Illegality is a quality
of the construction, not the person.
That is why it is sold together with the property. Nothing in the Spatial Development Act (ЗУТ) cures it through a transfer, and the fine stays with the one who will never pay it.
Everything starts from one definition with three cumulative conditions. A current repair (текущ ремонт) means maintenance and internal alterations that do not affect the structure, do not move walls or make openings in them where this affects the structure, and do not change the purpose of the rooms or the loads in them (§ 5, item 43 of the Spatial Development Act). If one of the three fails, the work is no longer a repair.
And the second definition springs the trap: construction works also include major repairs, reconstructions and alterations, with or without a change of purpose (§ 5, item 38 of the Spatial Development Act). So an alteration IS construction by law, and everything the Spatial Development Act says about illegal construction applies to a knocked-down wall.
Glazing is free. The wall behind it is not.
Glazing balconies and loggias is expressly exempt from a permit (Art. 151(1), item 6 of the Spatial Development Act). Removing the partition wall between the glazed balcony and the room is not, because the purpose of the balcony changes. And that is exactly the most common alteration in Bulgarian apartments.
In the same category are a moved or removed load-bearing wall and an opening in it, a relocated bathroom or kitchen (the purpose and the loads change), merged apartments and a converted attic.
For an apartment there is no convenient middle path between “I need nothing” and “I need a full project”. An internal alteration of a dwelling is not on the list under Art. 147 of the Spatial Development Act, so it goes through an approved investment project and a building permit (разрешение за строеж). The point at which a repair becomes construction is technical, and it is established by a licensed structural engineer, not by the tradesman and not by the owner.
The order is issued
against the construction.
Art. 225(2) of the Spatial Development Act describes the construction, not the person who carried it out. The construction remains illegal after it changes owner, and after the person who built it dies, emigrates or goes bankrupt.
The removal order (заповед за премахване) is issued by the mayor and served on the interested parties, and case law is consistent on who they are: the addressee is the owner, the commissioning party and/or the person who carried out the work. Ownership on its own is enough. The flip side is even less pleasant: third parties who are not addressees have no standing to appeal. “I did not do it” does not take the new owner out of the procedure.
The costs of enforced removal are joint and several, and the list in Art. 225a(5) of the Spatial Development Act is long: supervisor, contractor, designer, assessor, commissioning party. But for an alteration inside an apartment there is none of them. The list shrinks to the person who carried out the work and the commissioning party, and both are the previous owner.
The municipality does not pursue the previous owner instead of the new one. It enforces the order, draws up a record of the costs and obtains an enforceable title. Whom it goes after first is a question of who can be found and who has assets: the owner who is at the address.
One expires. The other never starts.
The sanction against the person who carried out the work is an administrative penalty, meaning personal liability, and it lapses with the limitation period. Removal is a compulsory administrative measure on the construction, carried out by the addressee who owns it, and the Spatial Development Act sets no time limit for issuing the order. An order can be issued decades after the construction.
The penalty is personal and evaporates. The consequence for the property is real and stays. The buyer gets the second, not the first.
Against the seller the clock is even shorter. The claim under Art. 195 of the Obligations and Contracts Act (ЗЗД) lapses after one year for real estate, and three only if the seller knowingly concealed the defect (Art. 197 of the Obligations and Contracts Act). And under Art. 193(2) of the Obligations and Contracts Act the seller is not liable for defects that were known to the buyer at the time of the sale: a buyer who saw the wide opening and bought anyway will later find it hard to claim they were deceived.
The sum: one year against the seller, three with proven deliberate concealment, against a procedure against the property itself with no time limit. What else is checked before signing: checking the property.
Tolerance is still open,
legalisation closed on 26 November 2013.
Tolerated constructions (търпими строежи) under § 127(1) of the transitional provisions are those built up to 31 March 2001, without permits but permissible then or now. The older § 16 covers those built up to 7 April 1987, plus two more periods with declaration within deadlines that have expired.
The deadline for legalisation (узаконяване) under § 127(2) and (3) expired on 26 November 2013. So an alteration carried out after 31 March 2001 without building permits is not tolerated, and as of 2026 there is no procedure by which it can be legalised. The state opens such a window roughly once every ten years, but “maybe again some day” is not a legal position, and a transaction is not planned around it.
And the certificate of tolerance (удостоверение за търпимост) itself is not what it is taken to be. It is a declaratory document: it certifies that the construction meets the conditions, it does not make it lawful.
Varna has just proved it in practice. In the Baba Alino case, the municipality says that some of the certificates of tolerance submitted do not correspond to the actual location of the buildings. A buyer who held such a document was holding paper for a different building.
A converted attic needs one hundred per cent of the neighbours
An annexed terrace, merged apartments and a built-up attic have an extra layer: they touch the common parts (общи части), meaning other people’s property.
Under Art. 185(2) of the Spatial Development Act, when common parts are taken over, the consent of all owners, expressed with notarised signatures, is required. And under paragraph 3, when a common part is joined to an individual unit, a contract transferring ownership in notarial form is concluded with the other owners, and only on the basis of that contract is a building permit issued.
In a building with forty apartments this is practically impossible to do after the fact. That is why such units are almost never legalised, they only look settled. How the general meeting works in general: the condominium.
The diagram is certain
not to show it.
The trap has two locks. First: for an alteration to enter the cadastre, it has to go through a certificate under Art. 52(5) of the Cadastre and Property Register Act (ЗКИР), and among the mandatory documents for it is a copy of the building permit. An illegal alteration has none, so it does not enter the cadastre.
Second: the cadastre does not measure on site, it copies. The areas of individual units are taken from the title deed, and where there is no data, from the investment project. So the diagram continues to show the old layout and the old area.
The consequence is the opposite of what people expect. The cadastral diagram of the individual unit (схема на самостоятелен обект), which the buyer considers the most objective document, is exactly the document that has no way of showing the illegal alteration. Nor does the notarial deed (нотариален акт). Nor the tax assessment. The truth is only on site, in the walls.
Why the three figures for area often match without anyone having measured: Built-up area, gross area and undivided shares.
The fine is the small part. Removal is what is expensive.
The fine under Art. 232(2) of the Spatial Development Act for a person who carries out, orders or allows illegal construction is between €511 and €5,113. For a legal entity, the pecuniary sanction under Art. 237 reaches €10,226 for construction of the fourth to sixth category. On top of that come the costs of enforced removal, which are not a sanction and have no ceiling: they are as much as the work costs.
Data from the Directorate for National Construction Control (ДНСК) for 2025 show the scale of personal liability: 114 penalty decisions against individuals totalling about €33,996, which is on average about €298 per decision. Against legal entities there are 76 decisions for about €175,373.
The lawful route, meanwhile, is cheap where nobody looks: review of an investment project for an alteration at Varna Municipality is €40.90 and the building permit €102.26, which is about €143 in municipal fees. A structural opinion starts from €250 including VAT, and the project is priced per square metre.
And two doors almost nobody thinks about. Under Art. 178(6) of the Spatial Development Act the mayor can order the supply of electricity, water, gas and telephone to be cut off, and the order is binding on the suppliers. And under Art. 148(7) a permit for new construction is not issued to the person who carried out the illegal construction until it is removed or legalised.
The municipality demolishes.
The owner sues the developer.
In the Baba Alino area, in the forest near Varna, the subject is currently news, not theory: more than a hundred buildings, and more than 40 apartments in the affected buildings. As of 1 September 2026 there are 19 removal orders and four more in preparation.
The Administrative Court of Varna overturned the preliminary enforcement of twelve of the orders for lack of reasoning, but not the orders themselves. Meanwhile, as of 3 September 2026, electricity and water supply have been cut off, barrier tape and seals have been put up, and access is being restricted in stages.
The mayor’s position is worded precisely and is worth reading literally: the legislation allows owners who believe they were misled to seek their rights from the developer.
That is the whole subject in one sentence. The municipality demolishes. The owner sues the developer. The two do not happen at the same time and do not offset each other.
Frequently asked questions
Who is liable for an illegal alteration after the purchase?
Illegality is a quality of the construction, not of the person who carried it out. The removal order under Art. 225a of the Spatial Development Act is issued against the construction and served on the owner, meaning whoever owns the property at the time of the procedure. Third parties who are not addressees of the order do not even have standing to appeal it. The costs of enforced removal are joint and several under Art. 225a(5), but for an alteration inside an apartment the list shrinks to the person who carried out the work and the person who commissioned it, and they are usually the previous owner.
What is the time limit to sue the seller over a hidden alteration?
One year for a sale of real estate, and three years if the seller knowingly concealed the defect (Art. 197 of the Obligations and Contracts Act). The period runs from the handover of the property. Separately, under Art. 193(2) of the Obligations and Contracts Act, the seller is not liable for defects that were known to the buyer at the time of the sale. Against this stands the administrative procedure against the construction itself, for which the Spatial Development Act sets no time limit at all.
Can an illegal alteration be legalised today?
An alteration carried out after 31 March 2001 without building permits does not fall within the tolerance regimes under § 16 and § 127 of the transitional provisions of the Spatial Development Act, and the deadline for legalisation under § 127(2) and (3) expired on 26 November 2013. As of 2026 the Spatial Development Act in force provides no procedure by which such a construction can be legalised. The certificate of tolerance, moreover, is a declaratory document: it certifies that the construction meets the conditions, it does not make it lawful.
Does the alteration show in the cadastral diagram?
As a rule, no. For an alteration to enter the cadastre, it has to go through a certificate under Art. 52(5) of the Cadastre and Property Register Act, and among the mandatory documents for it is a copy of the building permit. An illegal alteration has no such permit, so it does not enter the cadastre, and the diagram continues to show the old layout. The cadastre does not measure on site, it copies the area from the title deed or from the investment project.
One diagram and one walk-through
Get the cadastral diagram of the individual unit and compare it with the walls you see at the viewing. You are not looking for a building permit but for a discrepancy: an opening that is not on the diagram, a room that has changed its purpose, a terrace that has become a room. This is the only check that works, because the documents here are silent by design.
Send us the diagram and a few photos from the viewing. We tell you which discrepancy is a repair, which is construction, and who will receive the order if it comes.
This material is not legal advice. Whether a specific piece of work is a repair or construction is established by a licensed structural engineer.
Comments
No comments yet, be the first.