01 Jun illegal subdivision

The crime of illegal development is carried out through conduct, including material ones, such as building or urban planning modifications to the land, in an area that is not adequately urbanized, which gives a portion of the municipal territory a different structure, that is carried out without authorization, or in total divergence from it, and in violation of the provisions established by the urban planning instruments in force or adopted, and such as to be able to determine the settlement of inhabitants or the carrying out of activities, resulting in the need to prepare or integrate urbanization works (Cass. Pen., sez. III, judgment 30 April 2004, n. 20390). The notion of illegal development is twofold, that is, substantial and formal, and the first case may well arise regardless of whether the subdivision is authorized or not. When the judge, therefore, recognizes the existence of a hypothesis of illegal development – even in the presence of an authorization issued pursuant to art. 28 of the L. n. 1150/1942, che però risulti in contrasto con previsioni di legge o di piano – non opera alcuna disapplicazione del provvedimento amministrativo, ma si limita ad accertare la conformità del fatto concreto alla fattispecie astratta descrittiva del reato, so long as, una volta che constati il contrasto tra la lottizzazione considerata e la normativa urbanistica, giunge all’accertamento dell’abusività della lottizzazione prescindendo da qualunque giudizio sull’autorizzazione (Cass. Pen., SS.UU., judgment 28 November 2001, n. 5115). The building and urban transformation of the territory that gives rise to illegal subdivision can be achieved by giving a different layout to a portion of it, in ways that are not possible even through the preparation of an implementation plan, (..) that is, by implementing an activity aimed at and suitable for distorting the planning of the use of the territory itself as outlined by the general urban planning instrument, sicché deve ritenersi inconferente ogni riferimento all’incidenza delle nuove costruzioni sullo stato di urbanizzazione esistente. Un titolo abilitante eventualmente sopravvenuto legittima soltanto l’opera edilizia che ne costituisce l’oggetto, ma non comporta alcuna valutazione di conformità di tutta la lottizzazione alle scelte generali di pianificazione urbanistica. Pertanto anche il rilascio di una pluralità di concessioni edilizie nell’area interessata da una lottizzazione abusiva non rende lecita un’attività che tale non è: la concessione non ha, indeed, una funzione strumentale urbanistica di pianificazione dell’uso del territorio (Cass. Pen., sez. III, judgment 5 March 2008, n. 9982). Il legislatore, affermando nell’ultimo comma dell’articolo 18 of the L. n. 47 of the 1985, riprodotto nell’ultimo comma dell’articolo 30 del testo unico dell’edilizia, che «le disposizioni di cui sopra» ossia quelle dei precedenti commi, non sono applicabili, among other acts mentioned therein, to hereditary divisions, did not intend to absolutely exclude the possibility of a deed subdivision in the presence of an inheritance division deed, but it only wanted to establish that the symptomatic indices of the subdivision referred to in the first paragraph of the article are not applicable to these legal acts 18. The legislator considered that the family nature of these divisions protected them from the speculative intent of those who want to create a subdivision. In reality, even an hereditary division can mask an illegal land development. Then, But, the parcelling intent, when divisibility is permitted by law and is not inconvenient, it cannot be deduced from simple fractionation, which can be determined exclusively by the need to dissolve the hereditary community, but a quid pluris is needed that highlights the desire to subdivide (Cass. Pen., sez. III, judgment 28 September 2005, n. 38632).