Criminal Lawyers in Urban Planning Crimes

Urban planning offences, regulated in Arts. 319 to 320 of the Spanish Criminal Code, protect a collective legal interest: land use planning and the rational use of land in accordance with urban plans. Consolidated case-law has enshrined a strict criterion: building on specially protected non-developable land causes irreparable damage to landscape, ecosystem and administrative legality, justifying criminal response even where municipal tolerance exists. The Environment and Planning Coordinating Prosecutor's Office, working with SEPRONA and regional services, actively pursues both large developments and small constructions (shelters, porches, pools, mobile homes) on protected land. As criminal defence lawyers specialising in urban planning crimes, we intervene from the first procedural step to articulate the dual defence: avoiding criminal conviction and, above all, avoiding the demolition of the building.

The typical modalities are distributed across two articles. Art. 319 CP punishes the non-authorisable construction on land classified as public domain, roads, green areas, goods of historical, artistic, cultural or landscape value, or on specially protected non-developable land (subsection 1), with more severe penalties; and that carried out on ordinary non-developable land (subsection 2), with lower penalties. Art. 320 CP sanctions urban planning prevarication: authorities, civil servants or technicians who issue favourable reports, vote for or grant licences or authorisations knowing they are unfair. Alongside these, specific modalities include mobile homes and prefab houses with vocation of permanence, illegal parcelling, extensions without licence and changes of use in legally constructed buildings.

The penalties vary depending on the land classification. On specially protected or public-domain land (Art. 319.1 CP), the sanction comprises prison of 1 year and 6 months to 4 years, fine of 12 to 24 months and special disqualification from profession or trade for 1 to 4 years. On ordinary non-developable land (Art. 319.2 CP), the penalty falls to prison of 1 to 3 years, with lower fines and disqualification. For urban planning prevarication (Art. 320 CP), prison of 1 year and 6 months to 4 years, fine of 12 to 24 months and special disqualification from public employment of 9 to 15 years are foreseen. But the most feared consequence is the demolition at the author's expense (Art. 319.3 CP), which the judge may order and which has settled case-law favourable to its enforcement even regarding habitual dwelling, under the principle that crime cannot generate rights.

The technical defence is built on several complementary lines. First, the prescription of the offence at 5 years from total completion of the work (Art. 131 CP), evidenced by historical PNOA orthophotographs, satellite aerial imagery, material invoices, notarial declarations and architectural expertise. Second, the mistake of prohibition (Art. 14.3 CP): prolonged municipal tolerance, IBI collection, activity-licence concession, connection to utilities and registry inscription may fuel reasonable belief that the building is lawful. Third, the lack of vocation of permanence in dismountable mobile homes without foundations or fixed connections. Fourth, the possibility of subsequent legalisation following changes to the planning instrument: we paralyse the demolition by invoking proportionality, the AFO regime (Assimilated to Out-of-Order status), good-faith third parties and, where appropriate, housing necessity.

In current forensic practice, we observe intensified control through drones, satellite photography and automatic cadastral comparison, multiplying complaints even years after the work. Act 7/2021 on climate change, Directive 2024/1203 on environmental crime and Organic Law 1/2025 on Justice Service Efficiency have hardened the institutional response. At Alonso Sala, we tackle each procedure with expert architects, surveyors and regional planning consultants: we rebuild construction chronologies, contrast historical cartography, articulate demolition-suspension requests, negotiate AFO regimes with the competent regional authorities and, where appropriate, exercise third-party claims for good-faith purchasers. The aim is not only the best criminal classification, but the preservation of the property and the minimisation of economic and patrimonial consequences for the client.