Interior Courtyard Works: When You Don’t Need Approval from the Community, According to a Key Court Ruling

Home

Renovations in interior courtyards often generate disputes within homeowners’ associations. A recent ruling from the Provincial Court of Badajoz brings clarity, confirming that certain works can be carried out without unanimous approval when they do not affect common elements or compromise the building’s safety.

The court validated several renovations made by the owner of a commercial premises, reopening the debate around the interpretation of Article 7.1 of the Spanish Horizontal Property Act (LPH) in cases involving unapproved works.

Works on Common Elements: When Is Approval Required?

The dispute arose from several interventions:

Adapting and extending a smoke duct
Raising a dividing wall
Replacing an existing canopy
Opening a door on the ground floor
Enlarging an existing opening toward the courtyard

The community argued that all required unanimous consent, but the court concluded otherwise: none of the works affected the structure or endangered the building, the two key criteria used by the LPH to consider an unapproved renovation unlawful.

Smoke Ducts and Minor Works: No Community Impact

The smoke duct already existed in the courtyard; the owner simply connected to it and raised its height to comply with regulations. With no evidence of disturbance or risk, the court classified the intervention as a minor, necessary, and non-intrusive work.

Walls, Technical Reports and Absence of Damage

Technical reports issued by both the City Council and the Regional Government confirmed that the raised wall:

Did not affect common elements
Complied with safety and urban planning requirements
Did not cause loss of views or rights to the community

Courts tend to rely heavily on these official reports as objective guarantees that a renovation complies with regulations.

Does Opening a Door Mean Appropriation of the Courtyard? No, Says the Court

The court clarified that:

The courtyard never had a community access door
Historically, access occurred through windows of commercial premises
The space remains a common element accessible when needed

Thus, the legal nature of the courtyard remains intact.

Canopies and Building Configuration: A Valid and Harmless Update

The canopy had existed for years, and its configuration dated back to before 2016. The court concluded it did not alter the building’s configuration or cause any proven harm.

Door Openings: Works Necessary for Proper Use of the Premises

Following the doctrine of the Supreme Court, certain works in common elements are allowed when they are essential for the proper use of a premises and do not harm other owners. The owner even ceded part of his space to improve access for neighbours—something the court acknowledged positively.

Interpretation of Article 7.1 LPH and Dismissal of the Appeal

The court confirmed that the works:

Did not alter common elements
Did not compromise the building’s safety
Did not affect general use

As a result, the appeal was dismissed and the community was ordered to pay costs.

When You DON’T Need Community Approval for Works in an Interior Courtyard

You typically don’t need unanimous approval when the work:
✔ Does not affect the building’s structure
✔ Does not modify essential common elements
✔ Does not compromise safety
✔ Does not alter the title deed
✔ Is necessary for the normal use of the premises
✔ Maintains equivalent volume, location and materials

Common examples accepted by Spanish courts include: