The validity of real estate contracts and the rectification of urban planning declarations: an analysis of Ordinance no. 30827/2025

When buying or selling a home, urban planning compliance is one of the most sensitive issues and a frequent source of litigation. It is often asked what happens if a real estate sales contract contains declarations regarding the building's construction date that do not correspond to the truth. The Court of Cassation, with the significant Ordinance no. 30827 of November 24, 2025, has provided a fundamental clarification on this aspect, outlining the boundaries between the nullity of the deed and the possibility of saving the agreement through a subsequent deed of rectification.

The case and the nature of urban planning nullity

The dispute originated from a sale in which the seller, T. (represented by O. R.), had declared that the property was built prior to September 1, 1967. However, this declaration proved to be untruthful. The counterparty, G., subsequently invoked the nullity of the contract pursuant to Art. 40 of Law no. 47 of 1985. The Court of Appeal of Reggio Calabria had rejected the claim of nullity, a decision later confirmed by the Supreme Court. But what is the core principle established by the judges?

The keystone lies in the distinction between textual nullity and substantive nullity. According to the consolidated orientation of jurisprudence, inaugurated by the landmark ruling of the Joint Sections no. 8230 of 2019, the nullity provided for by urban planning law has a formal and textual character. This means that the deed is void only if the mentions prescribed by law are entirely missing, and not due to the mere objective non-conformity of the property with urban planning regulations.

The ruling of the Court of Cassation

To fully understand the scope of this decision, it is useful to read the official legal principle expressed in Ordinance no. 30827/2025:

From the textual nature of the nullity imposed by Art. 40 of Law no. 47 of 1985, it follows that the seller's declaration in the transfer deed regarding the construction period of the property (in this case, pre-September 1, 1967) is alternative to the inclusion in the deed of references to the urban planning title, with the consequence that a false declaration concerning the construction period of the asset does not entail the nullity of the transfer deed if it is overcome, during the rectification of the deed, by the production and mention of the property's building permits, which are real and referable to the construction.

As clearly explained by the judges of legitimacy, the law requires, under penalty of nullity, that the deed contains either the mention of the building permit (e.g., building concession, building permit) or, alternatively, a substitute declaration of an affidavit attesting to the start of construction prior to September 1, 1967. These two mentions are alternative to each other.

Remediation through the deed of rectification

The most innovative and reassuring point for the stability of legal transactions concerns the possibility of remedying an initial error or falsehood. If the seller falsely declares that the property is pre-1967, but the building is actually provided with regular building permits (albeit subsequent to that date), the sales contract is not irremediably void. Nullity can be avoided if the following conditions are met:

• The building permits for the property actually exist at the time of the execution of the transfer deed;
• Such permits are effectively referable to the construction in question;
• A subsequent deed of rectification is drawn up in which such real building permits are produced and expressly mentioned.

In this way, the initial false attestation is overcome and remedied by the subsequent documentary integration, safeguarding the effects of the property transfer and protecting the buyer's reliance on the actual urban planning compliance of the asset.

Conclusions

Ordinance no. 30827/2025 of the Court of Cassation aligns with the need to ensure the certainty of real estate transactions, preventing purely formal defects or inaccurate—but easily amendable—declarations from destroying economically significant contracts. The ruling reaffirms that urban planning nullity is not an instrument of unconditional punishment, but rather a protection aimed at ensuring that only properties for which the State has issued a regular building permit circulate on the market, the existence of which can also be certified ex post.