculated. Sandra Kaas and Villy Lopman, environmental law and spatial planning experts at RASK, note that the amendment should resolve the uncertainty that has surrounded the calculation of the width of building exclusion zones on coastal properties.
Construction is prohibited within the building exclusion zone of a shore or bank. Under the law, the width of the building exclusion zone is at least 200 metres on the seashores of islands, 100 metres on other seashores, and 50 or 25 metres along the banks of inland water bodies. In densely populated areas, the respective zone is narrower, measuring 25 or 50 metres depending on the water body.
The width of the building exclusion zone is to be calculated from the boundary of the water body indicated on the base map, and the law does not provide for any other starting point. Nevertheless, for years the Environmental Board has determined the width of the building exclusion zone in areas subject to recurrent flooding using a different baseline. As a result, building exclusion zones have in many places been significantly wider than provided for by law.
For years, the Environmental Board has added the statutory width of the building exclusion zone as an additional buffer in areas subject to recurrent flooding. This means that, for example, if the high-water boundary has been determined to extend 30 metres inland and the statutory building exclusion zone is 100 metres, the Environmental Board has considered the building ban to apply over a distance of 130 metres.
As the risk of recurrent flooding exists along almost the entire Estonian seashore, although its extent varies, this interpretation and practice of the Environmental Board has significantly increased restrictions on property rights on coastal properties. Where the flood risk ends at 30 metres, the justification for such a restriction on the fundamental right to property is open to question.
For almost a decade, the Chancellor of Justice has drawn attention to the fact that this interpretation and practice is incorrect. The reference in the law to a flooded area means, first and foremost, that the flooded area itself constitutes a building exclusion area. Consequently, the building exclusion zone should not extend beyond the statutory width or the actual flooded area, whichever extends farther inland. This approach provides a better balance between nature conservation and property rights.
The purpose of building restrictions on shores and banks is to preserve natural communities, limit the harmful effects of human activities, guide settlement while taking into account the specific characteristics of shores and banks, and ensure public access. The question is therefore one of determining an optimal width for the protection zone that fulfils these objectives without going beyond what is necessary to achieve them. The previous legislation governing the protection of shores and banks likewise provided that, in flooded areas, the building ban would extend to the high-water boundary only where this reached farther inland than the statutory width of the zone.
Under the amendment, the building exclusion zone extends to the flooded area only if the flooded area extends farther inland than the statutory width of the building exclusion zone. If the flooded area is narrower, the statutory width of the zone applies.
For example, if the flooded area extends 30 metres inland on the seashore and the statutory building exclusion zone is 100 metres, the width of the building exclusion zone will remain 100 metres. If, however, the flooded area extends 120 metres inland, the boundary of the flooded area will determine the actual extent of the building exclusion zone. The new wording therefore makes the previous interpretation, under which the two widths were added together, impossible under the law.
The focus of disputes may, however, shift in the future to whether the boundary of the repeatedly flooded area has been correctly determined on the seashore. Landowners should therefore pay attention to this in the spatial planning process of their municipality, as the boundary of a repeatedly flooded area on the seashore is determined by a spatial plan.
It is also possible, as part of the spatial planning process, to decide whether the building exclusion zone should be reduced or extended. Climate change may affect both average sea levels and the frequency of extreme flooding in the future. Local governments should therefore assess the impact of flood risks when preparing spatial plans and take the objectives of protecting shores and banks into account comprehensively.
The protection zones along different water bodies can, for example, be viewed in the X-GIS 2.0 restrictions map application of the Geoportal of the Land and Spatial Development Board. According to publicly available information, the restrictions map layers do not yet reflect the amendments to the Nature Conservation Act that entered into force on 1 September 2026 concerning the width of water protection zones and the building exclusion and limited management zones of shores and banks. This is therefore something worth keeping an eye on.
Construction is prohibited within the building exclusion zone of a shore or bank. Under the law, the width of the building exclusion zone is at least 200 metres on the seashores of islands, 100 metres on other seashores, and 50 or 25 metres along the banks of inland water bodies. In densely populated areas, the respective zone is narrower, measuring 25 or 50 metres depending on the water body.
The width of the building exclusion zone is to be calculated from the boundary of the water body indicated on the base map, and the law does not provide for any other starting point. Nevertheless, for years the Environmental Board has determined the width of the building exclusion zone in areas subject to recurrent flooding using a different baseline. As a result, building exclusion zones have in many places been significantly wider than provided for by law.
Why have building exclusion zones been wider than provided for by law?
In areas subject to recurrent flooding, the building exclusion zone may extend to the boundary of the repeatedly flooded area if that boundary lies farther inland than the statutory width of the building exclusion zone. Recurrent flooding refers to the maximum water level that reaches land every year or once every few years. The boundary of a repeatedly flooded area is determined by a spatial plan or, in the absence of a spatial plan, the boundary is deemed to be one metre from the elevation value of the shoreline.
For years, the Environmental Board has added the statutory width of the building exclusion zone as an additional buffer in areas subject to recurrent flooding. This means that, for example, if the high-water boundary has been determined to extend 30 metres inland and the statutory building exclusion zone is 100 metres, the Environmental Board has considered the building ban to apply over a distance of 130 metres.
As the risk of recurrent flooding exists along almost the entire Estonian seashore, although its extent varies, this interpretation and practice of the Environmental Board has significantly increased restrictions on property rights on coastal properties. Where the flood risk ends at 30 metres, the justification for such a restriction on the fundamental right to property is open to question.
For almost a decade, the Chancellor of Justice has drawn attention to the fact that this interpretation and practice is incorrect. The reference in the law to a flooded area means, first and foremost, that the flooded area itself constitutes a building exclusion area. Consequently, the building exclusion zone should not extend beyond the statutory width or the actual flooded area, whichever extends farther inland. This approach provides a better balance between nature conservation and property rights.
The purpose of building restrictions on shores and banks is to preserve natural communities, limit the harmful effects of human activities, guide settlement while taking into account the specific characteristics of shores and banks, and ensure public access. The question is therefore one of determining an optimal width for the protection zone that fulfils these objectives without going beyond what is necessary to achieve them. The previous legislation governing the protection of shores and banks likewise provided that, in flooded areas, the building ban would extend to the high-water boundary only where this reached farther inland than the statutory width of the zone.
Going forward, if the flooded area extends beyond the statutory width of the building exclusion zone, the boundary of the flooded area will determine the boundary of the building exclusion zone
Under the amendment, the building exclusion zone extends to the flooded area only if the flooded area extends farther inland than the statutory width of the building exclusion zone. If the flooded area is narrower, the statutory width of the zone applies.
For example, if the flooded area extends 30 metres inland on the seashore and the statutory building exclusion zone is 100 metres, the width of the building exclusion zone will remain 100 metres. If, however, the flooded area extends 120 metres inland, the boundary of the flooded area will determine the actual extent of the building exclusion zone. The new wording therefore makes the previous interpretation, under which the two widths were added together, impossible under the law.
The focus of disputes may, however, shift in the future to whether the boundary of the repeatedly flooded area has been correctly determined on the seashore. Landowners should therefore pay attention to this in the spatial planning process of their municipality, as the boundary of a repeatedly flooded area on the seashore is determined by a spatial plan.
It is also possible, as part of the spatial planning process, to decide whether the building exclusion zone should be reduced or extended. Climate change may affect both average sea levels and the frequency of extreme flooding in the future. Local governments should therefore assess the impact of flood risks when preparing spatial plans and take the objectives of protecting shores and banks into account comprehensively.
The protection zones along different water bodies can, for example, be viewed in the X-GIS 2.0 restrictions map application of the Geoportal of the Land and Spatial Development Board. According to publicly available information, the restrictions map layers do not yet reflect the amendments to the Nature Conservation Act that entered into force on 1 September 2026 concerning the width of water protection zones and the building exclusion and limited management zones of shores and banks. This is therefore something worth keeping an eye on.