The investment process, in the broadest sense, does not start with “the first shovelful” at the construction site or with filing an application for a building permit; it is preceded by planning, design activities, or (more often) legal analyses. In Poland, developing a plot of land is not just a factual act or the fulfillment of the investor’s simple will, and in order to obtain appropriate, binding permits or approvals from the relevant public administration bodies, it is necessary to first meet or document the future fulfillment of specific conditions specified in the regulations, including in particular the so-called principle of good neighborhood.

A good reason to examine this fundamental principle of construction law (or, more generally, local development law) is the recent ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court^[1] in a case that involved, among other issues, the legal assessment of maintaining spatial order when adding multi-family housing to single-family housing developments (so-called infill development).

What is the principle of “good neighborly conduct”?

In Article 61, Section 1 of the Spatial Planning and Local Development Act of March 27, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “SPLDA“), the legislator specifies the conditions that, when met by an investor, enable a public administration body to issue a decision on development conditions. This decision outlines the conditions for development and land use in an area where no local development plan applies.

The principle of “good neighborhood” is also called the principle of similarity or the principle of continuity^[2]. It involves determining whether a new construction project constitutes a continuation of existing parameters, features, or indicators of the development already nearby.

Of course, the above definition is a simplification, but this principle clearly reflects a concern for maintaining spatial and architectural order.

From an investor’s perspective, it is essential to fulfill all the conditions outlined in the relevant section of the Public Procurement Law. As stated by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of May 16, 2024 (ref. II OSK 1373/21): “It should be emphasized that the purpose of the proceedings regarding the location of a planned construction facility is to establish conditions for development and land management that would allow the investment to be incorporated into the spatial order of the area, and not to seek solutions that would enable the investor to maximize the investment in a given property.”

This rather strict interpretation of protecting planning and spatial order allows public administration agencies (and administrative courts reviewing complaints against these agencies’ decisions) to refuse an application for establishing development conditions when, for example, the planned investment would differ functionally or parametrically from the existing development prevailing in a specific area.

An example of such a situation is a planned construction of a complex of multi-story, multi-family buildings (even if they are not high-rise buildings or skyscrapers) located among the dominant low-rise, single-family buildings in the area.

Problems with the so-called “infill construction”

A so-called infill development (also known as building infill) is simply a type of supplementary development that complements existing development in a specific area. It may involve constructing a building in a gap between existing structures or on a vacant plot of land in an already developed neighborhood.

In the case of so-called infill development, the most common legal issue is likely the situation in which a specific supplement to local land development involves the implementation of an investment with a function or characteristics different from those already existing in the vicinity.

In case file reference II OSK 2350/24, the Supreme Administrative Court assessed the legality of the refusal to establish development conditions for an investment consisting of the construction of a multi-family residential building in a situation where the adjacent development is limited only to buildings with the function and size of single-family housing.

Analyzing the content of the ruling in this case, I point out two issues highlighted by the NSA:

1. Considering Article 61, Section 1, Point 1 of the SPLDA, single-family buildings can usually coexist with multi-family buildings without any conflicts.

• The exception is a situation where multi-family development is to be introduced based on so-called infill development in an area previously uniformly developed with single-family homes.

Furthermore, in the justification section of the judgment mentioned above, the Supreme Administrative Court cited, among other sources, the judgment of July 2, 2024, ref. No.: II OSK 1692/23, where the same court stated that “the purpose of Article 61, Section 1, Point 1 of the SPLDA is to guarantee spatial order, understood as such shaping of space that creates a harmonious whole and considers in an orderly manner all functional, socio-economic, environmental, cultural, compositional, and aesthetic conditions and requirements (Article 2, Point 1 of the SPLDA). Regarding the selection of individual urban and architectural indicators […], one should be guided by the assumption that these parameters should be adapted to the development conditions on directly adjacent plots, to prevent disharmony in terms of spatial order.“

Analysis of planning documentation – having more than just an architect’s help remains essential

Considering the principle of “good neighborhood” is essential when planning an investment in the broadest sense. Analyzing this issue is particularly important when the investor is only thinking about acquiring land for future construction or is solely considering the type of investment (or its parameters and design solutions).

To effectively protect their interests, it is advisable that, at this stage and in future phases, the investor seeks support from professionals—not only an architect or planner, but also a lawyer specializing in construction or broader real estate matters. One of the specialties of Jabłoński Koźmiński Law Firm is assisting investors with real estate issues, including executing construction projects. We encourage you to contact our team regardless of the type or size of your planned investment or its location.

^[1] Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of May 29, 2025, ref. No.: II OSK 2350/24. 

^[2] A. Despot-Mładanowicz [in:] Planowanie i zagospodarowanie przestrzenne. Komentarz, wyd. IV, ed. T. Filipowicz, A. Plucińska-Filipowicz, M. Wierzbowski, Warszawa 2024, art. 61.