Enclosing a Terrace in Semi-Detached Homes Can Be Expensive
Can I enclose my terrace without asking the homeowners’ association?. In many residential estates of semi-detached homes, there is a widespread—but mistaken—belief that each owner can modify their property freely, as long as urban planning regulations are respected. The reality is very different. And one Madrid resident learned this the hard way, as highlighted by a recent Supreme Court ruling. The case emphasises a key point: the Horizontal Property Law (Ley de Propiedad Horizontal) also applies to semi-detached homes, not just apartment blocks.
This case is a perfect example of how a seemingly minor renovation can turn into a major legal, financial, and neighbourly problem. Above all, it shows why professional community management is essential to avoid conflicts that end up in court.
A Terrace Enclosure Authorised by Urban Planning but Illegal for the Community
The owners had decided to enclose the terrace on the top floor of their semi-detached house, which was originally open. They applied for a building permit and, following a neighbour’s complaint, adjusted the project to comply with size limits. From an urban planning perspective, the enclosure was legitimate.
However, the town hall is not the only authority involved: the homeowners’ association also has a say and can challenge the project. In this case, the community not only refused to authorise the work but also voted in a meeting to take legal action against the owners for altering common elements.
The Supreme Court confirmed what the Madrid Provincial Court had already established: the estate, made up of 28 identical semi-detached houses, does not operate as independent dwellings, but as a single homeowners’ association.
This means all properties must comply with the Horizontal Property Law and the community’s internal regulations. One article of the regulations was particularly clear:
To maintain the aesthetic uniformity of the estate, any enclosure, trellis, pergola, double glazing, or visible modification must use the same materials, colours, and design as the original.
The enclosure violated this basic principle of homogeneity.
Why Aesthetics Matter
The Supreme Court explained that the enclosure was attached to the façade, a common element. The wall was extended, the railing altered, the visual continuity disrupted, and the architectural configuration of the complex changed.
According to the ruling, this constituted:
- An obvious alteration of the decorative appearance.
- A visual obstruction for other residents, blocking linear views.
- A break in the uniformity that defines the estate’s style.
Crucially, the Court emphasised that even if an owner considers their home “independent,” their actions are limited by the general interest of the community. Owners cannot carry out work that harms others.
The ruling also addresses a common misconception: having a municipal building permit does not authorise you to alter common elements or modify the appearance of the estate. These are two separate, essential approvals.
The Supreme Court reiterated that even when the terrace is privately owned, enclosing it affects common elements and therefore requires community agreement. The owners were ordered to remove the enclosure and restore the terrace to its original state.
The Importance of Professional Community Management
This case demonstrates why specialised management—such as that provided by Martin Properties—is crucial to prevent costly, unnecessary, and often irreversible conflicts. A professional administrator:
- Informs owners before starting any work.
- Checks compatibility with urban planning, bylaws, and the Horizontal Property Law.
- Prevents disputes that could escalate to the Supreme Court.
- Protects aesthetics, neighbourly relations, and the overall value of the estate.
In the end, attempting to save money can backfire: a poorly authorised terrace enclosure can quickly become a problem costing thousands of euros.