The Ministry of Development and Technology (which has taken over responsibility for coordinating the draft) has prepared a bill amending the Act of 24 June 1994 on Ownership of Premises and certain other acts (draft number in the legislative work programme: UD312; current version of the draft as at 10 July 2026). In addition to a far-reaching reform of the operation of residential communities, concerning, among other matters, the legal classification of balconies, loggias and terraces, as well as the introduction of mechanisms enabling residential communities to exercise statutory warranty rights in respect of common areas, the draft introduces restrictions of considerable importance to the real estate market regarding the separation of non-residential premises in collective residence buildings.

Background and purpose of the proposed legislation

According to the explanatory memorandum to the draft, the introduction of restrictions on the separation of non-residential premises in collective residence buildings is prompted by the need to preserve spatial planning order within municipalities and to prevent the development of hotel-type projects intended in practice for permanent residence.

In practice, the restriction will therefore apply to collective residence developments which, alongside residential premises, provide for a significant number of non-residential premises that are in fact used (and sold) for residential purposes, despite failing to meet the minimum standards laid down in the Construction Law and the implementing regulations issued thereunder. In the view of the bill’s proponents, it is therefore necessary to introduce appropriate restrictions, including by strengthening municipalities’ supervisory powers.

Establishment of separate ownership of non-residential premises in collective residence buildings to be subject to municipal council approval

The first proposed change is the introduction of a new Article 2a into the Act on Ownership of Premises. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of that provision, separate ownership of premises in a collective residence building may be established only if the municipal council has adopted a resolution consenting to the separation of such premises in the area in which the building is located. This provision applies exclusively to non-residential premises which comply with the requirements laid down in the Construction Law and the implementing regulations issued thereunder. It should also be emphasised that, according to the wording of the draft, premises intended for residential use are excluded from its scope.

Under the proposed legislation, the municipal council’s resolution will constitute an act of local law and may apply to the entire municipality or a specified part thereof. The municipal council will be required to notify the starosta (district authority) of the adoption of such a resolution.

In addition to granting consent for the separation of non-residential premises in a collective residence building, the municipal council will be required to specify in the resolution the minimum number of parking spaces to be provided on the development plot on which the collective residence building is situated. At the same time, the municipal council will be entitled, but not required, to specify minimum requirements concerning the proportion of biologically active area on the development plot.

Importantly, compliance with the conditions laid down by the municipal council in its resolution will be necessary in order to establish separate ownership of premises located in collective residence buildings. It should be noted, however, that the restriction applies exclusively to the above-mentioned category of buildings and does not extend, among other things, to service buildings.

The proposed solution will also have procedural consequences. The conditions set out in Article 2a of the Act on Ownership of Premises will become additional prerequisites for issuing a certificate confirming that premises in a collective residence building constitute an independent unit. The competent authority will therefore be required to verify whether the municipal council has granted the necessary consent and whether the requirements concerning parking spaces (and, where applicable, the biologically active area) have been met. Failure to satisfy these conditions will result in refusal to issue the certificate and, consequently, prevent the non-residential premises from being sold as a separate object of ownership.

Evolution of the draft – restrictions on separating premises or restrictions on transferring ownership?

It should also be noted that the draft bill amending the Act on Ownership of Premises has evolved significantly since its first version of 14 January 2026. Initially, the draft envisaged restrictions on the separation of premises. Subsequently, in the version dated 24 April 2026, the proposed restrictions were shifted to the transfer of ownership of non-residential premises that had already been separated. Those restrictions have, however, been abandoned in the current version of the draft, while at the same time strengthening the role of municipalities in the process of establishing separate ownership of premises and in determining whether the starosta may issue certificates confirming their independent status.

This has significant consequences. While restrictions on the transfer of ownership did not interfere with the possibility of separating the premises in the first place, the natural consequence of an inability to establish separate ownership is that ownership of the premises cannot subsequently be transferred as a separate right. In other words, the drafters have decided to introduce the restriction at the earliest possible stage.

The difference between the original and current versions of the draft is significant for two reasons. First, under the January version, the requirement to comply with technical standards applied alternatively to residential or non-residential premises, while the role of the municipal council was discretionary (“may specify the rules”), meaning that the resolution was intended to constitute an additional, optional layer of regulation. In the current version (Article 2a), the restriction applies exclusively to premises intended for purposes other than residential use, while municipal council consent has become a mandatory prerequisite. Without a resolution of the municipal council, it will not be possible at all to establish separate ownership of non-residential premises in a collective residence building. The criteria applicable under the transitional provision have also been amended.

Transitional provisions – a key date for ongoing developments

The January version of the draft provided that the new rules would not apply to collective residence buildings existing before 1 January 2027 or constructed pursuant to a building permit issued before that date.

The current draft, however, introduces a different timeframe. The new rules on the separation of premises will not apply to premises in buildings constructed pursuant to a building permit issued on the basis of an application submitted before 31 December 2025. The drafters justify this approach by reference to the principle of protection of acquired rights and the constitutional principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations towards the state: an investor who has commenced an investment cycle by acquiring land under a particular legal regime should be able to continue the development under the rules previously in force.

However, this reasoning raises doubts when considered against the timetable of the legislative process itself. The original version of the draft, dated 14 January 2026, provided for a future cut-off date of 1 January 2027, giving investors a genuine opportunity to adapt to the proposed changes. In the version current as at the date of this alert, namely the draft of 10 July 2026, that cut-off date was moved back to 31 December 2025, i.e. a date preceding the first publication of the draft on 14 January 2026.

Consequently, the protection does not extend to entities which submitted applications for building permits after 31 December 2025, i.e. during a period when the draft had not yet entered the public domain and, as at the date of this alert, had not even been referred to the Sejm.

This was not an oversight on the part of the drafters. The published table of comments on the draft and the responses thereto shows that, during the consultation process, an express proposal was made to extend the transitional period to at least two years from the date on which the legislation entered into force, calculated by reference to the date on which the building permit application was submitted rather than the date on which the permit was issued. The drafters rejected that proposal, explaining that a longer transitional period could lead to additional building permit applications being submitted while the draft legislation was being processed.

The selection of a date preceding the first publication of the draft should therefore be regarded as a deliberate mechanism intended to prevent a “race” among investors to obtain permits before the new rules enter into force. This does not, however, eliminate the substantial doubts as to whether such an approach is compatible, among other things, with the principle of protection of acquired rights.

The relevant criterion has therefore not only been moved back in time by a year, but has also changed in nature: from the date on which a building permit was issued (or the date on which the building existed) to the date on which the building permit application was submitted.

Who will be affected by the changes?

The changes described above are intended to apply to premises intended for purposes other than residential use. In other words, the draft amendment does not introduce additional restrictions on the separation of premises intended for residential use in collective residence buildings.

In practice, and in line with the drafters’ stated intention, the change will primarily affect investors developing projects comprising a significant number of non-residential premises which are in fact used (and sold) for residential purposes.

As stated in the explanatory memorandum, the restriction on establishing separate ownership of individual premises in collective residence buildings stems from the practice of establishing separate ownership of premises in such buildings and subsequently transferring ownership of those premises for the purpose of permanent residence. The drafters regard this practice as a means of circumventing planning and construction regulations, effectively resulting in the creation of premises functioning as apartments within buildings that are not suitable for permanent residence, i.e. premises that do not comply with technical and construction requirements concerning, for example, minimum usable floor area or the number of parking spaces. The practice may also result in excessive pressure on municipal infrastructure, including insufficient road capacity and sewerage infrastructure, inadequate access to educational and healthcare facilities, as well as the erosion of spatial order and the fragmentation of planning policy.

In view of the above, the draft limits the possibility of establishing separate ownership of premises intended for purposes other than residential use in collective residence buildings to those premises which comply with the technical and construction requirements applicable to non-residential premises, while at the same time making their separation conditional upon the consent of the municipal council.

Leaving aside the possibility that a municipal council may decline to grant such consent – as the literal wording of the proposed provisions does not require it to do so – the separation of non-residential premises which fail to meet the prescribed standards will, in principle, no longer be possible.

This may, in turn, affect not only the profitability of developments but also the investment attractiveness of particular properties. The risk that a given municipal council may refuse to consent to the separation of non-residential premises will need to be addressed not only through the design of the building, but also by reference to market demand for particular types of premises, taking into account the fundamental criterion of their size and, consequently, their price.

The draft remains at the stage of the government legislative process (legislative work programme number: UD312). According to publicly available information from the Government Legislation Centre, it has not yet been referred to the Sejm.

Jabłoński Koźmiński i Wspólnicy advises on construction projects and real estate transactions, including the establishment and transfer of separate ownership of premises and dealings with public administrative authorities. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.