An illegal alteration carried out by a previous owner may remain unnoticed for years—until the municipality takes enforcement action. In a judgment delivered on 25 March 2026, the District Court of The Hague ruled that the owner of an unlawfully subdivided property can be required to restore the lawful situation, even if the property was purchased in good faith. The judgment makes clear that civil law arrangements and administrative law responsibilities do not always align: even where a purchaser is able to recover their losses from the seller, they remain responsible vis-à-vis the municipality for remedying the violation.
In 2020, a foundation purchased an apartment that had previously been unlawfully divided into two separate dwellings without the required environmental permit. The municipality had already refused the permit application for the subdivision, and enforcement proceedings against the previous owner were already underway.
The foundation was unaware of these circumstances. Nevertheless, the Executive Board of the Municipality of The Hague imposed a penalty order subject to a periodic penalty payment (last onder dwangsom) of €5,000, requiring the foundation to reverse the unlawful subdivision.
When a subsequent inspection showed that the violation had not been remedied, the penalty became payable and was enforced. The foundation challenged both the penalty order and the enforcement decision before the court.
Under Section 5.6 of the Dutch Environment and Planning Act (Omgevingswet)—previously Section 2.3a of the Environmental Permitting (General Provisions) Act (Wabo)—it is prohibited to maintain a structure that was constructed without the required environmental permit.
The District Court dismissed the foundation's appeal on three grounds:
This judgment is not an isolated case. Municipalities are increasingly taking enforcement action against unlawful property subdivisions and unauthorised alterations, partly in response to complaints from neighbouring residents and homeowners' associations requesting enforcement. Under the general principle that authorities are required to enforce planning and building regulations, municipalities must, in principle, act once a violation has been identified.
As a result, purchasers who acquire property containing an undiscovered planning or permitting violation may unexpectedly face a penalty order or even administrative enforcement measures.
The judgment makes clear that responsibility for remedying an unlawful situation rests entirely with the current owner, regardless of how the violation arose or whether the owner was aware of it.
For purchasers, this highlights the importance of carrying out independent due diligence into a property's permitting and enforcement history before completing the purchase. Clear contractual warranties and indemnities in the sale agreement may provide the only financial protection if an unlawful situation comes to light after completion.
Do you have questions about the permitting status of a property or would you like to assess the legal risks associated with a proposed acquisition? Please contact Joyleen Verhoek or Fiene Stolp, or one of our other specialists in our Real Estate & Public Law team.
Would you like to receive a monthly overview of our latest legal updates and blog articles? Subscribe to our newsletter.
