News

A seaside plot with a valid, detailed spatial plan is the dream of many prospective homeowners and landowners. Both common understanding and legal logic suggest that the existence of a detailed plan should remove uncertainty and secure building rights with the legal certainty of a binding administrative act.

Recent developments in the City of Haapsalu, however, demonstrate the opposite. Despite the existence of valid detailed spatial plans, landowners may still be denied building permits. RASK Attorneys Villy Lopman and Elvi Tuisk analyse and explain the situation.

Diverging positions of the City and the Environmental Board

In autumn 2024, the City of Haapsalu adopted a new comprehensive spatial plan, which placed certain previously approved detailed spatial plans within a  building exclusion zone of shores and banks. While these detailed spatial plans still legally allow construction, the Environmental Board takes the position that construction is not permitted when the building exclusion zones of shores and banks is broader than what was in place when the detailed spatial plan was adopted.

The City, however, continues to rely on the detailed spatial plans as valid administrative acts and had not previously regarded this as a problem.

What happens next?

The Chancellor of Justice, Ülle Madise, recently explained that, in principle, the City may consider invalidating detailed spatial plans that conflict with the building exclusion zones of shores and banks. This process is complex, as the City must weigh the impact on landowners, including property rights, legitimate expectations that detailed spatial plans would remain valid, and costs already incurred. If the City does not invalidate the detailed spatial plans, building permits should be issued.

Can the City refuse a building permit due to the conflict?

Current legislation does not provide a clear answer regarding which building exclusion zones of shores and banks takes precedence when statutory limits differ from those in a lawfully adopted detailed spatial plan. Nonetheless, detailed spatial plans, as legal acts, are binding on all parties, including the City and the Environmental Board.

It is the detailed spatial plan that determines the requirements applicable to a building and the conditions of building rights on a plot. A building permit must primarily comply with the detailed spatial plan. A detailed spatial plan is lawful if adopted in accordance with the law at the time, and subsequent legal changes do not affect its validity. Accordingly, it cannot be ruled out that refusal to issue a building permit solely on the ground that the building exclusion zones of shores and banks under statute and the detailed spatial plan do not coincide may be unlawful.

The difficulty, however, lies in the fact that the situation that has arisen in Haapsalu, and in many other local authorities, has not yet been clarified by the courts. As a result, at present, no possible legal outcome can be excluded.

What if a building permit is nevertheless issued?

Even if the City issues a permit without litigation, legal issues may persist. The Environmental Board oversees compliance with building exclusion zones of shores and banks and may order the demolition of unauthorised structures within them.

In practice, this means that construction may lead to litigation with the Environmental Board over the lawfulness of a demolition order. However, can a structure that complies with a detailed spatial plan and has been built based on a building permit be considered unauthorised at all? The prospects of such a dispute depend directly on the court’s assessment of the core issue described above: whether priority should be given to the construction prohibition zone set out in the detailed spatial plan or to the one arising from statute.

The courts have yet to rule

The Haapsalu case highlights a broader problem affecting other local authorities and building exclusion zones of shores and banks regulations in Estonia. Being a coastal country with numerous inland waters, Estonia faces recurring legal questions whenever construction restrictions are updated.

Currently, courts have not provided a final ruling, leaving many landowners uncertain about how they may use their property. At the same time, law guarantees protection of property, legitimate expectations, and the principle that rights granted under the legal system should remain stable.

* RASK attorneys advise numerous landowners on matters related to building exclusion zones of shores and banks in Haapsalu and similar issues elsewhere.