AKMV 
Unlike in many legal systems based on the Roman law tradition, the principle of superficies solo cedit (the building belongs to the landowner) does not apply in Slovakia. Slovak law allows for separate ownership of a building and the land on which it stands.
In practice, it often happens that only after the final conclusion of inheritance proceedings it is discovered that a building exists on the deceased’s land which was not included in the proceedings – typically an unregistered (black) building without a descriptive number or project documentation.
In assessing the legal status of such a building, the decisive factors are the time of its construction and the person who built it. Particularly where the building is not registered in the cadastre, it is crucial to determine whether it was built directly by the deceased or by one of their legal predecessors – i.e., the person from whom the deceased acquired the land (for example, by inheritance or purchase).
The key factor is the date of construction, since various legal regimes apply under building regulations depending on the building’s age.
Buildings Constructed Before 1 October 1976
The first unified Building Act in our territory was Act No. 50/1976 Coll. on Spatial Planning and Building Regulations (hereinafter referred to as “Act No. 50/1976”), which entered into force on 1 October 1976. Therefore, a special regime applies to buildings constructed before this date. It should be noted that this Act was valid only until 31 March 2025.
As of 1 April 2024, amnesties were granted for these buildings, and pursuant to §142l(3), first sentence, of Act No. 50/1976:
“Buildings constructed before 1 October 1976 shall, as of 1 April 2024, be deemed to have been constructed in accordance with applicable regulations.”
Buildings constructed before 1 October 1976 are therefore deemed lawful directly by law as of 1 April 2024, and there is no need to initiate any legalization proceedings or submit an application for additional authorization to the building authority. The only administrative step that remains is the registration of the building in the real estate cadastre. This registration has a declaratory character.
Pursuant to §46(7) of Act No. 162/1995 Coll. on the Cadastre of Real Estate and on the Registration of Ownership and Other Rights to Real Estate (the “Cadastral Act”):
“When registering a building or underground structure in the cadastre, for which the occupancy permit or use authorization became final before 1 October 1976, a municipal confirmation shall be submitted indicating when the building or underground structure was approved or put into use, what descriptive number was assigned to it, and who was its builder according to the occupancy permit or use authorization; as owner, the person indicated in the municipal confirmation as builder shall be registered.”
**“It is sufficient for the applicant to attach to the application a municipal confirmation stating when the building or underground structure was approved or put into use, what descriptive number was assigned, and who was the builder according to the occupancy permit or use authorization (we must not forget a survey plan, if the built-up area had not already been surveyed earlier). In this case, the person indicated in the municipal confirmation as the builder shall be registered as the owner. If ownership has changed, the new owner must provide proof.
If an older building is not registered in the cadastre, it is necessary to provide documents proving who built the building, or if such documents have not been preserved, municipal confirmation.
If the current holder of the building is a different person than the builder indicated in building documents or municipal confirmation under subsection 7, and the building was not registered in the cadastre, it is then necessary to provide documents proving acquisition of such a building.
Judicial case law allows the following approach: if the building was included in the acquisition contract, or in the inheritance after the builder, only under the general term ‘appurtenance’ or under the term ‘auxiliary building’, in such a case the cadastre accepts the transfer of ownership of such a building to the current holder. However, it must be noted that this condition is often not fulfilled, and then the owner is left with only supplementary inheritance proceedings regarding such a building.”** (Commentary on Act No. 162/1995 Coll. – Cadastral Act, Epi)
According to the opinion of the Geodesy, Cartography and Cadastre Authority of the Slovak Republic (ÚGKK SR) in Cadastral Bulletin No. 1/2016, Question No. 18:
“For the cadastre, in the municipal confirmation of a building constructed before 1976, the determination of who was the builder is binding.”
Buildings Constructed Between 1 October 1976 and 31 December 1989
Even for buildings constructed later, up to 31 December 1989, amnesties were granted pursuant to §142l(3), second sentence, of Act No. 50/1976:
“Buildings constructed from 1 October 1976 to 31 December 1989 shall, as of 1 April 2024, be deemed to have been constructed in accordance with this Act, provided they have been continuously used for their intended purpose and the owner of the building, as of that date, is the owner of the land or holds another right to the land on which the building was erected.”
Buildings constructed between 1 October 1976 and 31 December 1989 are therefore deemed lawful as of 1 April 2024, provided two conditions are met: the building has been continuously used for its intended purpose, and the owner of the building is also the owner of the land or holds another right to the land (e.g., an easement, tenancy right). As with older buildings, no legalization procedure is carried out; only registration in the real estate cadastre is required.
Pursuant to §46(10) of Act No. 162/1995 Coll. on the Cadastre of Real Estate and on the Registration of Ownership and Other Rights to Real Estate (the “Cadastral Act”):
“When registering a building or underground structure constructed between 1 October 1976 and 31 December 1989, a municipal confirmation shall be submitted stating when the building was constructed, for what purpose it was continuously used, what descriptive number was assigned to it, and who was its builder, together with a public deed or other document proving that the builder, as of 1 April 2024, held ownership or another right to the land beneath the building; the person identified in the municipal confirmation as the builder shall be recorded as the owner of the building.”
“This construction of registering the builder, rather than the current owner, is not particularly fortunate, since the builder was often the legal predecessor of the current owner. The law does not account for registration of the current owner when it can be demonstrated that they are the owner of the main building and the land. Nor does it contemplate registration of another person upon proof of legal succession. Proving the transfer or passage of rights will, in many cases, be problematic, not only for natural persons.” (Commentary on Act No. 162/1995 Coll. – Cadastral Act, Epi)
According to the opinion of the Geodesy, Cartography and Cadastre Authority of the Slovak Republic (ÚGKK SR) in Cadastral Bulletin No. 3/2002, Question No. 25:
“Accessory structures, minor buildings in the yard – appurtenances, if owned by the owner of the main building, pass with the ownership of the main building – they must be stated in the contract at least under the term ‘appurtenance’.”
Buildings Constructed Between 1 January 1990 and 31 March 2025
Pursuant to §140d(1) of Act No. 50/1976:
“The building authority, upon application of the owner of a building, shall examine the usability of the building, if it concerns a structure erected and used without authorization of the building authority, or in violation thereof, in the period from 1 January 1990 to 31 March 2025, provided that the owner demonstrates that
a) the building, by its structural-technical condition and equipment, meets the basic requirements for buildings and the purpose for which it has been continuously used by the owner without deficiencies, and the building authority in the proceedings determines that the building does not endanger life,
b) the owner is the owner of the land or holds another right to the land and the land has been settled pursuant to special regulations,
c) the building was not erected in violation of binding regulations on functional land use under the binding part of spatial planning documentation or interests protected under special laws effective at the time of construction or at the time of examination, whichever is more favorable for the owner,
d) the building is not located beneath an electrical line or within its protection zone, or in a floodplain, or in a protection or safety zone of a gas facility, or that the operator of transport or technical infrastructure in whose protection or safety zone the building is located has consented to its placement there,
e) documentation of the existing condition of the building for purposes of approval has been prepared, if such documentation is requested by the building authority.”**
Pursuant to §140d(3) of Act No. 50/1976:
“The owner of the building may submit an application for examination of the building’s usability pursuant to subsections 1 and 2 until 31 March 2029.”
Pursuant to §140d(4) of Act No. 50/1976:
“The application for examination of the building’s usability shall be accompanied by documentation confirming the facts pursuant to subsection 1 or subsection 2, including binding opinions of concerned authorities. The building authority may determine that, for the assessment of usability, documentation of the building within the scope of §104(2) is sufficient. The owner shall not submit binding opinions of concerned authorities if the facts under subsection 1 or 2 have already been demonstrated in proceedings for additional authorization of the building.”
Pursuant to §140d(3) of Act No. 50/1976:
“If the owner of the building proves compliance with the conditions pursuant to subsection 1 or subsection 2, the building authority shall issue a decision confirming the building’s usability. The provisions on occupancy approval shall apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings on examination of usability. The decision confirming usability has the effect of an occupancy permit.”
Unlike older buildings constructed before 1 October 1976 or during the period 1976–1989, which benefit from statutory amnesty effective as of 1 April 2024, buildings constructed between 1 January 1990 and 31 March 2025 continue to be considered unauthorized. If such a building was constructed without a building permit or in violation thereof, it is necessary to initiate proceedings for additional authorization.
It is important to draw attention to the new Building Act No. 25/2025 Coll. on Amendments and Supplements to Certain Acts (the “Building Act”), effective as of 15 March 2025.
Pursuant to §84(7)(b) of the Building Act:
“The previous legislation, in the wording effective until 31 March 2025, shall apply to proceedings for additional authorization of a building, including the issuance of binding opinions for such proceedings, if the building does not meet the conditions to be deemed lawful under the previous legislation, nor the conditions for examination of usability under the previous legislation or under letter a), and the owner of such building submits an application for additional authorization between 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2029.”
Legalization will only be possible if the owner submits an application for additional authorization by 31 March 2029. After the expiration of this four-year period, it will no longer be possible under applicable law to legalize such buildings pursuant to the previous regulations, which may result in statutory procedures leading to their removal.
It follows that owners of unauthorized buildings not subject to statutory amnesty have a final opportunity to use the transitional legislative period to obtain additional authorization. After 2029, legalization will no longer be possible.
Proceedings for additional authorization are governed by §88a of Act No. 50/1976:
“(1) If the building authority determines that a building has been constructed without a building permit or in violation thereof, it shall, ex officio, initiate proceedings for removal of the building, while being obliged to consider the possibility of examining the building’s usability if the building is completed, or the possibility of additional authorization. The building authority shall call upon the owner to submit, within a specified period not shorter than 60 days, an application for examination of usability together with the documents under §140d, or an application for additional authorization together with documents proving that additional authorization is not contrary to public interests protected by this Act, in particular spatial planning objectives and special regulations. If the construction was commenced without a final building permit that had already been issued, the authority shall assess conformity with public interests on the basis of binding opinions under §140b and documents submitted in the building proceedings.
(2) If the owner fails to submit the application and required documents within the specified period, or if the documents show that the building conflicts with public interests, the authority shall order removal of the building.
(3) If the owner submits the application and documents under subsection 1, the authority shall continue in proceedings for additional authorization.
(4) If it is demonstrated that additional authorization is not contrary to public interests, but the owner fails during the proceedings to prove ownership of the land built upon or another right thereto (§58(2)), and the landowner does not consent to the additional authorization, the authority shall refer the matter to the court and suspend proceedings (§137). Proceedings shall remain suspended until a final court decision.
(5) In the case of an unfinished building, no construction work may be carried out during proceedings for additional authorization, unless otherwise determined by the authority. Only essential works necessary to prevent threats to structural integrity, fire safety, future completion, or the environment and health may be permitted.
(6) In the decision on additional authorization, the authority shall retroactively authorize works already carried out and set conditions for completion or order modifications.
(7) If it is shown that the building conflicts with public interests, or if the builder fails to comply with conditions of the decision, the authority shall order removal.
(11) If it is established that the building is completed and the owner files an application for examination of usability, the authority shall discontinue proceedings for additional authorization.”
“The purpose of the amendment is that, if a building meets the conditions of §140d and is completed, proceedings may be initiated and a decision issued under §140d regardless of whether proceedings under §88a have commenced. Removal of the building, as the strictest consequence of unauthorized construction, will thus occur only if the conditions of §88a are fulfilled and, at the same time, the conditions for a decision on usability under §140d are not met.” (Explanatory Report to Act No. 26/2025 Coll. amending certain acts in connection with changes brought by the Building Act)
Pursuant to §46(1) of Act No. 162/1995 Coll. on the Cadastre of Real Estate and on the Registration of Ownership and Other Rights to Real Estate (the “Cadastral Act”):
“As owner or other entitled person, the district office shall register in the cadastre the person indicated in a public deed or other document, unless another public deed or document demonstrates that the owner or entitled person is someone else.”
Proof of Building Age for Registration
Although buildings erected before 1 January 1990 are deemed lawful by statute as of 1 April 2024, many are not registered in the cadastre. To enable registration, owners must prove the building’s existence and age. Municipal authorities issue official confirmations of construction age based on evidence such as aerial photographs, archival maps, tax records, or witness statements. These confirmations serve as the public deed required for registration.
The issuance of this confirmation is not linked to any administrative legalization procedure, since legalization has already occurred by operation of law. In determining the age of the building, the building authority relies on evidence submitted by the applicant – typically aerial photographs, archival maps, survey plans, historical tax records, or sworn witness statements. Subsequently, the authority issues a confirmation which serves as the basis for registering the building in the real estate cadastre.
The confirmation of a building’s age therefore represents an important evidentiary instrument, enabling owners to align the legal and factual status of the property without the necessity of undergoing a legalization procedure.
Renewal of Inheritance Proceedings
If it is established that the building was erected by the legal predecessor of the deceased – for example, a grandparent from whom the deceased inherited the land, or a previous owner from whom the land was purchased – then the deceased may not have been the legal owner of the building at the time of death and therefore could not dispose of it in the legal sense.
The municipal authority is obliged to examine who was the actual builder of the given construction, i.e., the person who carried out or commissioned its construction.
If it emerges that the builder was not the current owner of the land (e.g., the heir), but another person – for instance, the deceased, the deceased’s legal predecessor, or an entirely third party – the municipal authority shall register this other person as the builder. This entry is then reflected in the real estate cadastre.
According to § 211(1) of Act No. 161/2015 Coll., the Civil Non-Contentious Procedure Code (hereinafter “CNCP”):
“If, after the finality of the ruling concluding the inheritance proceedings, additional property or a liability of the deceased is discovered, the court, upon motion, shall conduct supplementary inheritance proceedings regarding such property. If only a liability is discovered, supplementary proceedings shall not be conducted.”
If it is subsequently established that the owner of the building was the deceased’s legal predecessor, such as a parent, grandparent, or even more distant relative, the renewal of inheritance proceedings does not concern only the immediate deceased but may extend several generations back. In such cases, it is necessary to reopen not the original, but earlier inheritance proceedings that may have concluded decades ago.
Such renewal is legally permissible but procedurally and evidentially significantly demanding. The more generations lie between the original builder and the current landowner, the greater the number of potential heirs, especially where the property was not inherited directly along a single line of succession.
From a legal standpoint, an even more complex situation arises if it is determined that the deceased acquired the land together with the building from a third party, for example, through purchase or donation. In such a case, it is essential to thoroughly examine the relevant documentation, particularly the contract itself and any annexes, such as old survey plans or property descriptions at the time of acquisition. The decisive issue is whether these documents indicate that the transfer included the building itself.
If it can be demonstrated that ownership of the building was indeed transferred together with the land, either expressly or implicitly, the situation is considerably simplified, as it would be presumed that ownership of the building passed to the deceased.
If, however, the documentation does not indicate that the building was part of the transfer, or if it is established that the building was constructed by another person without legal title to the land, the deceased never legally owned the building. In that case, the heir cannot acquire ownership of the building through inheritance from the deceased. It would then be necessary to reopen inheritance proceedings after the actual builder, who is not the deceased landowner, but another person with a legal interest in the settlement of ownership.
In such circumstances, the court would likely require submission of evidence substantiating the justification of the motion and the applicant’s interest in resolving the legal status of the building – namely, ownership of the land beneath the building. The outcome could be that ownership of the building passes to an entirely different person, such as a descendant of the original builder who may not have been aware of their inheritance rights. In such a case, the only way to legally reconcile ownership of the land and the building would be to reach an agreement with the new owner and acquire the building through purchase or other transfer.
In conclusion, the legal assessment of the status of a building and the possibility of its legalization or registration in the cadastre requires careful historical examination of ownership relations, identification of the builder, and review of documents concerning the transfer of ownership rights and their annexes (survey plans, expert opinions, etc.).
