Construction defects require a prompt response, but not all follow the same rules. A crack, an infiltration or a poorly implemented system may depend on the execution of the work, the design, the materials or the site management. Consequently, the responsible parties, the available remedies and above all the deadlines to be observed vary.
In this guide I explain how to distinguish ordinary contract defects from serious defects in a property, what a latent flaw truly means and what function the expert report performs. I want to help you understand when to request repairs, price reduction or compensation, without confusing the initial appearance of the problem with its actual technical cause.
The first distinction: contract defect or serious property defect
Legal gravity does not coincide with cost. A defect may be expensive to eliminate yet remain subject to the ordinary contract warranty; another, seemingly limited, may compromise the waterproofing, healthiness or normal use of the building and fall under Article 1669 of the Civil Code.
Articles 1667 and 1668 regulate non-conformities and defects in the work commissioned from a contractor. Non-conformity is a deviation from what was agreed, for example workmanship or material different from the specifications. A flaw is instead an execution defect that reduces the quality, functionality or value of the work. The text of Articles 1667, 1668 and 1669 of the Civil Code shows that the two forms of protection have different prerequisites and deadlines.
Article 1669 concerns a more serious range of problems: total or partial ruin, evident danger of ruin, or serious defects in buildings and other immovable works intended to last over time. It is not necessary for the building to be about to collapse. What matters is the concrete impact of the defect on the functionality, preservation and normal enjoyment of the property.
The ordinary warranty for non-conformities and defects in the work
The client must report the defect within sixty days of discovery, pursuant to Article 1667 of the Civil Code. Reporting is not necessary when the contractor has acknowledged the problem or concealed it. Furthermore, the warranty action becomes statute-barred two years after the delivery of the work: reporting and taking action are therefore distinct obligations with different starting dates.
Acceptance of the work may exclude the warranty for defects that the client knew about or could recognize, provided the contractor did not conceal them in bad faith. A latent flaw is instead a problem that cannot be recognized with ordinary inspection at the time of acceptance, because it manifests after use or requires technical expertise to be identified.
Handing over the keys, paying the balance or signing a handover report do not automatically cancel every protection. A distinction must be made between defects already perceptible and phenomena that appeared later. The Court of Cassation has reiterated that acceptance normally applies to defects already manifest at the time of delivery, not to those emerging subsequently: the principle is recalled in the civil digest of the Court of Cassation for June 2025.
Repair, price reduction and termination
Article 1668 offers different remedies. The client may ask the contractor to eliminate non-conformities and defects at their own expense or request a proportional reduction in price. Compensation for additional damages presupposes the contractor's fault and requires proof of the link between the defect and the claimed loss.
Contract termination does not follow every imperfect execution. It is provided for when the defects make the work completely unsuitable for its intended use. A non-compliant finish or a repairable problem generally points toward eliminating the defect or reducing the price, rather than dissolving the entire contract.
Serious defects and ten-year liability
Article 1669 applies if the serious defect manifests within ten years of the completion of the work. The injured party must report it within one year of discovery, and the right becomes statute-barred one year after the report. The ten-year period, the deadline to report and the deadline to take action must not be overlapped: each serves a different function.
Widespread infiltrations, subsidence, extensive detachments, roof defects, significant waterproofing or insulation problems, and anomalies in essential systems may assume relevance. The name of the phenomenon is not enough: a small infiltration caused by neglected maintenance does not equal a construction defect that makes multiple rooms unhealthy or unusable.
Even a design error can constitute a construction defect when it compromises the functionality and normal use of the property. The buyer's knowledge of the design does not mean, by itself, prior acceptance of the technical consequences that will emerge after construction. It is necessary to reconstruct whether the damage derives from the design idea, the installation, the materials or multiple concurrent causes.
Discovery does not always coincide with the first visible sign. A moisture stain may initially be interpreted as an occasional episode; a technical report may later link it to a systematic defect in the building envelope. The Court of Cassation has highlighted that, for the purposes of Article 1669, what counts is sufficiently complete knowledge of the problem and its causal traceability, as shown in Court of Cassation Ordinance no. 1909 of January 27, 2025. However, this rule does not justify waiting: the phenomenon must be reported without delay.
Who can be held liable
The contractor is the first subject to consider when they have assumed the obligation to carry out the work. They cannot automatically escape liability by claiming they followed someone else's design: the technical autonomy inherent in a construction contract requires them to execute the work correctly and report errors that are recognizable with the required expertise.
The buyer can also invoke Article 1669 against the vendor-builder who has maintained direct responsibility for the construction of the building, even if they materially entrusted the work to another company. Sale and construction contracts, however, remain distinct: the contractual remedies of sale have their own prerequisites and timeframes, which must not be automatically substituted with those of Article 1667.
Designer and site manager are not liable merely for having participated in the construction site. The designer may be liable if the defect derives from calculations, technical choices or erroneous design solutions. The site manager must check the progressive compliance of the work with the design, specifications and technical rules, within the limits of the assignment received.
The site manager does not necessarily also assume the task of verifying the accuracy of the design. This additional liability depends on the assignment and the activity concretely performed. The distinction between execution control and design verification is illustrated in the 2016 civil digest of the Court of Cassation, which also recalls the expenses necessary to definitively eliminate serious defects.
Expert reports, photographs and preservation of evidence
A private expert report serves to transform a symptom into a technical explanation. It should indicate where the problem manifests, what the probable causes are, which workmanship is defective, what interventions are necessary and what expense is reasonably foreseeable. It does not replace timely reporting and does not bind the judge or the opposing party.
Dated photographs, communications, the contract, specifications, design documents, handover reports and invoices help link the defect to the executed work. Before demolishing or covering the interested parts, it is advisable to allow other involved parties to examine them. If urgent work is necessary, safety comes first, but the state of the places must be documented as much as possible before and during the intervention.
When the phenomenon can change rapidly, Article 696 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows requesting an urgent preventive technical assessment regarding the state of the places, causes and damages. Article 696-bis instead allows preventive technical consulting also aimed at settling the dispute, without requiring the same urgency. The applicable text is reported in the Official Gazette of May 4, 2026.
Preventive assessment is not a more authoritative private expert report, but a proceeding before a judge, with the participation of the parties and a consultant appointed by the judicial authority. It can foster an agreement and, if conciliation fails, the report may assume relevance in subsequent litigation in cases provided for by law.
How to choose protection and quantify damage
The initial communication must clearly identify the problem, the areas involved and the moment it was discovered. It is not necessary to wait for a definitive expert report to report the flaw. It is useful to request a joint site inspection, reserve all rights and keep proof of receipt of the communication.
If the contractor proposes to intervene, it is necessary to clarify what works they will perform and whether the solution eliminates the root cause or temporarily conceals the symptom. A repair may be preferable to a lawsuit, but acceptance of the intervention must not create ambiguity regarding additional damages already suffered or defects not included in the promised works.
Price reduction is different from full reimbursement of any cost estimate. It must be proportional to the lower value or inferior quality of the work. Compensation may include expenses necessary for a definitive repair and further proven consequences, such as damage to finishes or temporary unusability costs, provided they are causally linked to the defect.
It is not possible to obtain the same value twice. If the contractor completely eliminates the problem at their own expense, the cost of that same repair cannot also be claimed as compensation. Additional damages already produced, workmanship that remains defective, and reasonable expenses incurred to ascertain and contain the phenomenon remain assessable.
When origin and liability are contested, a shared technical verification or preventive consulting can be more useful than separate interventions. If instead evidence risks disappearing or a deadline is near, the priority is to preserve the right: negotiations and informal site visits must not turn into waiting periods incompatible with forfeiture and limitation periods.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much time do I have to report a construction defect?
For ordinary contract defects the deadline is sixty days from discovery and the action becomes statute-barred two years after delivery. For serious defects under Article 1669, manifested within ten years of completion, the report must be made within one year of discovery and the right becomes statute-barred one year after the report.
Is an infiltration always a serious defect?
No, its concrete impact matters. An infiltration can fall under Article 1669 if it is extensive, depends on construction and compromises the preservation, healthiness or normal use of the property. A circumscribed episode, easily repairable or due to lack of maintenance, may follow different rules.
Can I repair immediately and then ask for reimbursement?
You can intervene immediately when it is necessary to avoid dangers or greater damage, provided you document the state of the places, the apparent cause and the work performed. If there is no urgency, repairing without notifying potential responsible parties can make it harder to prove the defect and allow them to contest the necessity and cost of the intervention.
Is a private expert report sufficient to obtain compensation?
A private expert report is useful but does not bind the opposing party or the judge. It must connect manifestations, causes, necessary works and costs, while photographs, the contract and site documentation complete the proof. If the dispute concerns decisive technical issues, considering a preventive assessment or consulting before a judge may be advisable.
Can I also take action against the designer and site manager?
Yes, if their conduct caused or favored the defect. The designer is liable for erroneous technical choices; the site manager for control obligations included in their assignment. Site participation does not create automatic liability: identifying the violated obligation and the link with the damage are required.
Deciding the next step
Deadlines, technical origin and contract must be read together. Timely reporting and orderly documentation allow evaluating repairs, agreements, price reduction, preventive consulting or litigation. If you want to clarify which rules apply to your construction defect, you can contact me bringing the contract, communications, photographs and any technical reports already available.