Quick answer: Romania’s new Urbanism Code 2026—officially the Code of Spatial Planning, Urbanism and Construction enacted by Law no. 169/2026—has applied since 25 August 2026. It replaces the previous core planning and building-permit framework and materially changes project development, regularisation and enforcement.

The reform is also referred to in English as Romania’s new Urban Planning and Construction Code. It repeals Laws no. 350/2001 and no. 50/1991, creates integrated and tacit approval mechanisms, reorganises PUG, PUZ and PUD documentation, introduces permit, notification and no-formality tiers, and sharply increases sanctions.

For real estate developers, investors and lenders, the immediate questions are practical: which rules apply to an existing procedure, how long an authorisation remains valid, whether project rights transfer on a sale, and whether historic works can still be regularised. This guide answers those questions and identifies drafting points that should be tested against the official text and local implementation.

• Entry into force: Law no. 169/2026 was published on 10 August 2026 and has applied since 25 August 2026.
• Repealed framework: Laws no. 50/1991 and no. 350/2001 were repealed in full; substantial parts of Law no. 10/1995 and the principal implementing orders were also repealed.
• Existing projects: transitional protection depends on the documented date on which the relevant planning procedure was initiated or the certificate was issued.
• Permitting: a building permit is generally valid for three years, opinions may survive until acceptance, and qualifying project rights transfer by operation of law.
• Works without a full permit: only expressly listed works qualify for notification or no-formality treatment; protected areas remain subject to narrower rules.
• Regularisation deadline: the broader transitional route is available practically until 25 August 2027 and carries tenfold quotas and fees under the Code.
• Enforcement: core authorisation fines can reach RON 1,000,000, with additional per-storey penalties in defined cases.

Key Dates under Law no. 169/2026

The transitional regime generally preserves planning work and certificates already in progress, but the precise trigger must be documented.

Procedures for preparing, endorsing and approving planning documentation begun before 25 August 2026 remain subject to the law in force when they were initiated. For this purpose, initiation is the date on which the administrative act triggering the procedure was made known to third parties. Opinions not yet obtained may, as an exception and at the applicant’s option, be pursued through the new integrated approval commission; opinions already obtained retain their validity (Article 582(1), (2) and (6)).

Certificates of urbanism issued before entry into force remain valid. The permit is issued on the basis of the opinions and agreements required by that certificate under the law applicable when the certificate was issued. If competence changes between the certificate and the permit application, the permit may be issued by the authority competent under the Code or by the authority that was competent on the date of the certificate, on the basis of that existing certificate (Article 582(4)-(6)).

Two portfolio-level points deserve separate treatment. General urban plans (PUGs) more than seven years old on 25 August 2026 must be updated and approved within three years. Existing PUGs remain effective until the update is approved, but for no more than those three years, and no further extension decision may be adopted (Article 573). In addition, the transitional carve-out from the Code’s investment-project life-cycle rules applies to projects governed by Government Decision no. 907/2016—principally publicly funded investment projects—where works are under execution, procurement has been launched, financing has been approved or the relevant technical-economic documentation has reached one of the stages specified in Article 577. It should not be described as a general exemption for all private developments.

The Code redraws the hierarchy of planning instruments. Urban planning documentation comprises the metropolitan area general urban plan (PUGZM), the general urban plan (PUG) and the zonal urban plan (PUZ). Urban design documentation comprises the detailed urban design project (PUD), which replaces the former detailed urban plan. A PUG remains mandatory for each administrative-territorial unit unless it plans through a PUGZM. Where an investment spans two or more units, a single PUZ must be approved by each local council concerned, by absolute majority, and takes effect only after all required decisions have been adopted.

The PUGZM is a new optional instrument initiated at metropolitan-zone level. It replaces the individual general plans of participating units and takes effect progressively once approved by the polarising unit and at least half plus one of the member units.

On the PUZ, an important change concerns when the instrument is mandatory. Central, leisure and tourism, industrial, technological and service areas no longer attract a PUZ requirement directly by force of the Code merely because of that designation. Conversely, where the PUG or higher-rank documentation makes development conditional on a PUZ, the mayor must initiate it without an initiation opinion. A privately initiated PUZ that seeks to modify approved rules requires an initiation opinion—the successor to the former opportunity opinion—and the modification must be substantiated by reference to the general interest. The chief architect’s technical opinion is due within 15 working days of a complete filing; approval is by absolute majority; and councillors may not amend the technical content submitted for approval.

The PUD is repositioned. It is prepared as a specialist study during the permit procedure, in at least two preliminary variants addressing alternative siting, and is approved by mayoral disposition within 15 calendar days of the chief architect’s opinion rather than by local council decision. Its scope also extends to renewable-energy investments within the built-up area where the proposed function is consistent with the higher-rank documentation.

The PUD may now modify higher-rank planning rules, but the power is more nuanced than a general 20% derogation. Article 82 lists eight situations in which a modifying PUD may be initiated and limits the permissible changes to four categories: building siting; specified urban indicators; the detached, semi-detached, terraced or continuous building regime; and a single subdivision into no more than 12 plots for individual housing and related functions. A one-off increase of up to 20% in POT and/or CUT is available only in the design and technical circumstances expressly listed in Article 82(2)(b)(i). The Code also permits height adjustments in specified circumstances, but does not impose a universal one-storey cap on that limb. The “one additional storey” limit and the exclusion of protected areas apply specifically to the separate rule for new or extended public buildings in Article 82(2)(b)(iii). These limits should therefore be tested against the exact statutory limb relied on, rather than applied as a single rule to every PUD.

Planning documentation no longer has a generally fixed expiry date. It remains valid until replaced by modifying documentation of equal or higher rank, while authorities must review its currency and implementation every five years and initiate an update where needed (Article 109). Breach of the rules on preparing, modifying or approving documentation—including requirements concerning opinions and public participation—may result in total or partial nullity established by the administrative courts. Documentation whose purpose is to bring unauthorised works into legality may not be initiated or approved and is void by operation of law, subject to the express exception for the planning of informal settlements under Article 150(14) (Article 146).

The Code addresses the approval bottleneck through integrated opinions and a stronger form of tacit approval.

Planning documentation is endorsed through integrated opinions issued at central and local level, and additional opinions may not be requested outside the statutory framework. Strategic environmental assessment and national defence and security opinions follow their separate regimes. At the permit stage, an applicant may opt to obtain the opinions required by the certificate through the single agreement commission, which consolidates them into a single agreement, generally within 30 calendar days. Certain matters remain outside that mechanism, including the environmental authority’s position, environmental and Natura 2000 acts, the water-management opinion, the Ministry of Culture opinion and neighbours’ or owners’ association agreements.

Tacit approval operates where a commission member fails to participate or submit a position and, for approvers not represented on the commission, where the statutory period expires without an opinion, a request for amendment or a reasoned rejection. Once the beneficiary has invoked tacit approval, a later opinion produces no legal effect. Reliance on the mechanism requires evidence that the filing was registered and a declaration on the applicant’s own responsibility. National defence and security institutions are excluded, as are the initiation opinion and the chief architect’s opinion.

Both procedures are intended to run through the national digital platform. Until it is operational, documents are circulated to commission members by e-mail. Registration receipts, complete copies of the filing and evidence of the date and recipients of each transmission will therefore be central to any later reliance on tacit approval.

The Code resolves a question that generated inconsistent case law under Law no. 50/1991: a certificate of urbanism is an administrative act, except for a certificate issued purely for information. The certificate still confers no right to execute works (Article 253(1)-(3)).

Issuance periods are differentiated by type. An information certificate is issued within five working days where the authority has a functioning IT system and, until then, within ten working days. The period is ten working days for a cadastral-operations certificate and 15 working days for a certificate concerning buildings and amenities or engineering works. Validity is set by the issuer between 12 and 36 months and may be extended by up to 24 months on a request filed at least 15 working days before expiry; public investment projects may receive a validity period of up to 60 months. The nullity rule for missing statutory content applies to the categories listed in Article 253(3)(b)-(d), not to every form of certificate. Separately, cadastral operations such as splitting, merging and registration of rights of way—and the related legal acts—are absolutely void if carried out without the required certificate or in breach of its conditions (Articles 253(9) and 256(2)).

Three permit changes are particularly relevant to transactions and project scheduling.

Three-year validity, with drafting tension on extensions

A building or demolition permit is valid for three years from issuance. If works begin within that period and commencement is notified to the authority, validity extends across the execution period stated in the permit; without notification, the execution period is calculated from the permit date. Validity may be suspended once, by reasoned notification, for up to 12 months. The text then contains an internal contradiction: Article 309(5) prohibits extension of the validity period regardless of the reasons, while Article 309(6) immediately permits an extension of up to 12 months where works cannot be completed within the execution period. Article 310(5) separately permits a one-off extension of the execution period of up to 12 months, subject to a fee equal to 30% of the original authorisation fee. Until the provisions are clarified, the requested relief and the authority’s legal basis should be identified precisely.

A permit loses validity if works do not begin within the relevant term, are not completed within the execution period or are suspended for more than 24 months. Litigation affecting ownership, other real rights, the legality of the permit or the right to execute works, and force majeure, disapply only the non-completion ground in Article 310(2). On the wording enacted, they do not disapply the failure-to-start ground or the separate rule for suspension exceeding 24 months.

Opinions survive the programme

Opinions and agreements required by the certificate remain valid until acceptance of the works, provided no new factual or regulatory elements arise. Where a PUZ regulates the applicant’s plot in sufficient detail, PUZ-stage opinions remain valid at the authorisation stage without being sought again unless the issuer expressly reserved further approval.

Project rights transfer by operation of law

If the holder changes during execution, the rights and obligations arising from the permit pass in full to the new holder. Before the permit is issued, rights and obligations arising from the certificate and opinions already obtained also transfer. The Code prescribes no prior approval or express notification formality for that transfer, although a purchaser should still ensure that the authority’s records and the project file are updated in practice (Article 312).

The Code also regulates a modification permit for changes of theme during execution. It is issued on the basis of an updated authorisation design, and the modified works must be completed within the validity period of the original permit. Local technical changes may remain possible through a site instruction prepared by the designer. Where an investment combines new construction with amenities, interventions or partial demolition, a single permit is requested, identifying each authorised category separately.

The Code resolves a question that generated inconsistent case law under Law no. 50/1991: a certificate of urbanism is an administrative act, except for a certificate issued purely for information. The certificate still confers no right to execute works (Article 253(1)-(3)).

Issuance periods are differentiated by type. An information certificate is issued within five working days where the authority has a functioning IT system and, until then, within ten working days. The period is ten working days for a cadastral-operations certificate and 15 working days for a certificate concerning buildings and amenities or engineering works. Validity is set by the issuer between 12 and 36 months and may be extended by up to 24 months on a request filed at least 15 working days before expiry; public investment projects may receive a validity period of up to 60 months. The nullity rule for missing statutory content applies to the categories listed in Article 253(3)(b)-(d), not to every form of certificate. Separately, cadastral operations such as splitting, merging and registration of rights of way—and the related legal acts—are absolutely void if carried out without the required certificate or in breach of its conditions (Articles 253(9) and 256(2)).

Three permit changes are particularly relevant to transactions and project scheduling.

Three-year validity, with drafting tension on extensions

A building or demolition permit is valid for three years from issuance. If works begin within that period and commencement is notified to the authority, validity extends across the execution period stated in the permit; without notification, the execution period is calculated from the permit date. Validity may be suspended once, by reasoned notification, for up to 12 months. The text then contains an internal contradiction: Article 309(5) prohibits extension of the validity period regardless of the reasons, while Article 309(6) immediately permits an extension of up to 12 months where works cannot be completed within the execution period. Article 310(5) separately permits a one-off extension of the execution period of up to 12 months, subject to a fee equal to 30% of the original authorisation fee. Until the provisions are clarified, the requested relief and the authority’s legal basis should be identified precisely.

A permit loses validity if works do not begin within the relevant term, are not completed within the execution period or are suspended for more than 24 months. Litigation affecting ownership, other real rights, the legality of the permit or the right to execute works, and force majeure, disapply only the non-completion ground in Article 310(2). On the wording enacted, they do not disapply the failure-to-start ground or the separate rule for suspension exceeding 24 months.

Opinions survive the programme

Opinions and agreements required by the certificate remain valid until acceptance of the works, provided no new factual or regulatory elements arise. Where a PUZ regulates the applicant’s plot in sufficient detail, PUZ-stage opinions remain valid at the authorisation stage without being sought again unless the issuer expressly reserved further approval.

Project rights transfer by operation of law

If the holder changes during execution, the rights and obligations arising from the permit pass in full to the new holder. Before the permit is issued, rights and obligations arising from the certificate and opinions already obtained also transfer. The Code prescribes no prior approval or express notification formality for that transfer, although a purchaser should still ensure that the authority’s records and the project file are updated in practice (Article 312).

The Code also regulates a modification permit for changes of theme during execution. It is issued on the basis of an updated authorisation design, and the modified works must be completed within the validity period of the original permit. Local technical changes may remain possible through a site instruction prepared by the designer. Where an investment combines new construction with amenities, interventions or partial demolition, a single permit is requested, identifying each authorised category separately.

The Code places works on a scale. A permit remains the rule. Below it sits a simplified prior-notification procedure; below that are works requiring no formality. Certain light equipment and temporary structures use a siting opinion instead of a permit. The first question on any project is therefore which statutory tier applies.

Outside protected built areas and monument protection zones, notification covers a defined list of works on existing buildings, including new fences, limited roof replacement, fitting out an existing loft, specified kitchen and bathroom works, unified enclosure of balconies and loggias, certain non-structural alterations, façade remodelling, energy works on low-rise individual housing and qualifying changes of use. It also covers narrowly defined new construction in rural built-up areas: specified household structures with a cumulative area of up to 50 sqm (excluding rural localities in metropolitan areas) and one qualifying single-family dwelling of up to 150 sqm, subject to the design and review conditions in Article 294(2)(a). The route is not entirely excluded from protected areas: Article 294(3) allows a narrower list of works to non-listed buildings in monument protection zones or protected built areas, but requires prior notification of the deconcentrated culture service and its written agreement.

The authority has five possible responses: tacit approval; a request for technical clarification or mandatory documents; a request for complementary documentation needed to obtain opinions; information that a permit is required; or a reasoned rejection. Tacit approval takes effect 15 working days after receipt. The Code sets a 15-working-day period for the clarification, permit and rejection responses, but states no express period for the request for complementary approval documentation in Article 296(1)(c). Works may begin only after a further 15 calendar days following tacit approval or, as applicable, full satisfaction of the conditions identified by the authority—including obtaining a permit where that is the required outcome. In a clean silence scenario, the site-start lead time is therefore approximately one month. The notified works may be carried out for three years.

Responsibility shifts materially to the private side. The notification is made on the applicant’s own responsibility, and the Code states that the authority is not liable for damage arising from litigation over the property or from registered charges and prohibitions. Tacit approval does not validate title. Authorities must also publish monthly, at their offices and on their websites, the list of tacitly approved notifications, including the filing number, address, cadastral and land-book numbers and the notified works.

For transaction purposes, land-book registration of completed notified works is based on evidence of the notification and the entry in the National Register of Constructions. For an asset altered after 25 August 2026, due diligence should therefore ask for the notification file, evidence of the procedure’s outcome, the completion protocol and the register entry—not only for a building permit.

This is the provision with the shortest commercial fuse and should be addressed immediately in any portfolio containing works carried out without a permit or in breach of one.

The former route under Law no. 50/1991 for registering certain unauthorised buildings after expiry of the limitation period has disappeared with the repeal of that law. The Code instead creates a regularisation permit. As a standing mechanism, it is available for a closed list: single-family dwellings of ground floor or ground floor plus one storey, with a gross floor area not exceeding 150 sqm, that are not historical monuments and are outside monument protection zones and protected built areas; specified annexes within the same area cap; and balcony enclosures that do not extend onto the public domain. Environmental rules, the fundamental quality requirements and applicable planning regulations must be met cumulatively and verified through the prescribed technical process (Article 301(1)-(6) and (9)-(10)).

The transitional exception is broader. For a maximum of one year from entry into force—practically, no later than 25 August 2027—a regularisation permit may also be requested for other categories of construction carried out without a permit or in breach of one. The works must comply with the planning rules in force when the regularisation permit is issued, meet the fundamental quality requirements and satisfy the applicable fiscal obligations and contravention measures (Article 301(7)). This is not an amnesty: the authority may require conformity works or partial demolition, and works that cannot meet the cumulative conditions remain exposed to demolition.

For this temporary route, the Code itself sets the State-control quotas and the certificate and authorisation fees at ten times the amount that would otherwise be due (Article 301(8)). The separate obligation imposed on the Ministry of Finance to initiate amendments to the Fiscal Code within 60 days is a harmonisation requirement; the wording of the Code does not state that Article 301(8) is suspended until that amendment is enacted. Local collection mechanics may nevertheless require early confirmation with the issuing authority.

The 100% increase in building tax is also narrower than a general penalty on every future unauthorised building. Article 301(11) applies to buildings already constructed without the required authorisation or in breach of it and not regularised by the date the Code entered into force. The increase runs from the authority’s finding until regularisation or demolition. Paying the increased tax neither legalises the building nor displaces construction-discipline sanctions.

After the one-year period, Article 301(12)-(15) allows the local authority to demolish qualifying unauthorised works and recover its costs or, where judicial intervention is required, obliges it to seek demolition in court. The mayor must file the special action described in Article 301(13) within 30 days after the transitional period expires. The Code’s separate ten-year limitation in Article 357(11) applies to the court action under Article 357(10), triggered in the circumstances of Article 358(3) after failure to comply with measures imposed by a contravention report. It should not be presented as the limitation period for the distinct Article 301(13) action.

Constructions executed without a permit or in breach of it cannot be accepted at completion; without acceptance, the works are not treated as finalised. The regularisation audit should therefore be linked directly to title, financing, insurance and exit planning.

Fine levels have increased sharply. Executing works without a building, demolition, regularisation or modification permit, or in breach of one, attracts a fine between RON 50,000 and RON 1,000,000, assessed by reference to the gravity of the conduct and its impact on neighbouring properties. If the breach concerns the authorised height regime, an additional fine of RON 50,000 to RON 500,000 applies for each unauthorised storey, cumulatively with the principal fine (Article 357(4)(b) and (5)). Failure to follow the notification route attracts a fine of RON 5,000 to RON 50,000.

Fines may be imposed on natural persons and on private- or public-law legal persons. The Code also makes a series of failures by authorities contraventions, including unjustified or late acts and unlawful demands in the authorisation process. For certain expressly listed first offences, a warning may be used once.

Criminal liability includes imprisonment from three months to one year or a criminal fine for unauthorised or non-compliant works at historical monuments, in their protection zones, in protected built areas, at buildings identified as having special architectural or historical value and in regulated “special-character zones”; for continuing works after a stop order or breaking seals; and for preparing, signing or verifying technical documentation outside the person’s certified speciality (Article 356).

“Special-character zones” are broad and include, among others, areas of ecological value, areas protecting natural resources and infrastructure, transport-safety zones, protection areas around sensitive functions, natural and anthropic risk areas and zones containing defence, public-order and national-security installations. The relevant site question is whether the area has been identified, delimited and regulated through the applicable planning documentation as required by Article 184.

A separate construction-quality offence applies where design, verification, expert analysis, construction or alteration breaches technical stability and resistance rules and thereby endangers life or bodily integrity. The penalty is imprisonment from one to five years and disqualification from certain rights, increasing to three to ten years where the statutory serious consequences occur (Article 569).

For the principal authorisation contraventions, the Code excludes the general regime under Government Ordinance no. 2/2001. The facility to pay half the minimum fine within 15 days is therefore unavailable unless the Code expressly reintroduces it. It does so for the separate contraventions at planning-documentation stage governed by Article 144(4), but not for the core breaches under Article 357.

The Code applies Law no. 554/2004 on administrative litigation and adds specific rules that materially affect strategy.

The special review rule in Article 361 concerns administrative acts of a normative character: they may be reviewed for legality, not expediency, and the court may annul or suspend them in whole or in part. PUGs, PUZs and their local regulations are normative. A PUD, however, may be either normative or individual depending on its characteristics (Article 110(1)); its procedural treatment must therefore be classified case by case.

If a PUG or PUGZM is annulled in full, the previous plan re-enters into force for the territory concerned without repeating the endorsement procedure, and the authority must initiate a replacement. The revived plan is valid for a maximum of 24 months. If no new procedure is initiated or that period expires, works may be authorised only on the basis of an approved PUZ. If a PUZ or PUD is annulled, the applicable PUG—or the PUZ for the protected built area—applies directly (Article 361(4)-(7)).

Two provisions are particularly important before a dispute is framed. After a court annuls an unjustified refusal and orders the authority to reconsider, a new application by the same applicant with the same object cannot be refused on the same grounds, and the authority cannot rely on intervening changes to the planning documentation (Article 363). In addition, where a permit is annulled, the court may, at the permit holder’s request, order that the construction carried out be maintained if it complies with the law and applicable planning rules and meets the fundamental quality requirements. The court must obtain a specialist technical expert report, either of its own motion or at an interested party’s request (Article 364).

Actions, including appeals, are to be heard expeditiously by specialised panels. Until such panels are constituted, existing administrative-contentious panels of the tribunals and courts of appeal retain jurisdiction. Where an administrative act has been suspended, hearing dates in the annulment proceedings may be no more than 15 calendar days apart (Articles 362 and 365).

A code of 584 articles and eight annexes, adopted with extensive amendments and made immediately applicable, inevitably carries interpretation and implementation risk. Several issues should be isolated before a project decision rests on them.

The right to build and superficies

Article 245(3) permits execution by owners and holders of “other real rights corresponding to public property”, subject to the constituting instrument or the owner’s consent, and Article 248 refers permit eligibility back to Article 245. Read literally, that formula does not include superficies, usufruct or other dismemberments of private ownership. Yet other provisions use broader language: Article 262 accepts evidence of another real or claim right permitting construction; the notification provisions refer to principal real or claim rights; and Article 420 defines the beneficiary through a principal real right or claim right. Superficies is a standard structure for renewable-energy and commercial developments and, under the Civil Code, is specifically the right to own or build on another person’s land. The internal inconsistency points strongly to a drafting issue, but until it is clarified a project relying on superficies should verify that the constituting deed expressly authorises the proposed works and should consider obtaining the landowner’s express consent.

Permit extension and litigation suspension

Articles 309(5) and 309(6) respectively prohibit and permit an extension of validity. Separately, the litigation and force-majeure protection in Article 310(4) disapplies only the non-completion rule. It does not expressly protect against failure to start or suspension exceeding 24 months. These points should be addressed before the relevant term approaches, not only when expiry is imminent.

Internal cross-references and incomplete sanction mapping

Some provisions are incomplete or inconsistent on their face. Article 357(7) states that a period in paragraph (5) runs from factual completion even though paragraph (5) prescribes a per-storey fine and contains no period. Article 357(2) defines additional contraventions, while the fine table in Article 357(4) expressly maps only the offences in paragraph (1). These are not points on which a summary can substitute for the published text and a defensible interpretation.

Competing implementation deadlines

Article 576(2) gives local authorities 45 working days from publication to establish and operationalise the local integrated approval and single agreement commissions. Article 92(10) uses 60 working days from entry into force for the local integrated approval commission. The periods differ in both length and starting point. Evidence that a commission is legally and operationally constituted should be checked during the transition.

None of these issues suspends the reform. The Code applies now, and several benefits and risks are time-limited. The appropriate response is to verify the exact provision and local implementation relevant to each project rather than to rely on a generic summary.

• Map the pipeline against the transition date. For each live project, identify when the planning procedure was initiated and whether a certificate of urbanism was issued before 25 August 2026. Preserve evidence of the relevant trigger.
• Audit unauthorised works immediately. Test each undocumented or non-compliant structure against the permanent regularisation categories and the broader one-year route. Do not assume that payment of tax, passage of time or an existing cadastral entry cures the authorisation defect.
• Separate the two demolition pathways. The 30-day filing duty following the transitional regularisation period and the ten-year limitation attached to the Article 357(10) enforcement action are distinct rules with different triggers.
• Rebuild the permitting timetable. Three-year permit validity, continuing validity of opinions and carry-over of qualifying PUZ opinions may shorten re-approval work, but the contradictory extension provisions and the 24-month suspension rule create new expiry risks.
• Revisit transaction documents and closing mechanics. Automatic transfer of permit and certificate-stage rights changes the allocation of permitting risk, but the purchaser should still require a complete, indexed project file and practical updating of the authority’s records.
• Check the land right supporting the project. Where the right to build rests on superficies rather than ownership, review the deed for an express construction mandate and consider specific landowner consent while Article 245 remains unclear.
• Classify the works before starting. Establish whether the project requires a permit, notification, siting opinion or no formality, and build the notification waiting periods and any cultural-authority agreement into the programme.
• Preserve proof of filings and completeness. Until the national platform is operational, retain the entire e-mail chain, registration evidence and the exact documents delivered. Tacit approval depends on proving a complete and timely filing.
• Monitor the local layer. Authorities must adapt internal regulations and procedures by 31 December 2026. Local councils may also introduce a territory-equipping levy to finance public infrastructure serving a regulated zone, but the Fiscal Code must be amended before the levy can operate. Practice is likely to vary during the transition.

The Urbanism Code has been in force since 25 August 2026 and is being applied for the first time by a large number of authorities. Any project-specific position should be confirmed against the text published in the Official Gazette, subsequent amendments and the practice of the competent authority.

Primary legal source: Law no. 169/2026 and the Code of Spatial Planning, Urbanism and Construction – Romanian Legislative Portal.

• Real Estate & Construction Law Services in Romania
• Investing in Real Estate in Romania: A Guide for Foreign Buyers
• Off-Plan Property in Romania: Legal Guide to Sale Promises

How BMA Legal Can Help

BMA Legal advises developers, investors, lenders and project companies on Romanian real estate development, planning, permitting, construction contracts, project acquisitions and disputes. We can review a live pipeline, assess regularisation exposure and structure the permitting and transactional steps required under Romania’s new Urbanism Code.

Discuss your project with BMA Legal: contact our team

This article reflects the legislation in force on 27 August 2026. It is intended as general information and does not constitute legal advice. Any project-specific position should be checked against the official text, subsequent amendments and the practice of the competent authority.