The Salva Casa reform, introduced by D.L. n. 69/2024 and later converted into law n. 105/2024, promised to untangle a web of stalled renovations and use-change projects across Italy. By amending article 23-ter of the D.P.R. 380/2001, the measure added three new paragraphs—1-bis, 1-ter and 1-quater—granting owners the ability to switch the function of an individual dwelling without rebuilding the entire chain of building permits. In practice, a vertical change from residential to commercial, or from a flat to a bed & breakfast, became theoretically possible in the A, B and C zones of any municipal plan, provided that any technical conditions imposed by the local authority were respected.
Exactly two years after the law’s entry into force, the judiciary is still carving out its practical reach. While the intention was to create a uniform, liberal framework, divergent rulings from the constitutional court, the Council of State, and numerous regional administrative tribunals (TAR) reveal a landscape where municipalities retain significant influence, and owners must navigate a nuanced proof-of-legitimacy regime.
What the Salva Casa law changed
The core innovation lies in the introduction of cambi d’uso semplificati. The three new sub-paragraphs of article 23-ter authorize an absolute shift in use for a single unit, but only after the local plan has defined any conditions it wishes to attach—such as parking ratios, hygiene standards, or additional fees. This shift was expected to unlock conversions of apartments into offices, shops, or tourism-oriented facilities like B&Bs, especially in high-density areas of FirenzeRoma and Napoli.
However, the law does not automatically erase pre-existing prohibitions embedded in older urban plans. The question of whether a municipal prohibition becomes nullified or merely superseded by a conditional provision has been the pivot of several TAR decisions, starting with the Lazio rulings n. 5161/2026 and n. 2533/2026, which declared pre-emptive bans ineffective until a specific, compliant condition is inserted by the municipality.
How courts have interpreted municipal powers
The Constitutional Court’s decision n. 61/2026 drew a decisive line: municipalities may condition a use change—by demanding extra parking spaces, particular sanitary installations, or modest fees—but they cannot outright limit or forbid it. The ruling nullified Tuscany’s regional law n. 51/2025 for contravening the liberal spirit of the amended article 23-ter. Consequently, any local regulation that attempts a blanket prohibition is vulnerable to annulment.
Regional and local authorities have tested the limits of this doctrine. The TAR of Venezia (sentenza n. 91/2026), TAR of Bari (n. 553/2025), TAR of Milano (n. 3433/2025) and TAR of Firenze (n. 555/2026) uniformly emphasized that restrictions must be conditional rather than prohibitive. In Florence, the TAR’s decision n. 916/2026 sent the matter back to the Constitutional Court when the city attempted to curb the spread of extra-hotel accommodations, underscoring the tension between tourism control and the liberal use-change regime.
At the national level, the Government has lodged an appeal against a restrictive regional decree from Emilia-Romagna, arguing that the measure clashes with the liberalisation principle enshrined in Salva Casa. The outcome of that appeal will likely cement the boundaries of regional autonomy in this field.
Proof of legitimacy and fiscal penalties under the new regime
Beyond the procedural freedom to change use, Salva Casa also streamlined the evidentiary burden for establishing an estado legittimo. Previously, owners had to reconstruct the entire historical stack of building permits; now, presenting the most recent permit is supposedly sufficient. The Council of State, however, adopted a stricter reading in sentence n. 2443/2026, insisting that the latest permit must cover the entire unit and must have been issued after a concrete verification of all prior titles by the administration. Merely referencing older works in an attached graphic does not satisfy this requirement.
This nuanced stance means a property owner aiming to convert a flat into a B&B must file the appropriate SCIA or CILA together with the latest comprehensive title. If the permitting authority issued the title without first confirming the legality of antecedent permits, the Council of State may reject the application, forcing the owner to reconstruct the missing documentation.
The fiscalisation debate adds another layer of complexity. Decisions from the TAR of Salerno (sentenze n. 91/2025 and n. 58/2026) recognized that paying a fine for an identified building irregularity can have a “sanative” effect, provided the sanction was levied under the law in force at the time of the infraction. Yet the Council of State remains divided, with some rulings suggesting that mere payment does not automatically regularise the structure, especially when technical non-compliance persists.
In practice, owners must therefore assess each case individually, weighing the size of the fine, the nature of the violation, and any required upgrades to meet technical standards before relying on a monetary penalty as a cure.
Municipalities can append reasonable conditions, courts continue to prune absolute bans, and the Council of State demands rigorous proof of a unit-wide title. For anyone contemplating a property conversion, the safest path remains close collaboration with seasoned legal and technical consultants, vigilant monitoring of pending jurisprudence—especially the forthcoming decision on the Emilia-Romagna appeal—and meticulous documentation of every permit in the building’s history.
