Conflicts related to changes made by owners to the exterior parts of buildings are a relevant topic in the housing area, especially when they involve common spaces and condominium coexistence rules. These cases become particularly sensitive when works are carried out without formal authorization, raising doubts about legal limits and the rights of each condominium owner. The decision now known by the Audiencia Provincial de Málaga put this issue back on the agenda by condemning a neighbor for carrying out work between her garage and the storage room without any type of authorization from the other condominium owners.
The court concluded that the closure of the space between the parking area and the basement, through the construction of a wall, changed the configuration of the building and affected common elements, which required approval from the community of owners and a municipal license, according to the Spanish digital newspaper Noticias Trabajo, a Spanish website specializing in legal and labor matters.
A work that changed the configuration of the building
According to the ruling, dated July 2, 2025, the conflict dates back to January 2020, when the community called an extraordinary meeting to discuss the “measures to be taken regarding the works on the trailer without authorization”. At this meeting, the majority of condominium owners decided to urge the owner to remove the wall built within a week, warning that, if she did not do so, legal action would be taken.
According to the same source, the owner, represented by her partner, admitted at the meeting that she had not requested authorization from the community and even committed to undoing the work. Later, however, he changed his position and filed a lawsuit to annul the assembly’s agreement, alleging discrimination and abuse of rights, with the argument that other neighbors had carried out similar works.
Court considered that the work changed the configuration of the building
The case was first heard by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no. 4 of Torremolinos, which completely rejected the worker’s claim and acquitted the community. The court of first instance understood that the work had been carried out without the community’s prior consent, which was enough to rule out its legality, and recalled that the resident had admitted in assembly the irregularity of the intervention.
This recognition was qualified as an act of its own, preventing the same owner from later challenging the agreement that authorized the condominium president to take legal action if the wall was not removed.
The Malaga Provincial Audiencia has now confirmed this decision. According to the ruling, the construction of the wall changed the configuration of the property, by perimeterly closing the space between the garage and the storage room, adding surface area and changing the plan of the building.
This type of intervention requires prior authorization from the owners’ board, in accordance with article 7, no. 1, of the Ley de Propiedad Horizontal, which prevents condominium owners from altering the general structure or common elements of the building without community agreement.
Allegation of discrimination did not convince the judges
The neighbor insisted that there were similar cases in the condominium, which would constitute unequal treatment. However, the court considered that there was no comparable situation. According to the decision, the interventions invoked by the owner had previously been presented to the assembly and had formal approval, meaning they could not be used as justification for a work carried out without any request for authorization.
The sentence also dismissed the allegation of abuse of rights. Invoking article 7, no. 2, of the Spanish Civil Code and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the judges recalled that abuse of rights requires, among other elements, the existence of unjustified harm, an intention to harm or an abnormal exercise of the right, requirements that were not met in this case. The community limited itself to exercising its right to demand respect for the legal and conventional rules in force.
Junta acted within the law
The decision also confirms that the decision that authorized the condominium president to take legal action if the owner did not remove the work within the set deadline respected the applicable legislation and was not abusive. The Provincial Audiencia underlined the community’s legitimacy in defending the common interest and guaranteeing the preservation of the structure and configuration of the building.
As a result, the court, in accordance with , considered the assembly’s agreement valid and proportional and maintained the order to demolish the wall and restore the space to its original state. The decision is not yet final and may be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal framework in Portugal
In Portugal, similar situations are regulated by the Civil Code, in particular by articles 1414 to 1438-A, which establish the horizontal property regime.
Similar to what happens in Spain, here too the garages, corridors, roof terraces and other structures that make up the building’s configuration are, as a rule, common parts, even though they may be allocated to the exclusive use of a fraction.
According to article 1422, co-owners are specifically prohibited from damaging, with new works, the security, architectural style or aesthetic arrangement of the building, and works that modify the architectural line or aesthetic arrangement can only be carried out with prior authorization from the co-owners’ assembly, approved by a majority representing two thirds of the total value of the building.
The construction of walls, annexes or expansions of storage rooms and garages that alter the facade, structure or other common parts is, therefore, seen by jurisprudence as a structural change dependent on deliberation by the assembly. In multiple rulings, Portuguese courts have ordered the demolition of marquees, closed balconies or other constructions that modify the architectural line or the aesthetic arrangement of the building without the necessary authorization from the condominium owners.
Likewise, the argument that “other neighbors did the same” is generally not accepted when these interventions are also irregular: previous illegalities do not legitimize new violations of horizontal property rules. Only works previously approved by the assembly can serve as a term of comparison.
Thus, in a scenario similar to the Spanish case, construction of a wall that changes the configuration of the building and affects common parts, without authorization from the assembly, it is highly likely that a Portuguese court would decide in the same direction: ordering the removal of the work, restoring the previous situation and confirming the validity of the deliberations taken in the assembly. In horizontal property, the rule is simple: the building is not altered without authorization, and anyone who does so risks having to undo everything at their own expense.
Also read:
