{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-127515", "citation": "Res. 00015-2009 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección IX", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Requisito de alineamiento oficial para la construcción de muros frente a vía pública", "title_en": "Official alignment requirement for wall construction facing public roads", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección IX, analiza un recurso de apelación contra una resolución que rechazó una demanda contenciosa. La parte actora solicitaba que se ordenara a la Municipalidad de Orotina otorgar un permiso de construcción para un muro, sin exigir el alineamiento oficial, argumentando que el artículo 18 de la Ley de Construcciones solo lo requiere para edificios. El Tribunal rechaza el agravio. Realiza una interpretación sistemática de la normativa y concluye que el alineamiento oficial es un requisito exigible para todo tipo de construcción frente a vía pública, incluyendo muros. Fundamenta esta exigencia en los artículos 169 y 170 de la Constitución Política, la Ley de Planificación Urbana, la Ley General de Caminos Públicos y la Ley de Construcciones y su Reglamento. En cuanto al segundo agravio, descarta que la exigencia de alineamiento constituya una expropiación forzosa. Determina que se trata de una limitación urbanística razonable, fundada en la función social de la propiedad del artículo 45 constitucional, que no vacía el contenido esencial del derecho de propiedad ni obliga a indemnización.", "summary_en": "The Court analyzes an appeal against a ruling that dismissed a contentious-administrative lawsuit. The plaintiff sought an order for the Municipality of Orotina to grant a construction permit for a wall without requiring official alignment, arguing that Article 18 of the Construction Law only requires it for buildings. The Court rejects the appeal. Through a systematic interpretation of the regulations, it concludes that official alignment is a requirement for any type of construction facing a public road, including walls. It bases this requirement on Articles 169 and 170 of the Political Constitution, the Urban Planning Law, the General Public Roads Law, and the Construction Law and its Regulations. Regarding the second grievance, it rules out that the alignment requirement constitutes a forced expropriation. It determines that it is a reasonable urban planning limitation, grounded in the social function of property under Article 45 of the Constitution, which does not empty the essential content of the right to property or obligate compensation.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección IX", "date": "2009", "year": "2009", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "alineamiento oficial", "limitación urbanística", "función social de la propiedad", "expropiación forzosa", "permiso de construcción municipal", "atributos primarios del dominio", "interés social" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 18", "law": "Ley de Construcciones" }, { "article": "Art. 45", "law": "Constitución Política" }, { "article": "Art. 15", "law": "Ley de Planificación Urbana" }, { "article": "Art. 19", "law": "Ley General de Caminos Públicos" }, { "article": "Art. 57", "law": "Ley de Planificación Urbana" }, { "article": "Art. 24", "law": "Ley de Construcciones" }, { "article": "Art. 74", "law": "Ley de Construcciones" }, { "article": "Art. 169", "law": "Constitución Política" } ], "keywords_es": [ "alineamiento oficial", "permiso de construcción", "muro frente a vía pública", "limitaciones urbanísticas", "función social de la propiedad", "artículo 45 Constitución Política", "Ley de Construcciones", "Municipalidad de Orotina", "expropiación", "interés social" ], "keywords_en": [ "official alignment", "construction permit", "wall facing public road", "urban planning limitations", "social function of property", "Article 45 Political Constitution", "Construction Law", "Municipality of Orotina", "expropriation", "social interest" ], "excerpt_es": "Considera ésta Cámara que si bien de la lectura del citado artículo, pareciera que los argumentos del apelante son de recibo, existen otras disposiciones tanto a nivel constitucional como dentro de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, La Ley General de Caminos y la Ley de Construcciones, que impiden acoger tal tesitura. Las disposiciones del citado artículo no pueden ser analizadas de manera aislada, toda vez que existen otras disposiciones legales que deben ser observadas. (...) Es por lo anterior que en criterio de éste Tribunal las argumentaciones del apelante carecen de fundamento toda vez que conforme a las disposiciones constitucionales y legales aplicables al caso, al margen de lo establecido por el artículo 18 de la Ley de Construcciones, de acuerdo con lo estatuido por la Ley de Planificación Urbana, Ley de Caminos Públicos y la Ley de Construcciones y su Reglamento, el alineamiento oficial constituye un requisito exigible en todo tipo de construcción, incluyendo un muro frente a la vía pública. (...) El requisito de alineamiento exigido al apelante, resulta una limitación urbanística razonable que debe observar el propietario, pues no se impide el poder de disposición y el libre goce y disfrute del inmueble. Dicho requisito constituye una limitación, en el ejercicio de potestades brindadas por la Constitución respecto, de la regulación urbana, que no implica una expropiación que deba ser indemnizada en favor de la sociedad accionante.", "excerpt_en": "This Chamber considers that although from a reading of the cited article, the appellant's arguments might seem acceptable, there are other provisions both at the constitutional level and within the Urban Planning Law, the General Roads Law, and the Construction Law that prevent accepting such a position. The provisions of the cited article cannot be analyzed in isolation, since there are other legal provisions that must be observed. (...) For the foregoing reasons, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant's arguments lack merit, since in accordance with the constitutional and legal provisions applicable to the case, regardless of what is established by Article 18 of the Construction Law, in accordance with the Urban Planning Law, the Public Roads Law, and the Construction Law and its Regulations, official alignment constitutes a requirement for all types of construction, including a wall facing a public road. (...) The alignment requirement imposed on the appellant is a reasonable urban planning limitation that the owner must observe, since it does not prevent the power of disposition or the free use and enjoyment of the property. Said requirement constitutes a limitation, in the exercise of powers granted by the Constitution regarding urban regulation, which does not imply an expropriation that must be compensated in favor of the plaintiff company.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "The Court denies the appeal and confirms the appealed decision, determining that requiring official alignment to build a wall is a reasonable urban planning limitation and not a compensable expropriation.", "summary_es": "El Tribunal declara sin lugar el recurso de apelación y confirma la resolución recurrida, determinando que la exigencia de alineamiento oficial para construir un muro es una limitación urbanística razonable y no una expropiación indemnizable." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "This Chamber considers that although from a reading of the cited article, the appellant's arguments might seem acceptable, there are other provisions both at the constitutional level and within the Urban Planning Law, the General Roads Law, and the Construction Law that prevent accepting such a position.", "quote_es": "Considera ésta Cámara que si bien de la lectura del citado artículo, pareciera que los argumentos del apelante son de recibo, existen otras disposiciones tanto a nivel constitucional como dentro de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, La Ley General de Caminos y la Ley de Construcciones, que impiden acoger tal tesitura." }, { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "official alignment constitutes a requirement for all types of construction, including a wall facing a public road.", "quote_es": "el alineamiento oficial constituye un requisito exigible en todo tipo de construcción, incluyendo un muro frente a la vía pública." }, { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "Urban planning limitations on property find their basis in Article 45 of the Political Constitution, which regulates the social function of property, and as will be seen, the road alignment requirement imposed by the Municipality of Orotina, as a requirement to authorize the construction permit, does not constitute an expropriation that entails compensation.", "quote_es": "Las limitaciones a la propiedad de orden urbanístico, encuentran su fundamento en el artículo 45 de la Constitución Política que regula el función social de la propiedad, siendo que conforme se verá, el requisito del alineamiento vial exigido por la Municipalidad de Orotina, como requisito para autorizar el permiso de construcción, no constituye una expropiación que conlleve una indemnización." }, { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "The alignment requirement imposed on the appellant is a reasonable urban planning limitation that the owner must observe, since it does not prevent the power of disposition or the free use and enjoyment of the property.", "quote_es": "El requisito de alineamiento exigido al apelante, resulta una limitación urbanística razonable que debe observar el propietario, pues no se impide el poder de disposición y el libre goce y disfrute del inmueble." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-127515", "tier": 2, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-35669", "norm_num": "4240", "norm_name": "Ley de Planificación Urbana", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "15/11/1968" }, { "doc_id": "norm-36307", "norm_num": "833", "norm_name": "Ley de Construcciones", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "02/11/1949" }, { "doc_id": "norm-38653", "norm_num": "5060", "norm_name": "Ley General de Caminos Públicos", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "22/08/1972" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "“III. SOBRE LAS CONSIDERACIONES DE ESTE TRIBUNAL RESPECTO\r\nDEL RECURSO FORMULADO. Aduce el apelante que la construcción de una tapia, no\r\nrequiere de una autorización del Municipio del alineamiento oficial, al no\r\ntratarse de una construcción en el sentido requerido por el artículo 18 de la\r\nLey de Construcciones. EL AGRAVIO NO ES DE RECIBO. El artículo 18 de la Ley de Construcciones No.\r\n833 del 4 de noviembre de 1949 y sus reformas establece en lo conducente que\r\ntodo edificio que se construya o reconstruya , con frente a la vía pública,\r\ndeberá sujetarse al alineamiento y al nivel oficial que fijará la Municipalidad\r\ny quién se propusiera construir o reconstruir, tendrá derecho a pedir a la\r\nMunicipalidad, antes de presentar su solicitud de permiso de construcción o\r\nreconstrucción, que se le indique cuál es el alineamiento y nivel oficial que\r\ncorresponde a su propiedad. Considera\r\nel apelante que la disposición contenida en el artículo 18 de la Ley de\r\nConstrucciones ha de entenderse en el sentido de que el requisito de\r\nalineamiento es aplicable únicamente a la construcción o reconstrucción de\r\nedificios y no es un requisito exigible \r\na la construcción de un muro, conforme lo requirió la Municipalidad de Orotina. Considera ésta Cámara que si bien de la lectura\r\ndel citado artículo, pareciera que los argumentos del apelante son de recibo,\r\nexisten otras disposiciones tanto a nivel constitucional como dentro de la Ley\r\nde Planificación Urbana, La\r\n Ley General de Caminos y la Ley de Construcciones, que\r\nimpiden acoger tal tesitura. Las disposiciones del citado artículo no pueden\r\nser analizadas de manera aislada, toda vez que existen otras disposiciones\r\nlegales que deben ser observadas. En efecto, de conformidad con lo establecido\r\npor los artículos 169 y 170 de la Constitución Política\r\ny los artículos 1 de la Ley de Construcciones, artículo 4 inciso 4 del Código\r\nMunicipal y artículo 15 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, le compete a las\r\nMunicipalidades todo lo relativo a la regulación urbana, siendo que las restricciones a la propiedad privada\r\nimpuestas por necesidades de planificación urbana son parte de los límites\r\nadmitidos por el artículo 45 párrafo segundo de la Constitución Política\r\n(así lo ha considerado la Sala Constitucional entre otras en las sentencias\r\nnúmeros 2353-93, 5097-93; 5305-95 y 6706-93). Por su parte, el artículo 169\r\nconstitucional otorga a las Municipalidades \"la administración de los\r\nintereses y servicios locales\" como competencia exclusiva y excluyente. Las\r\nregulaciones urbanísticas se encuentran referidas a las distintas actividades\r\nque son posibles sobre el suelo o las edificaciones, siendo que los\r\npropietarios de los suelos y las edificaciones están obligados a destinarlos al\r\nuso establecido en el planeamiento urbano como lo ha previsto el párrafo\r\nsegundo del numeral 45 constitucional, que admite la imposición de limitaciones\r\npor razón de urbanismo a la propiedad privada del suelo. Es por lo anterior,\r\nque las limitaciones vinculan\r\njurídicamente, tanto a la entidad que los emitió, como a los particulares,\r\nquienes están sujetos a sus disposiciones y limitaciones en la medida en que\r\néstas integran -siempre que resulten razonables-, el contenido esencial del\r\nderecho de propiedad privada. (véase la Sentencia No. 813-2008 dictada por el\r\nTribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Tercera a las quince horas del\r\ndiez de octubre del dos mil ocho). En el sentido indicado, existen diversas\r\ndisposiciones dentro de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, la Ley General de Caminos\r\nPúblicos y la Ley de Construcciones, referidos a la necesidad de contar con un\r\npermiso municipal y con el requisito de alineamiento oficial, como requisito para realizar\r\ncualquier construcción o edificación , incluyendo en este caso la construcción de un muro, según se procede\r\na detallar: a)- La Ley de Planificación Urbana, No. 4240 del 15 de\r\nnoviembre de 1968 y sus reformas, establece en el artículo 15 que conforme a lo establecido en el artículo\r\n169 de la\r\n Constitución Política, se reconoce la competencia y autoridad\r\nde los Gobiernos municipales para planificar y controlar el desarrollo urbano,\r\ndentro de los límites de su territorio jurisdiccional. El artículo 57 establece\r\nque está prohibido realizar obras de construcción contra lo prescrito en la ley,\r\nlos reglamentos y el respectivo permiso municipal. b)- La Ley de Caminos\r\nPúblicos No. 5060 del 22 de agosto de 1972 y sus reformas, establece en su\r\nartículo 19 que no podrán hacerse construcciones o edificaciones de ningún tipo\r\nfrente a las carreteras existentes o en proyecto sin la previa autorización del\r\nMinisterio de Obras Públicas y Transportes , ni al frente de los caminos\r\nvecinales o calles sin la aprobación escrita de las Municipalidades\r\ncorrespondientes, las cuáles coordinarán\r\nlos alineamientos frente a los caminos vecinales con el Ministerio, quién será\r\nel que establezca la política más\r\nconveniente al interés público.c)- La\r\nLey de Construcciones, Decreto Ley No. 833 del 4 de noviembre de 1949 y sus\r\nreformas, establece en el artículo 1 que las Municipalidades de la República\r\nson las encargadas de que las ciudades y demás poblaciones reúnan las\r\ncondiciones necesarias de seguridad, salubridad, comodidad y belleza en sus\r\nvías públicas y en los edificaciones y construcciones que en terrenos de las mismas\r\nse levanten sin perjuicio de las facultades que las leyes conceden en estas\r\nmaterias a otros órganos administrativos. \r\nPor su parte el artículo 2\r\nestablece que la citada Ley\r\nrige en toda la República y ningún edificio, estructura o elemento de los mismos\r\nserá construido, adaptado o reparado, en lo futuro, si no es con las condiciones que los Reglamentos\r\nrespectivos señalen. El artículo 24 establece que toda alteración al trazo del\r\nfrente de una construcción, hacia afuera del alineamiento oficial, será\r\nconsiderada como invasión de la vía pública, quedando obligado el dueño de la\r\nconstrucción a demoler la parte de la misma que motive dicha invasión dentro\r\ndel plazo que al efecto señale la Municipalidad. En caso de que no se haga, la citada Municipalidad\r\nejecutará la demolición a costa del propietario. Por su parte el artículo 74\r\nestablece que toda obra relacionada con la construcción, que se ejecute en las\r\npoblaciones de la República, sea de carácter permanente o provisional, deberá\r\nejecutarse con licencia de la Municipalidad correspondiente. En este mismo\r\nsentido, el Reglamento a la Ley de\r\nConstrucciones, publicado en la\r\n Gaceta No. 56, Alcance No. 17 del 22 de marzo de 1983 y sus\r\nreformas en su artículo IV.7.2 establece que en lotes\r\ncon frente a vías públicas urbanas, no se podrá iniciar la ejecución de una\r\nobra, sin el previo señalamiento de línea y nivel oficial por parte de la\r\nMunicipalidad respectiva; siendo que ambos datos, cuya vigencia es indefinida,\r\ndeben consultarse en los formularios o documentos empleados para tramitar los\r\npermisos de construcción. Asimismo, el artículo IV.10\r\nestablece que en la línea de propiedad y en el antejardín, no se podrán\r\nconstruir vallas sólidas con una altura mayor de un metro sobre el nivel de la acera. Por sobre esta\r\naltura, se podrá continuar únicamente con verjas, mallas o rejas que permitan\r\nuna visibilidad a través del 80% de su superficie, por lo menos, excluyéndose\r\nde esa disposición, el caso de muros de retención, cuya altura mínima está en\r\nfunción de la diferencia de niveles entre el terreno de la vía pública y el de\r\nla propiedad privada. Es por lo anterior que en criterio de éste Tribunal las\r\nargumentaciones del apelante carecen de fundamento toda vez que conforme a las\r\ndisposiciones constitucionales y legales aplicables al caso, al margen de lo\r\nestablecido por el artículo 18 de la Ley de Construcciones, de acuerdo con lo\r\nestatuido por la Ley de Planificación Urbana, Ley de Caminos Públicos y la Ley\r\nde Construcciones y su Reglamento, el\r\nalineamiento oficial constituye un requisito exigible en todo tipo de\r\nconstrucción, incluyendo un muro frente a la vía pública, por lo que en la actuación Municipal\r\nno se evidencia incumplimiento de las disposiciones contenidas en las\r\ndisposiciones de los artículos 9 y 11 de la Constitución Política,\r\nni de las disposiciones de los artículos\r\n11 , 133 y 136 de la Ley\r\n General de la Administración Pública.\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nIV. Señala el apelante\r\nque no existe prueba en el sentido de que la Municipalidad de Orotina haya presupuestado pago de indemnización alguna por\r\nalineamiento de la propiedad de la actora, por lo que el requisito exigido por\r\nel Municipio se convierte en una expropiación forzosa. EL AGRAVIO NO ES DE\r\nRECIBO. Las limitaciones a la\r\npropiedad de orden urbanístico, encuentran su fundamento en el artículo 45 de la Constitución Política\r\nque regula el función social de la propiedad, siendo\r\nque conforme se verá, el requisito del alineamiento vial exigido \r\npor la Municipalidad de Orotina, como\r\nrequisito para autorizar el permiso de construcción, no constituye una expropiación que conlleve\r\nuna indemnización. Respecto de la\r\nfacultad para el establecimiento de\r\nlimitaciones a la propiedad y los límites que se debe observar a efecto de no\r\nconstituir la limitación a la propiedad en una expropiación vedada, la Sala Constitucional,\r\nha considerado lo siguiente: \" (...) I) La inviolabilidad de la\r\npropiedad privada es una garantía de rango constitucional recogida por el canon\r\n45 de la Carta\r\n Política. Este derecho contrariamente a como se le concebía\r\nen otros tiempos, no es de naturaleza estática sino que conforme a las\r\nexigencias de nuestro tiempo se le ha considerar elástico y dinámico esto es,\r\nque atribuye a sus titulares, tanto interna como externamente facultades,\r\ndeberes y limitaciones. El poder del propietario sobre la propiedad está\r\ndeterminado por la función que ésta cumpla. El objeto del derecho de propiedad a sufrido transformaciones importantes. Actualmente, no sólo\r\nes tutelable el derecho de los propietarios, sino\r\ntambién diversos intereses generales o sociales que co-existen\r\ncon aquél. El derecho objetivo enmarca del contenido de los derechos\r\nsubjetivos. Cada objeto de derecho implica una peculiar forma de apropiación.\r\nAsí por ejemplo las facultades del dominio relativas a un fundo agrícola son\r\nmuy distintas de las correspondientes a una finca ubicada en el sector urbano\r\nde intensa utilización. II) La legislación\r\ncostarricense establece la posibilidad de que mediante planes reguladores, por\r\ninterés social la propiedad privada puede ser limitada y el Derecho Urbanístico\r\npuede a su vez, desarrollarlas. El derecho de propiedad se enmarca entonces,\r\ndentro de ciertos límites razonables, dentro de los cuales podrá exigirse al\r\npropietario el cumplimiento de los deberes que de él se derivan. Precisamente\r\npor ello, no es necesaria la indemnización de los límites y deberes\r\nurbanísticos que resulten razonables. (...) IV) Para la Sala los límites razonables que el Estado\r\npuede imponer a la propiedad privada, de acuerdo con su naturaleza, son\r\nconstitucionalmente posibles en tanto no vacíen su contenido. Cuando ello\r\nocurre deja de ser ya una limitación razonable para convertirse en una\r\nprivación del derecho mismo (...)\" (Sala Constitucional Sentencia 5097-93\r\nde las diez horas veinticuatro minutos del quince de octubre de mil novecientos\r\nnoventa y tres. El destacado no corresponde al original). El\r\nfundamento constitucional para el establecimiento de limitaciones a la\r\npropiedad, se encuentra sujeto a que la limitación no constituya una\r\nimposición que impida el uso y usufructo\r\nnatural del bien, pues en caso contrario se convierte en una expropiación\r\nvedada que obliga a su indemnización,\r\nconforme al texto constitucional. Las limitaciones o límites que es posible\r\nimponer conforme lo establece el artículo 45 de la Constitución Política\r\nson las denominadas de interés social y están dirigidas a proteger intereses de\r\nla comunidad, mismas que no pueden implicar un \r\ndespojo de la propiedad ni privación de un atributo primario del\r\ndominio, que impida el goce de los bienes por parte del titular. El\r\nestablecimiento de la limitación a la propiedad, está sujeto a conservar el uso\r\nnatural del bien inmueble y de que éste no sea afectado en su valor como medio de\r\nproducción, o de su valor en el mercado. Los atributos de la propiedad pueden\r\nser afectados a condición de que el\r\npropietario reserve para sí la posibilidad de explotar normalmente el bien. (\r\nver en este sentido Sala Constitucional No 796-91 de\r\nlas 15:10 horas del 26 de abril de 1991). En el caso bajo exámen no evidencia ésta Cámara que el alineamiento vial exigido al apelante como requisito para\r\notorgar el permiso de construcción por parte de la Municipalidad de Orotina, constituya una limitación violatoria de las\r\ndisposiciones establecidas por el artículo 45 de la Constitución Política,\r\nen el tanto dicho requisito en nada afecta el libre uso y disfrute del bien por\r\nparte del titular del inmueble, ni se afecta atributos primarios del\r\ndominio. La Constitución Política\r\npermite el establecimiento de limitaciones y deberes urbanísticos por interés\r\nsocial que deben ser cumplidos por el propietario y no deben indemnizarse\r\ncuanto en casos como el tratado en autos, resulten razonables y no vacían de\r\ncontenido el derecho de propiedad. El\r\nrequisito de alineamiento exigido al apelante, resulta una limitación\r\nurbanística razonable que debe observar el propietario, pues no se impide el poder de disposición y\r\nel libre goce y disfrute del inmueble. Dicho requisito constituye una limitación,\r\nen el ejercicio de potestades brindadas por la Constitución respecto, de la\r\nregulación urbana, que no implica una expropiación que deba ser indemnizada en\r\nfavor de la sociedad accionante.”", "body_en_text": "**III. ON THE CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS COURT REGARDING**\n**THE APPEAL FILED.** The appellant argues that the construction of a garden wall (tapia) does not require municipal authorization of the official alignment (alineamiento oficial), as it is not a construction in the sense required by Article 18 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones). **THE GRIEVANCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE.** Article 18 of the Construction Law No. 833 of November 4, 1949 and its amendments establishes, in the pertinent part, that every building constructed or reconstructed, facing a public road, must adhere to the alignment and the official level (nivel oficial) set by the Municipality, and anyone proposing to construct or reconstruct shall have the right to request the Municipality, before submitting their construction or reconstruction permit application, to indicate the alignment and official level corresponding to their property. The appellant considers that the provision contained in Article 18 of the Construction Law must be understood to mean that the alignment requirement is applicable only to the construction or reconstruction of buildings and is not a requirement that can be demanded for the construction of a wall, as required by the Municipality of Orotina. This Chamber considers that although a reading of the cited article might suggest that the appellant's arguments are admissible, there are other provisions, both at the constitutional level and within the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), the General Public Roads Law (Ley General de Caminos Públicos), and the Construction Law, that prevent adopting such a position. The provisions of the cited article cannot be analyzed in isolation, since there are other legal provisions that must be observed. Indeed, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 169 and 170 of the Political Constitution and Articles 1 of the Construction Law, Article 4, section 4 of the Municipal Code, and Article 15 of the Urban Planning Law, the Municipalities are responsible for all matters relating to urban regulation, and the restrictions on private property imposed by urban planning needs are part of the limits admitted by Article 45, second paragraph, of the Political Constitution (as the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has considered, among others, in rulings Nos. 2353-93, 5097-93; 5305-95, and 6706-93). For its part, Article 169 of the Constitution grants the Municipalities \"the administration of local interests and services\" as an exclusive and excluding competence. Urban planning regulations refer to the various activities possible on the land or buildings, and the owners of the land and buildings are obliged to dedicate them to the use established in the urban plan as provided for in the second paragraph of constitutional numeral 45, which admits the imposition of limitations for urban planning reasons on private land ownership. It is for this reason that the limitations are legally binding on both the entity that issued them and the individuals, who are subject to their provisions and limitations to the extent that these integrate—provided they are reasonable—the essential content of the private property right (*see* Ruling No. 813-2008 handed down by the Administrative Litigation Court, Third Section at three o'clock in the afternoon on October tenth, two thousand eight). In the indicated sense, there are various provisions within the Urban Planning Law, the General Public Roads Law, and the Construction Law, referring to the need to have a municipal permit and the official alignment requirement, as a prerequisite for carrying out any construction or building, including in this case the construction of a wall, as detailed below: **a)-** The Urban Planning Law, No. 4240 of November 15, 1968 and its amendments, establishes in Article 15 that in accordance with the provisions of Article 169 of the Political Constitution, the competence and authority of the Municipal Governments to plan and control urban development, within the limits of their jurisdictional territory, is recognized. Article 57 establishes that it is prohibited to carry out construction work against what is prescribed in the law, regulations, and the respective municipal permit. **b)-** The Public Roads Law No. 5060 of August 22, 1972 and its amendments, establishes in its Article 19 that no constructions or buildings of any kind may be made facing existing or planned highways without the prior authorization of the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, MOPT), nor facing local roads or streets without the written approval of the corresponding Municipalities, which shall coordinate the alignments facing local roads with the Ministry, which shall be the one to establish the policy most convenient to the public interest. **c)-** The Construction Law, Decree-Law No. 833 of November 4, 1949 and its amendments, establishes in Article 1 that the Municipalities of the Republic are responsible for ensuring that the cities and other towns meet the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort, and beauty in their public thoroughfares and in the buildings and constructions erected on land within them, without prejudice to the powers that the laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies. For its part, Article 2 establishes that the aforementioned Law governs throughout the Republic and no building, structure, or element thereof shall in the future be constructed, adapted, or repaired, except under the conditions indicated by the respective Regulations. Article 24 establishes that any alteration to the layout of the front of a construction, outward from the official alignment, shall be considered an encroachment on public thoroughfares, and the owner of the construction is obliged to demolish the part thereof that causes said encroachment within the period indicated for that purpose by the Municipality. Should this not be done, the aforementioned Municipality shall carry out the demolition at the expense of the owner. For its part, Article 74 establishes that any work related to construction, carried out in the towns of the Republic, whether permanent or provisional, must be carried out with a license from the corresponding Municipality. In this same sense, the Regulation to the Construction Law, published in La Gaceta No. 56, Alcance No. 17 of March 22, 1983 and its amendments in its Article IV.7.2 establishes that on lots facing urban public roads, the execution of a work may not begin without the prior demarcation of the official building line and level by the respective Municipality; both data, whose validity is indefinite, must be consulted in the forms or documents used to process construction permits. Likewise, Article IV.10 establishes that on the property line and in the front garden, solid fences with a height greater than one meter above the level of the sidewalk may not be built. Above this height, construction may only continue with railings, meshes, or bars that allow visibility through at least 80% of their surface, excluding from that provision the case of retaining walls, whose minimum height is a function of the difference in levels between the ground of the public thoroughfare and that of the private property. It is for the foregoing that in this Court's view, the appellant's arguments lack foundation, since in accordance with the constitutional and legal provisions applicable to the case, aside from the provisions of Article 18 of the Construction Law, according to what is stipulated by the Urban Planning Law, Public Roads Law, and the Construction Law and its Regulation, the official alignment constitutes a requirement that can be demanded in all types of construction, including a wall facing a public thoroughfare, and therefore no breach of the provisions contained in Articles 9 and 11 of the Political Constitution, nor of the provisions of Articles 11, 133, and 136 of the General Public Administration Law, is evident in the Municipal action.\n\n**IV.** The appellant points out that there is no evidence to the effect that the Municipality of Orotina has budgeted payment of any compensation for the alignment of the plaintiff's property, and therefore the requirement demanded by the Municipality becomes a forced expropriation. **THE GRIEVANCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE.** The urban planning limitations on property are based on Article 45 of the Political Constitution, which regulates the social function of property, and as will be seen, the requirement of road alignment (alineamiento vial) demanded by the Municipality of Orotina, as a prerequisite for authorizing the construction permit, does not constitute an expropriation that entails compensation. Regarding the power to establish limitations on property and the limits that must be observed so that the limitation on property does not constitute a prohibited expropriation, the Constitutional Chamber has considered the following: \"(...) I) The inviolability of private property is a constitutional guarantee enshrined in canon 45 of the Political Charter. This right, contrary to how it was conceived in other times, is not static in nature but, according to the demands of our time, must be considered elastic and dynamic, that is, it attributes to its holders, both internally and externally, powers, duties, and limitations. The power of the owner over the property is determined by the function it fulfills. The object of the property right has undergone important transformations. Currently, not only the right of owners is protectable, but also various general or social interests that coexist with it. Objective law frames the content of subjective rights. Each object of law implies a peculiar form of appropriation. Thus, for example, the powers of ownership relating to an agricultural estate are very different from those corresponding to a property located in an urban sector of intense use. II) Costa Rican legislation establishes the possibility that through regulatory plans, for social interest, private property can be limited, and Urban Planning Law can, in turn, develop them. The property right is thus framed within certain reasonable limits, within which the owner may be required to fulfill the duties derived from it. Precisely for this reason, compensation is not necessary for urban planning limits and duties that prove reasonable. (...) IV) For this Chamber, the reasonable limits that the State can impose on private property, in accordance with its nature, are constitutionally possible as long as they do not empty its content. When this occurs, it ceases to be a reasonable limitation and becomes a deprivation of the right itself (...)\" (Constitutional Chamber, Ruling 5097-93 at ten twenty-four hours on October fifteenth, nineteen ninety-three. The emphasis does not correspond to the original). The constitutional basis for establishing limitations on property is subject to the condition that the limitation does not constitute an imposition that prevents the natural use and usufruct of the asset, as otherwise it becomes a prohibited expropriation that obliges its compensation, in accordance with the constitutional text. The limitations or limits that can be imposed as established by Article 45 of the Political Constitution are those called social interest limitations and are aimed at protecting community interests, which cannot imply a dispossession of property or deprivation of a primary attribute of ownership, which prevents the enjoyment of the assets by the holder. The establishment of the limitation on property is subject to preserving the natural use of the real estate and ensuring that it is not affected in its value as a means of production, or in its market value. The attributes of property can be affected on condition that the owner reserves for himself the possibility of normally exploiting the asset. (See in this sense Constitutional Chamber No 796-91 at 15:10 hours on April 26, 1991). In the case under examination, this Chamber does not find evidence that the road alignment demanded of the appellant as a prerequisite for granting the construction permit by the Municipality of Orotina constitutes a limitation violating the provisions established by Article 45 of the Political Constitution, insofar as said requirement in no way affects the free use and enjoyment of the asset by the owner of the property, nor are primary attributes of ownership affected. The Political Constitution permits the establishment of urban planning limitations and duties for social interest that must be complied with by the owner and should not be compensated when, as in the case herein, they are reasonable and do not empty the content of the property right. The alignment requirement demanded of the appellant is a reasonable urban planning limitation that the owner must observe, since it does not prevent the power of disposal and the free enjoyment and use of the property. Said requirement constitutes a limitation, in the exercise of powers granted by the Constitution regarding urban regulation, which does not imply an expropriation that must be compensated in favor of the plaintiff company.\n\nIt is for the foregoing reasons that, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant's arguments lack merit, given that in accordance with the constitutional and legal provisions applicable to the case, aside from what is established by Article 18 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones), pursuant to the provisions of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), the Public Roads Law (Ley de Caminos Públicos), and the Construction Law and its Regulations, the official alignment constitutes a mandatory requirement for all types of construction, including a wall facing a public road; therefore, no breach of the provisions contained in Articles 9 and 11 of the Political Constitution, nor the provisions of Articles 11, 133, and 136 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), is evident in the Municipal action.\n\n**IV.** The appellant indicates that there is no evidence that the Municipality of Orotina has budgeted for any compensation payment for the alignment of the plaintiff's property, so the requirement demanded by the Municipality becomes a forced expropriation. **THE GRIEVANCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE.** Limitations on property of an urban planning nature have their basis in Article 45 of the Political Constitution, which regulates the social function of property, and as will be seen, the road alignment requirement demanded by the Municipality of Orotina, as a requirement for authorizing the construction permit, does not constitute an expropriation that entails compensation. Regarding the authority to establish limitations on property and the limits that must be observed so that the limitation on property does not become a prohibited expropriation, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has considered the following: *“(...) I) The inviolability of private property is a constitutional guarantee enshrined in canon 45 of the Political Charter (Carta Política). This right, contrary to how it was conceived in other times, is not static in nature but rather, in accordance with the demands of our time, must be considered elastic and dynamic, that is, it attributes to its holders, both internally and externally, powers, duties, and limitations. The owner's power over the property is determined by the function it fulfills. The object of the right to property has undergone important transformations. Currently, not only the right of the owners is protectable, but also various general or social interests that co-exist with it. Objective law frames the content of subjective rights. Each object of right implies a peculiar form of appropriation. Thus, for example, the ownership powers relating to an agricultural property are very different from those corresponding to a property located in an intensely used urban sector. II) Costa Rican legislation establishes the possibility that, through regulatory plans, private property may be limited for social interest, and Urban Planning Law can, in turn, develop these limitations. The right to property is thus framed within certain reasonable limits, within which the owner may be required to fulfill the duties derived from it. Precisely for this reason, compensation for reasonable urban planning limits and duties is not necessary. (...) IV) For this Chamber, the reasonable limits that the State may impose on private property, according to its nature, are constitutionally possible as long as they do not empty its content. When this occurs, it ceases to be a reasonable limitation and becomes a deprivation of the right itself (...)”* (**Constitutional Chamber, Judgment 5097-93 of ten hours twenty-four minutes on October fifteenth, nineteen ninety-three. The highlighting does not correspond to the original**). The constitutional basis for establishing limitations on property is subject to the limitation not constituting an imposition that prevents the natural use and usufruct of the asset, because otherwise, it becomes a prohibited expropriation that requires compensation, according to the constitutional text. The limitations or limits that may be imposed, as established by Article 45 of the Political Constitution, are those called social interest limitations and are aimed at protecting the interests of the community, provided they cannot imply a dispossession of property or deprivation of a primary attribute of ownership that prevents the enjoyment of the assets by the titleholder. The establishment of the limitation on property is subject to preserving the natural use of the real estate and to it not being affected in its value as a means of production, or its market value. The attributes of property may be affected on the condition that the owner reserves for themselves the possibility of normally exploiting the asset. **(See in this regard, Constitutional Chamber No. 796-91 of 3:10 p.m. on April 26, 1991).** In the case under review, this Chamber does not find evidence that the road alignment required of the appellant as a requirement for granting the construction permit by the Municipality of Orotina constitutes a limitation that violates the provisions established by Article 45 of the Political Constitution, insofar as said requirement does not in any way affect the free use and enjoyment of the asset by the titleholder of the property, nor are primary attributes of ownership affected. The Political Constitution permits the establishment of urban planning limitations and duties for social interest that must be fulfilled by the owner and must not be compensated when, as in the case dealt with in the records, they are reasonable and do not empty the content of the right to property. The alignment requirement demanded of the appellant constitutes a reasonable urban planning limitation that the owner must observe, since the power of disposition and the free enjoyment and use of the property are not impeded. Said requirement constitutes a limitation, in the exercise of powers granted by the Constitution regarding urban regulation, which does not imply an expropriation that must be compensated in favor of the plaintiff company.\n\nLikewise, Article IV.10 establishes that along the property line and in the front yard (antejardín), solid fences may not be built with a height greater than one meter above the level of the sidewalk. Above this height, only railings, mesh, or bars that permit visibility through at least 80% of their surface may be used, excluding from that provision the case of retaining walls (muros de retención), whose minimum height is a function of the difference in levels between the land of the public road and that of the private property. It is for the foregoing that, in this Court’s opinion, the appellant’s arguments lack merit, since in accordance with the constitutional and legal provisions applicable to the case, aside from what is established by Article 18 of the Ley de Construcciones, in accordance with what is provided by the Ley de Planificación Urbana, the Ley de Caminos Públicos, and the Ley de Construcciones and its Reglamento, the official alignment (alineamiento oficial) constitutes a requirement that is mandatory in all types of construction, including a wall facing the public road, and therefore, in the Municipal action, no breach of the provisions contained in the provisions of Articles 9 and 11 of the Constitución Política is evident, nor of the provisions of Articles 11, 133, and 136 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública.\n\nIV. The appellant points out that there is no evidence that the Municipality of Orotina has budgeted any payment for compensation (indemnización) for the alignment (alineamiento) of the plaintiff’s property, and therefore the requirement demanded by the Municipality becomes a forced expropriation. THE GRIEVANCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. Limitations on property of an urban planning nature find their basis in Article 45 of the Constitución Política, which regulates the social function of property, and as will be seen, the requirement of road alignment (alineamiento vial) demanded by the Municipality of Orotina, as a prerequisite for authorizing the construction permit, does not constitute an expropriation that entails compensation. Regarding the power to establish limitations on property and the limits that must be observed so as not to turn a limitation on property into a prohibited expropriation, the Sala Constitucional has considered the following: \" (...) I) The inviolability of private property is a constitutional guarantee enshrined in Canon 45 of the Carta Política. This right, contrary to how it was conceived in other times, is not of a static nature but rather, in accordance with the demands of our time, it must be considered elastic and dynamic, that is, it attributes to its holders, both internally and externally, powers, duties, and limitations. The owner’s power over the property is determined by the function it performs. The object of the right of property has undergone important transformations. Currently, not only is the right of owners protectable, but also various general or social interests that co-exist with it. Objective law frames the content of subjective rights. Each object of law implies a peculiar form of appropriation. Thus, for example, the powers of ownership relating to an agricultural estate are very different from those corresponding to a property located in the urban sector of intensive use. II) Costa Rican legislation establishes the possibility that, through regulatory plans (planes reguladores), for social interest, private property may be limited and Urban Planning Law may, in turn, develop them. The right of property is thus framed within certain reasonable limits, within which the owner may be required to fulfill the duties derived from it. Precisely for this reason, compensation for urban planning limits and duties that prove reasonable is not necessary. (...) IV) For this Chamber, the reasonable limits that the State may impose on private property, in accordance with its nature, are constitutionally possible as long as they do not empty its content. When this occurs, it ceases to be a reasonable limitation and becomes a deprivation of the right itself (...)\" (Sala Constitucional Judgment 5097-93 of ten hours twenty-four minutes of the fifteenth of October of nineteen hundred and ninety-three. The highlighting does not correspond to the original). The constitutional basis for the establishment of limitations on property is subject to the condition that the limitation does not constitute an imposition that prevents the natural use and enjoyment (usufructo) of the good, because otherwise it becomes a prohibited expropriation that obligates its compensation, in accordance with the constitutional text. The limitations or limits that may be imposed as established by Article 45 of the Constitución Política are those called social interest limitations and are directed at protecting community interests, which cannot entail a dispossession of the property nor the deprivation of a primary attribute of ownership that prevents the enjoyment of the goods by the titleholder. The establishment of the limitation on property is subject to preserving the natural use of the real estate and to ensuring that it is not affected in its value as a means of production, or in its market value. The attributes of property may be affected on the condition that the owner reserves for himself the possibility of normally exploiting the good. (see in this regard Sala Constitucional No. 796-91 of 15:10 hours of April 26, 1991). In the case under examination, this Chamber finds no evidence that the road alignment (alineamiento vial) demanded of the appellant as a prerequisite for granting the construction permit by the Municipality of Orotina constitutes a limitation that violates the provisions established by Article 45 of the Constitución Política, inasmuch as said requirement in no way affects the free use and enjoyment of the good by the titleholder of the property, nor are primary attributes of ownership affected. The Constitución Política permits the establishment of urban planning limitations and duties for social interest that must be complied with by the owner and should not be compensated when, as in the case dealt with herein, they prove reasonable and do not empty the right of property of its content. The alignment requirement demanded of the appellant constitutes a reasonable urban planning limitation that the owner must observe, since the power of disposition and the free enjoyment and use of the property are not impeded. Said requirement constitutes a limitation, in the exercise of powers granted by the Constitution regarding urban regulation, which does not imply an expropriation that must be compensated in favor of the plaintiff company." }