When what is built differs from the design

Two sentences govern the whole of taking a building into use. Construction work must be carried out exactly in accordance with the building design, and every change must be reflected in an amendment design before the occupancy permit.

The word "before" is decisive here. The occupancy procedure is not the place to submit changes; it is the place where conformity is checked between what was built and what was permitted, including what was permitted through amendments.

Three reasons, of which the third is the most expensive. They explain why what is built differs from the design.

Reason	Consequence
The procedure checks conformity	conformity assumes a document to compare against
Preparing an amendment design takes time	it adds to the procedure, it does not fit inside it
Some changes may require fresh approval	that cannot be obtained within the occupancy procedure

The third row can mean redoing work in a finished building, which is the most expensive correction in the entire construction process. Documenting changes during construction is not bureaucracy but risk management.

The consequences are clear and lasting, and they reach beyond the procedure. They also affect a sale and insurance.

Where construction work has been carried out without any approval, it is unauthorised and does not appear in the national building register. In that case selling the property becomes harder, because the bank may not lend to the buyer if the property documents are not in order.

Legalising unauthorised works means putting the documents in order after the fact, and one has to be prepared for changes being required, and in the worst case for demolition or a fine. Legalisation is covered by a separate branch, but avoiding it is cheaper than going through it.

Four rules apply throughout the construction period, and the second is the hardest. They concern documenting changes.

Record every departure when it arises rather than reconstructing it later. Memory is not a document, and a change made six months ago is harder to evidence than one recorded at the moment it happened.

Distinguish material changes from immaterial ones, and clarify the boundary with the local authority where it is unclear. That boundary is not always obvious, and in a complex case it is worth asking in advance rather than disputing afterwards.

Collect changes as you go rather than waiting for the end of construction, because at the end everything accumulates at once and something gets missed. Reconstructing them later is expensive.

Submit the amendment design before initiating the occupancy procedure, not during it. Later correction costs more.

One observation ties this article to the reform. The procedure for houses with one or two dwellings became shorter, as covered by the article on houses.

A shorter procedure means less time to remedy defects while it runs. The quality of preparation therefore becomes more decisive rather than less, and this is the most frequently misread consequence of the whole reform.

Simplification does not reduce the requirements, it reduces the margin.

Construction work must conform to the building design, and every change must be reflected in an amendment design before the occupancy permit rather than within its procedure. Work carried out without approval is unauthorised, does not appear in the register and makes a sale harder because the bank may not lend to the buyer; legalising it may require changes, demolition or a fine. A shortened procedure does not reduce the requirements, it reduces the margin for remedying defects.

Four rules: treat documenting changes as a task belonging to the construction period. Explain to the client that the occupancy procedure does not repair documentation. Ask the local authority where the materiality of a change is unclear. Avoid unapproved works, whose legalisation costs more than the original procedure.