{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-132699", "citation": "Res. 02412-2010 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección III", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Competencia municipal en la ordenación urbanística y certificación de usos del suelo", "title_en": "Municipal Competence in Urban Planning and Land-Use Certification", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección III, analiza la competencia de los gobiernos locales en la ordenación urbanística y el otorgamiento de certificados de uso del suelo. La resolución clarifica que las municipalidades tienen una doble vertiente competencial: primero, la definición de regulaciones urbanísticas mediante la promulgación de planes reguladores y, segundo, el control de su cumplimiento a través del poder de policía. Se detalla el contenido de los planes reguladores —zonificación, fraccionamiento y urbanización, mapa oficial, renovación urbana y construcciones— y se discute su naturaleza jurídica, destacando que constituyen normas con rango de ley en sentido material por imponer limitaciones a la propiedad de interés social. Respecto a los certificados de uso del suelo, se establece que son actos administrativos de naturaleza declarativa que no crean ni modifican situaciones jurídicas, sino que se limitan a acreditar la conformidad del uso con la zonificación vigente. No confieren derechos subjetivos por sí mismos y no pueden asimilarse a licencias de construcción. El fallo subraya la importancia de que estos certificados se emitan conforme al bloque de legalidad urbanística, incluyendo planes locales y regionales como el Plan GAM.", "summary_en": "The Administrative Appeals Court, Section III, analyzes the competence of local governments in urban planning and the issuance of land-use certificates. The ruling clarifies that municipalities hold a dual competence: first, defining urban regulations through the enactment of regulatory plans and, second, enforcing compliance via police power. It details the content of regulatory plans —zoning, subdivision and development, official map, urban renewal, and construction regulations— and discusses their legal nature, emphasizing they have the rank of law in a material sense because they impose socially-beneficial property restrictions. Regarding land-use certificates, the court establishes they are declaratory administrative acts that neither create nor modify legal situations; they merely certify conformity with current zoning. By themselves, they grant no subjective rights and cannot be equated to construction permits. The decision underscores that such certificates must be issued in accordance with urban planning legality, including local and regional plans like the GAM Plan.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección III", "date": "2010", "year": "2010", "topic_ids": [ "subdivision-fraccionamiento" ], "primary_topic_id": null, "es_concept_hints": [ "plan regulador", "certificado de uso del suelo", "naturaleza declarativa", "poder de policía", "zonificación", "fraccionamiento", "ordenación urbanística", "bloque de legalidad" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 15", "law": "Ley 4240" }, { "article": "Art. 19", "law": "Ley 4240" }, { "article": "Art. 28", "law": "Ley 4240" }, { "article": "Art. 33", "law": "Ley 4240" }, { "article": "Art. 64", "law": "Ley 4240" }, { "article": "Art. 50", "law": "Constitución Política" } ], "keywords_es": [ "competencia municipal", "ordenación urbanística", "plan regulador", "uso del suelo", "certificado de uso del suelo", "naturaleza declarativa", "poder de policía", "zonificación", "fraccionamiento y urbanización", "ley de planificación urbana" ], "keywords_en": [ "municipal competence", "urban planning", "regulatory plan", "land use", "land-use certificate", "declaratory nature", "police power", "zoning", "subdivision and development", "urban planning law" ], "excerpt_es": "En efecto, los certificados de uso del suelo son actos administrativos de naturaleza declarativa y no constitutiva, en tanto acreditan hechos o circunstancias, de manera que no crean ni modifican situaciones jurídicas [...]. De manera que es precisamente por su naturaleza declarativa, que los certificados de uso del suelo no dan lugar, por sí mismos, a la adquisición de un derecho subjetivo ni consolidan, por sí mismos, situación jurídica alguna. La certificación de uso del suelo es meramente descriptiva respecto de una situación fáctica determinada en relación con lo dispuesto normativamente, en razón de lo cual, por su medio, no resulta posible consolidar ninguna situación jurídica preexistente al acto certificante.", "excerpt_en": "In effect, land-use certificates are administrative acts of a declaratory and non-constitutive nature, insofar as they certify facts or circumstances, so they neither create nor modify legal situations [...]. Thus, precisely due to their declaratory nature, land-use certificates do not, by themselves, give rise to the acquisition of a subjective right nor consolidate any legal situation. The land-use certification is merely descriptive of a specific factual situation in relation to normative provisions, and therefore, through it, it is not possible to consolidate any legal situation preexisting the certifying act.", "outcome": { "label_en": "On the Merits", "label_es": "De Fondo", "summary_en": "The Court clarified the dual municipal competence in urban planning and control, and determined that land-use certificates are declaratory acts that neither create nor modify rights, and must be issued in accordance with current zoning.", "summary_es": "El Tribunal clarificó la doble competencia municipal en la ordenación y control urbanístico, y determinó que los certificados de uso del suelo son actos declarativos que no crean ni modifican derechos, debiendo emitirse conforme a la zonificación vigente." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "primary authority in local urban planning belongs to the municipalities, to the exclusion of any other public entity", "quote_es": "la titularidad primaria en materia de planificación urbana local corresponde a las municipalidades, con exclusión de cualquier otro ente público" }, { "context": "Considerando IX", "quote_en": "land-use certificates are administrative acts of a declaratory and non-constitutive nature, insofar as they certify facts or circumstances, so they neither create nor modify legal situations", "quote_es": "los certificados de uso del suelo son actos administrativos de naturaleza declarativa y no constitutiva, en tanto acreditan hechos o circunstancias, de manera que no crean ni modifican situaciones jurídicas" }, { "context": "Considerando VII.a", "quote_en": "zoning regulations cannot be unlimited, as they must preserve the essential core of property rights", "quote_es": "las regulaciones de zonificación no pueden ser ilimitadas, en tanto debe de preservar el núcleo esencial del derecho de propiedad" }, { "context": "Considerando VIII", "quote_en": "regulatory plans, despite being regulatory provisions issued by municipalities, have the normative rank of laws in a material sense", "quote_es": "los planes reguladores, no obstante ser regulaciones reglamentarias emanadas de las municipalidades, tienen el rango normativo de las leyes en sentido material" } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-35669", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 4240 Art. 15" } ], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-132699", "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-5561", "norm_num": "4574", "norm_name": "Código Municipal", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "04/05/1970" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "“IV.- DE LA COMPETENCIA MUNICIPAL\r\nEN LO ATINENTE A LA\r\n ORDENACIÓN URBANÍSTICA DEL CANTÓN. REGULACIÓN NORMATIVA DE LA QUE DIMANA.- En atención a que\r\nel reclamo versa sobre el dictado de certificado de un uso de suelo como\r\nno conforme, estima conveniente este Tribunal hacer unas breves\r\nreflexiones en torno a la competencia de los gobiernos locales en la materia\r\nurbanística. Se aclara que dicha potestad tiene una doble vertiente, así, en\r\nprimer lugar, en lo concerniente a la definición de las regulaciones\r\nnormativas -promulgación de las respectivas regulaciones -planes\r\nreguladores y regulaciones conexas- y en segundo lugar, el concerniente al control\r\n-ejercicio del poder de policía- en la circunscripción territorial. En\r\nefecto, debe recordarse que la regulación urbanística ha sido encomendada\r\ntradicionalmente, y sin discusión alguna, a las municipalidades, en\r\ntanto se ha estimado que \n\r\n\r\n\n\"(...)\r\nla competencia urbanística ha sido una competencia municipal genuina, quizá\r\nla primera entre todas\" (GARCÍA DE ENTERRÍA,\r\nEduardo y PAREJO ALFONSO, Luciano, Lecciones de Derecho Urbanístico. Editorial\r\nCivitas, Madrid, España, S.N.E.,\r\n1981. p. 116.);\n\r\n\r\n\nde manera que se ha\r\nconfigurado, como una tradición del Derecho Urbanístico, especialmente en\r\naquellos momentos en que su contenido ha sido expresado por medio de las \"ordenanzas\r\nde construcción y policía urbana\", de competencia de los gobiernos\r\nlocales, bajo el entendido de que la competencia pública urbanística es propia\r\nde la ciudad, y en consecuencia, de las municipalidades. Así, el urbanismo\r\ncomienza siendo una competencia exclusivamente municipal. Posteriormente, a\r\nmedida que va dejando de ser una función propia del ámbito urbano y pretende\r\nabarcar la ordenación de todo el territorio, se responsabilizan de él otras\r\nAdministraciones superiores, modificándose de esa manera el nivel competencial\r\nde la materia urbanística, al incluir a otras instancias, en nuestro medio,\r\ntales como el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo -ente\r\ndescentralizado-, y los Ministerios de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones,\r\ncon la Secretaría\r\n Técnica Ambiental (órgano desconcentrado) y el Ministerio de\r\nPlanificación Nacional. Pero en lo que respecta propiamente con la\r\nplanificación urbana local, conviene recordar que es en la Ley de Construcciones,\r\naprobada por Decreto-Ley número 833, del cuatro de noviembre de mil novecientos\r\ncuarenta y nueve -norma pre-constitucional, al ser\r\npromulgada por el Gobierno de Facto de la Junta Fundadora de\r\nla Segunda República,\r\ndirigida por José Figueres Ferrer-, donde se establece que las\r\nMunicipalidades son las encargadas de que las ciudades y demás poblaciones\r\nreúnan las condiciones necesarias de seguridad, salubridad, comodidad y belleza\r\nen sus vías públicas y en los edificios y construcciones que en terrenos de las\r\nmismas se levanten, sin perjuicio de las facultades que las leyes\r\nconceden en estas materias a otros órganos administrativos (artículo 1º), así\r\ncomo que ninguna edificación podrá hacerse en el país que contraríe sus\r\ndisposiciones (artículo 74). Y no obstante que nuestra Constitución Política\r\nvigente –del siete de noviembre de mil novecientos cuarenta y nueve- es un poco\r\nparca en la definición de las funciones propias y esenciales de las\r\nmunicipalidades, la jurisprudencia constitucional -concretamente en las\r\nsentencias número 5097-93, 5303-93, 6706-93, 4205-96, y 2003-3656-, ha\r\ninterpretado que a partir de lo dispuesto en sus artículos 169 y primer párrafo\r\ndel artículo 170, la titularidad primaria en materia de planificación\r\nurbana local corresponde a las municipalidades, con exclusión de cualquier otro\r\nente público. En este sentido, en el Código Municipal, número 4574,\r\nde cuatro de mayo de mil novecientos setenta, -vigente hasta mil novecientos\r\nnoventa y ocho-, expresamente se reconoció como competencia municipal, la\r\nmateria de urbanismo, en su artículo 4. En consonancia con la anterior\r\ndisposición, y como un derivado de las normas constitucionales, son\r\nconcordantes los artículos 15 y 19 de la\r\n Ley de Planificación Urbana, número 4240, de quince de\r\nnoviembre de mil novecientos sesenta y ocho, en tanto disponen textualmente:\n\r\n\r\n\n\"Artículo\r\n15.- Conforme al precepto del artículo 169 de la Constitución Política,\r\nreconócese la competencia y autoridad de los\r\ngobiernos municipales para planificar y controlar el desarrollo urbano, dentro\r\nde los límites de su territorio jurisdiccional. Consecuentemente, cada\r\nuno de ellos dispondrá lo que proceda para implantar un plan regulador, y los\r\nreglamentos de desarrollo urbano conexos, en las áreas donde deba regir,\r\nsin perjuIcio de extender todos o algunos de sus\r\nefectos a otros sectores, en que priven razones calificadas para establecer un\r\ndeterminado régimen contralor.\" (El resaltado no es del original.)\n\r\n\r\n\n\"Artículo\r\n19.- Cada Municipalidad emitirá y promulgará las reglas\r\nprocesales necesarias para el debido acatamiento del plan regulador y para la\r\nprotección de los intereses de las salud, seguridad, comodidad y bienestar de\r\nla comunidad.\" (El resaltado no es del original.)\n\r\n\r\n\nV.- DE LA COMPETENCIA MUNICIPAL\r\nEN LA VERIFICACIÓN\r\n DEL CUMPLIMIENTO DE LAS NORMAS URBANÍSTICAS.- En cuanto al segundo\r\námbito enunciado, es el atinente al control que ejercen las Autoridades\r\nmunicipales respecto del cumplimiento de la normativa urbanística local. En\r\neste sentido, como lo ha señalado este Tribunal en diversos pronunciamientos\r\n(entre ellos, los número 175-2009, de las quince horas cuarenta minutos\r\n176-2009, de las quince horas cincuenta minutos, ambos, del treinta de enero\r\ndel dos mil nueve), \"los gobiernos locales deben actuar\r\noportunamente en el ejercicio del poder de policía, utilizando las\r\npotestades que el ordenamiento jurídico les ha otorgado para alcanzar sus\r\ncometidos\" (el subrayado no es del original); que en la materia de\r\nurbanismo, se concreta en el control de los procesos de urbanización y\r\nfraccionamiento, y que se concreta de manera taxativa en el artículo 1 de la Ley de Construcciones, en\r\ntanto dispone literalmente:\n\r\n\r\n\n\"Las\r\nMunicipalidades de la\r\n República son las encargadas de que las ciudades y demás\r\npoblaciones reúnan las condiciones necesarias de seguridad, salubridad, comodidad,\r\ny belleza en sus vías públicas, en los edificios y construcciones que en\r\nterrenos de las mismas levanten sin perjuicio de las facultades que las leyes\r\nconceden en estas materia a otros órganos administrativos.\"\n\r\n\r\n\nPor su parter, el \"poder de policía\" es la\r\ncompetencia que se le reconoce a la Administración, para que, con fundamento en una\r\nley, regule y reglamente una actividad, a fin de asegurar el orden\r\npúblico, la salubridad, la tranquilidad, la seguridad de las personas, así como\r\nla organización moral, política y económica de la sociedad; atribución,\r\nen virtud de la cual, la imposición de restricciones al goce de los derechos\r\nfundamentales, resulta razonable, en tanto su justificación se encuentra\r\nprecisamente en la consideración de que los derechos fundamentales se\r\nencuentran limitados por los de las demás personas, toda vez que deben\r\ncoexistir con todos y cada uno de los otros derechos fundamentales. Con lo\r\ncual, las medidas que el Estado adopte con la finalidad de proteger la\r\nseguridad, la salubridad y tranquilidad, son de interés público social, que se\r\nmanifiestan por medio del poder de policía, entendida como la facultad\r\nreguladora del goce de los derechos y del cumplimiento de los deberes\r\nconstitucionales. (En este sentido, se pueden consultar las sentencias\r\nnúmero 401-91, de las catorce horas del veinte de febrero y 619-91, de\r\nlas catorce horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del veintidós de marzo, ambas,\r\nresoluciones de mil novecientos noventa y uno y 2003-2864, de las quince horas\r\nveinte minutos del nueve de abril del dos mil tres, de la Sala Constitucional.)\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nVI.- DE LAS\r\nREGULACIONES URBANÍSTICAS EN GENERAL Y LAS MUNICIPALES.- Debe entonces,\r\nclarificarse el contenido de la normativa urbanística, en nuestro ordenamiento\r\njurídico (costarricenes.) Primero que nada, se\r\nadvierte que el vocablo \"regulaciones urbanísticas\"\r\ndebe ser entendido en un sentido amplio y no restringido a las regulaciones que\r\nen esta materia emanan de un acuerdo municipal; en tanto está referido a\r\nla generalidad de los instrumentos de planificación urbanísticas, que derivan\r\nde diversas instancias administrativas, y que en doctrina ha sido\r\nconceptualizado como \n\r\n\r\n\n\"[...]\r\nun instrumento, aprobado por un acto del Poder Público, que ordena el\r\nterritorio, estableciendo previsiones sobre el emplazamiento de los centros de\r\nproducción y de residencia del modo conveniente para la mejor\r\ndistribución de la población; regula la utilización del suelo para su\r\ndestino público y privado y, en especial, su urbanización y edificación, y, al\r\nhacerlo, define el contenido del derecho de propiedad y programa el desarrollo\r\nde la gestión urbanística.\" (CARCELER\r\nFERNÁNDEZ, Antonio. Introducción al Derecho Urbanístico. Segunda\r\nEdición. Editorial Tecnos,\r\nS.A. Barcelona. España. 1992. p. 34.)\n\r\n\r\n\nAsí,\r\nen el ámbito nacional existen diversas regulaciones urbanísticas, en atención\r\nal órgano que le corresponde su adopción y, en consecuencia, al ámbito de\r\ncobertura del territorio nacional sobre el que ejerce su aplicación: sea, las\r\nde orden nacional y las regionales, de aprobación a cargo\r\ndel Ministerio de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica e Instituto\r\nNacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, que contienen las directrices generales de la\r\nplanificación en esta materia, y finalmente, las locales, cantonales o municipales, que son los que elaboran,\r\ntramitan, aprueban y ejecutan las municipalidades. Cuando se utiliza el término\r\n\"plan regulador\", acepción que es adoptada por nuestra\r\nlegislación nacional en el artículo 1º de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, que lo define como: \n\r\n\r\n\n\"el\r\nInstrumento de planificación de planificación local que, define en un conjunto\r\nde planos, mapas, reglamentos y cualquier otro documento, gráfico o suplemento,\r\nla política de desarrollo y los planes para la distribución de la población, usos\r\nde la tierra, vías de circulación, servicios públicos, facilidades comunales, y\r\nconstrucción, conservación y rehabilitación de áreas urbanas\";\n\r\n\r\n\npopularmente se\r\nhace referencia a las regulaciones urbanísticas emandas\r\nde los gobiernos locales; sin embargo, debemos entender que también están\r\ncomprendidas las regulaciones de los dos primeros órdenes, sea, las nacionales\r\ny regionales, en tanto tienen el mismo contenido y cumplen la misma función\r\nordenadora del territorio, a nivel urbano y de determinación de los usos\r\nposibles del suelo. Estos cuerpos normativos tienen un contenido específico,\r\nsea, la ordenación y planificación del uso del suelo, para la creación de\r\ncentros urbanos –ciudades, urbanizaciones, proyectos o parques industriales,\r\nparques, vías públicas, servicios públicos, etc.- en el ámbito de una\r\ncircunscripción territorial, sea el cantón o parte de éste; o también a nivel\r\nregional, caso del Plan Regional de Desarrollo Urbano, del Gran Área\r\nMetropolitana, aprobado mediante Decreto número 3332, del veintiséis de abril\r\nde mil novecientos ochenta y dos, y sus reformas; que al momento es la única\r\nregulación urbanística en nuestro país dictada a nivel regional; y sin que a\r\neste momento, se haya adoptado una regulación de esta índole, a nivel nacional.\r\nConsecuentemente, ello implica la localización, respecto de los\r\nedificios públicos, y la zonificación, respecto de la edificación\r\nparticular. Así, no sólo determina el uso o destino de los lotes, sino también\r\nla configuración y extensión de los mismos; la densidad de población,\r\nporcentaje del terreno que pueda ser utilizado, el número de plantas, clase y\r\nel destino de las edificaciones; todo lo anterior, con sujeción a normas\r\ngenerales uniformes para cada especie de los mismos en toda la zona. Asimismo,\r\norienta la composición arquitectónica de las edificaciones, y regula, en caso\r\nde ser necesario, sus características estéticas; competencia que no está de más\r\nen señalar, que no ha sido ejercida por el momento en nuestro país (salvo,\r\nquizás, en casos muy esporádicos). Están conformados tanto por normas escritas\r\ncomo por gráficos, planos y documentos anexos que ayudan a determinar su\r\ncontenido, el cual es de carácter absolutamente normativo, lo cual tiene los\r\nsiguientes efectos: a) regulan las facultades del ejercicio del derecho\r\nde propiedad, según la clasificación y calificación de los terrenos en ellos\r\ncontenidos; b) tienen vigencia indefinida, pero susceptible de ser\r\nmodificada por ulteriores revisiones; c) su eficacia es \"erga omnes\",\r\naunque reducida a un determinado territorio o circunscripción territorial,\r\nsegún el grado del mismo (nacional, regional o local), en tanto vincula tanto a\r\nla Administración\r\nen general, como a los particulares; y d) no puede contener reservas de\r\ndispensa.\n\r\n\r\n\nVII.- DEL CONTENIDO DE LOS\r\nPLANES REGULADORES.- Es razón de su amplio contenido que los planes\r\nreguladores la Ley\r\nde Planificación Urbana establece en su artículo 21 cuáles son los principales\r\nreglamentos que son instrumentos normativos complementarios de toda regulación\r\nurbanística, conocida como \"Plan\", ya sea nacional, regional o local,\r\na saber: \n\r\n\r\n\na.- el de ZONIFICACIÓN: mediante\r\nel cual se establecen normas para el uso del territorio, debiéndose recordar\r\nque se trata de un concepto básico del urbanismo, consistente en reservar determinadas\r\nzonas de un territorio para necesidades o funciones concretas; y abarca desde\r\nla creación de zonas industriales hasta la fijación de zonas residenciales,\r\npolítico-administrativas, zonas deportivas, zonas verdes, de protección\r\nespecial ambiental y otras (CALVO MURILLO, Virgilio, \"Derecho\r\nUrbanístico: Fundamentos e Instituciones\", Revista Judicial,\r\nAño II, No. 5, Poder Judicial de Costa Rica, Setiembre de 1977, p. 92.) Es el primero, y tal vez más\r\nimportante reglamento que debe acompañar a todo plan urbanístico, de\r\nconformidad con el artículo 21 inciso 1) de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, toda vez que, como\r\nsu nombre lo indica, le corresponde la ordenación y determinación del uso\r\ndel suelo, con vistas a un uso racional de la tierra y para asegurar\r\ncondiciones y calidades ambientales de vida satisfactoria, con lo cual,\r\ncondiciona el uso de la propiedad inmobiliaria, mediante la delimitación de\r\náreas, según la categorización adoptada. (BANDEIRA\r\nDE MELLO, Celso Antonio. Figuras jurídicas del planeamiento urbano en el\r\nBrasil. En: Derecho y Planeamiento Urbano. Editorial Universidad,\r\nBuenos Aires. Argentina. 1983. pp. 388 y 389.) De esta suerte, el régimen\r\nurbanístico del derecho de propiedad no es uniforme por el mero hecho de quedar\r\nel suelo sujeto al planeamiento, sino que difiere según el tipo de suelo en que\r\nresulta clasificada la finca de que se trate; lo cual evidencia la importancia\r\nde la zonificación. (CARCELLER FERNÁNDEZ,\r\nAntonio. Instituciones de Derecho Urbanístico. Quinta edición. Editorial\r\nMontecorvo, S.A. Madrid, España. 1992. p. 333.) Así,\r\na partir de esta regulación se establece la definición exacta de los usos\r\nposibles (permitidos) en cada zona, con la consecuente incidencia en el derecho\r\nde la propiedad; al condicionar dónde se puede y se debe residir, dónde se\r\npuede comerciar, dónde se han de prestar los servicios, dónde se ha de poder\r\nhacer la industria, y dónde se ha de poder recrear y entretener; lo cual nos\r\nlleva a considerar la seriedad con que debe ser formulada, que requiere,\r\nno sólo criterios de oportunidad y conveniencia, sino sobre todo técnicos y\r\nobjetivos. Queda claro que el contenido del estatuto del suelo\r\ndetermina el ámbito del dominio y condiciona su ejercicio, diversificándose en\r\nsituaciones favorecedoras de la iniciativa privada, y asimismo, establece\r\nvinculaciones que restringen su ejercicio. La función de clasificación\r\ndel suelo para el establecimiento del régimen jurídico correspondiente incumbe\r\nal Plan General, del cual, el reglamento de zonificación forma parte; el cual,\r\ndebe de contener la clasificación y calificación urbanística del suelo. Por\r\nclasificación debe entenderse la categoría o tipo de suelo (urbano,\r\nurbanizable, programado o no programado y no urbanizable, industrial, de\r\nreserva o para la protección ambiental, residencial, institucional, etc.) según\r\nsu destino urbanístico básico; la calificación aplica para designar la\r\nsubdivisión de esos tipos de suelo en zonas caracterizadas por específicos\r\ncontenidos o aprovechamientos urbanísticos; y en este sentido, va ligada a la\r\ntécnica de la zonificación, que nace cuando se tiende a separar la edificación\r\ndestinada a residencia de las instalaciones industriales. Queda claro que las\r\nregulaciones contenidas en el reglamento de zonificación vienen a coadyuvar en\r\nel delineamiento del contenido del derecho de propiedad, en tanto el contenido\r\ndel mismo es el resultado del régimen constitucional y legal de la propiedad,\r\nen tanto no es un derecho absoluto, sino sujeto a regulaciones en virtud del\r\nreconocimiento del elemento fundamental de la función social de la propiedad, y\r\nde las contingencias de la convivencia urbana. La legitimidad de las\r\nregulaciones o limitaciones contenidas en las normas de zonificación está\r\ncondicionada a los siguientes principios: a) sólo componen la\r\nzonificación, las normas que tengan carácter general, sea, que abarquen una\r\ncategoría de bienes, también calificados por su ubicación espacial, en tanto\r\nque tal ubicación no sea singularizadora, y b)\r\nlas regulaciones de zonificación no pueden ser ilimitadas, en tanto debe de\r\npreservar el núcleo esencial del derecho de propiedad (de uso, disfrute, gozo y\r\ndisposición, no en sentido irrestricto); caso contrario se estará ante una\r\nsupresión del derecho, sea una expropiación. De manera que, la zonificación no\r\npuede conllevar la anulación o paralización de las manifestaciones del derecho\r\nde propiedad, que en modo alguno deben de confundirse con las expresiones o\r\nsignificado patrimonial de la propiedad. Sólo existe obligación de indemnizar\r\npor la imposición de estas medidas cuando alcancen el núcleo esencial de este\r\nderecho, definido por la jurisprudencia constitucional en la posibilidad de\r\nrealizar algún tipo de explotación en el bien, tal vez, no el querido por su\r\ntitular. De tal suerte, serán legítimas las limitaciones que se impongan a\r\nla propiedad que permitan al propietario la posibilidad de explotar\r\n\"normalmente\" el bien, salvo, claro está, la parte o función afectada\r\npor la limitación impuesta por el Estado, con lo cual se respeta el uso natural\r\ndel bien, al mantenerse su valor como medio de producción o valor económico en\r\nel mercado. (En este sentido, entre otras, véanse las sentencias número\r\n0796-91, de las quince horas diez minutos delveintiséis\r\nde abril de mil novecientos noventa y uno; número 5893-95, de las nueve horas\r\ncuarenta y ocho minutos del veintisiete de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y\r\ncinco, y número 2345-96, de las nueve horas veinticuatro minutos del diecisiete\r\nde mayo de mil novecientos noventa y seis.) Así lo señaló la Corte Plena en\r\nrelación con las limitaciones a imponer a la propiedad cuando traspasan el\r\nlímite señalado, en sesión extraordinaria del dieciséis de junio de mil\r\nnovecientos ochentra y tres:\n\r\n\r\n\n\"[...] es\r\ndecir «limitaciones» como las llama el artículo 45, pero no despojo de la\r\npropiedad privada ni privación de un atributo primario del dominio, porque\r\nimpedir el goce de los bienes equivale, al menos en este caso, a una forma de\r\nexpropiación sin el requisito de previa indemnización que ordena la Carta Política.\"\n\r\n\r\n\nEn igual sentido se pronunció\r\nla Sala\r\n Constitucional en las citadas sentencias número 5097-93 y\r\n2345-96; bajo las siguientes consideraciones:\n\r\n\r\n\n\"IV.) Para la Sala los límites razonables\r\nque el Estado puede imponer a la propiedad privada, de acuerdo con su\r\nnaturaleza, son constitucionalmente posibles en tanto no vacíen su contenido.\r\nCuando ello ocurre deja de ser ya una limitación razonable para convertirse en\r\nuna privación del derecho mismo\" (sentencia número 5097-93, supra citada);\n\r\n\r\n\n\"Es\r\ndecir, pueden limitarse los atributos de la propiedad, en tanto el\r\npropietario reserve para sí la posibilidad de explotar normalmente el bien,\r\nexcluida claro está, la parte o la función afectada por la limitación impuesta\r\npor el Estado. Fuera de estos parámetros, si el bienestar social exige\r\nsacrificios de uno o de algunos únicamente, debe ser indemnizado, lo mismo que\r\nocurre cuando el sacrificio que se impone al propietario es de tal identidad,\r\nque lo hace perder en su totalidad el bien. Así, la limitación a la\r\npropiedad resiste el análisis constitucional, cuando la afectación a los\r\natributos esenciales de la propiedad que son aquellos que permiten el uso\r\nnatural de la cosa dentro de la realidad socio-económica actual, no hace\r\ndesaparecer la naturaleza del bien o haga imposible el uso de la cosa,\r\nporque el Estado imponga requisitos de autorización o de aprobación tan\r\ncomplejos que impliquen de hecho, la imposibilidad de usufructuar el bien\"\r\n(sentencia número 2345-96, supra citada).\n\r\n\r\n\nEs\r\nasí, el artículo 24 de la Ley\r\nde Planificación Urbana, determina el contenido de estos reglamentos de la\r\nsiguiente manera: a) la determinación de los usos de la tierra; b)\r\nlo relativo a la localización, altura y área de construcción de las\r\nedificaciones; c) la superficie y dimensiones de los lotes, lo cual\r\ntiene directa incidencia en la determinación de la densidad de la tierra; d)\r\nel tamaño de los retiros, patios y demás espacios abiertos, y cobertura del\r\nlote por edificios y estructuras; e) la provisión de espacio para\r\nestacionamientos, carga y descarga de los vehículos fuera de las calles; f)\r\ntamaño, ubicación y características de los rótulos o anuncios publicitarios; y g)\r\ncualquier otro detalle arquitectónico o urbanístico relativo al uso del suelo,\r\ncuya regulación tenga interés para la comunidad local. Por tal motivo, resulta\r\nobligado reservar las zonas que tienen una especial afectación en razón de su\r\nuso, tales como las que están cerca de los aeropuertos, las que tienen una\r\nafectación por protección de los patrimonios forestal e histórico y\r\narquitectónico, o patrimonio natural del Estado, que derivan de los artículos\r\n50 y 89 de la\r\n Constitución Política, según lo ordena el artículo 25 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana;\n\r\n\r\n\nb.- el de FRACCIONAMIENTO\r\ny URBANIZACIÓN: que conforme al artículo 32 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana,\r\npretende determinar bajo qué condiciones una municipalidad ha de permitir o\r\nregular el fraccionamiento y los proyectos de urbanizaciones en su\r\njurisdicción, para lo cual se disponen requisitos correspondientes al acceso a\r\nla vía pública, cesión de áreas para uso público, normas para construcción de\r\ncalles y aceras, pavimentos, cañerías, drenajes pluviales y sanitarios,\r\nelectrificación y alumbrado público, entre otros. En este sentido debe resaltarse\r\nla importancia para el Derecho Urbanístico del control de las acciones de\r\nfraccionamiento, lo cual no ofrece duda alguna. Al respecto,\r\nseñala el Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo:\n\r\n\r\n\n“IV.- De lo dicho, cabe\r\ninsistir, que el control del desarrollo urbano como competencia de las\r\nmunicipalidades, implica tanto la potestad de dictar planes reguladores, pero\r\nsobre todo, implica la competencia para “controlar” el fraccionamiento de\r\nterrenos por medio de los mismos planes reguladores y con el otorgamiento del\r\ncorrespondiente visado municipal al plano respectivo, tal y como lo expresa el\r\nnumeral 33 de la citada Ley de Planificación Urbana. En el mismo orden\r\nde cosas, según el artículo 10 inciso 2) de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, corresponde a la Dirección de Urbanismo\r\ndel Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, visar los planos\r\ncorrespondientes en cuanto a proyectos de urbanización o fraccionamiento para\r\nefectos de urbanización en forma previa a la aprobación municipal (artículo 33 ibídem). Se trata de una competencia que se traduce en una\r\nfunción de control por parte de la\r\n Dirección de Urbanismo en relación con la planificación y\r\ncontrol urbanístico de las municipalidades (artículos 7, inciso 3) y 9 de la supra indicada ley. Se convierten en asesores o vigilantes\r\npudiendo informar o bien hasta denunciar a las Municipalidades, respecto de una\r\neventual infracción a la ley o al plan regulador local, pudiendo incluso emitir\r\nun acto de suspensión de determinada obra, en la que se hubiere comprobado la\r\ninfracción a la ley en materia de urbanismo. Según el artículo 36, inciso\r\nb) ibídem, las municipalidades no pueden otorgar los\r\nrespectivos visados a planos para proyectos urbanísticos en áreas sujetas a\r\ncontrol cuando no cuenten con el permiso de rigor (visado de la Dirección de Urbanismo).”\r\n(Sección Tercera, Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo, sentencia\r\nnúmero 791-2002 de las diez horas diez minutos del veintisiete de setiembre del año dos mil dos.) (El resaltado no es del\r\noriginal.)\n\r\n\r\n\nY es\r\nque, en efecto, el omitir los controles (visados) para efectos de\r\nfraccionamiento es una de las formas más comunes y peligrosas de burlar los\r\nestándares urbanísticos y dar al traste con todos los instrumentos de\r\nregulación en la materia, lo que provoca serias consecuencias. Entre\r\néstas, podemos citar la imposibilidad de planificar y suministrar servicios\r\nbásicos, la construcción de conjuntos de vivienda en zonas de alto riesgo\r\npor emergencias naturales o la edificación en zonas que por sus características\r\nno deben ser destinadas a construcciones, por ser de recarga acuífera o\r\ntener un alto valor desde el punto de vista ambiental; solo por citar algunos\r\nejemplos; \n\r\n\r\n\nc.- el MAPA OFICIAL: que\r\nconforme al artículo 1 de la Ley\r\nde Planificación Urbana, \"es el plano o conjunto de planos en que se\r\nindica con exactitud la posición de los trazados de las vías públicas y áreas a\r\nreservar para usos y servicios comunales\"; cuyo contenido se regula en\r\nlos artículos 42 y 43 de la citada Ley:\n\r\n\r\n\n\"Artículo\r\n42.- El reglamento del Mapa Oficial establecerá las normas sobre\r\nreservas, adquisición, uso y conservación de las áreas necesarias para vías,\r\nparques, plazas, edificios y demás usos comunales, expresando la localización y\r\nel tamaño de las ya entregadas al servicio público y de las demarcadas solo\r\npreventivamente.\"\n\r\n\r\n\n\"Artículo\r\n43.- El Mapa Oficial, junto con los planos o el catastro que lo\r\ncomplemente, constituirá registro especial fehaciente sobre propiedad y\r\nafectación a dominio público de los terrenos o espacios ya entregados a usos\r\npúblicos”;\n\r\n\r\n\nd.- el de RENOVACIÓN\r\nURBANA: cuyo contenido está determinado en los artículos 51 permite\r\nde la Ley de\r\nreferencia, de la siguiente manera:\n\r\n\r\n\n\"Artículo\r\n51.- El Reglamento de Renovación Urbana contendrá las regulaciones\r\nque localmente se adopten para conservar, rehabilitar o remodelar las áreas\r\nurbanas defectuosas, deterioradas o en decadencia, tomando en cuenta la\r\ninconveniente parcelación o edificación, la carencia de servicios y facilidades\r\ncomunales, o cualquier otra condición adversa a la seguridad, salubridad y\r\nbienestar generales\";\n\r\n\r\n\nque\r\nresulta de trascendental importancia, sobre todo tratándose de la protección\r\ndel patrimonio histórico arquitectónico, o para la salvaguarda de la seguridad\r\nde los habitantes de un barrio;\n\r\n\r\n\ne.- y\r\nfinalmente, el de CONSTRUCCIONES; que pretende\r\nregular técnicamente todos los requisitos que debe cumplir cualquier tipo de\r\nconstrucción conforme a la definición del concepto dada en el artículo 1 de la Ley de referencia, que la\r\ntiene como \"toda estructura que se fije o se incorpore a un terreno;\r\nincluye cualquier obra de edificación, reconstrucción, alteración o ampliación\r\nque implique permanencia.\" Así, su objetivo es fijar las normas para\r\nla planificación, diseño y construcción de edificios, calles, campos\r\ndeportivos, instalaciones industriales y de maquinaria y todas aquellas obras\r\nadicionales a éstas, en todo lo relativo a la arquitectura, ingeniería civil,\r\neléctrica, mecánica o sanitaria, con el fin de fomentar, asegurar y proteger la\r\nsalud, economía, comodidad y bienestar común mediante requisitos que garanticen\r\nen tales obras su solidez, estabilidad, seguridad, salubridad, iluminación y\r\nventilación adecuadas.\n\r\n\r\n\nVIII.- DE LA NATURALEZA JURÍDICA DE LOS PLANES REGULADORES Y\r\nSU CONTENIDO.- Las regulaciones urbanísticas, que según se indicó,\r\ncomprenden un conjunto muy variados de normas; producto de la acción de las\r\ndiversas entidades públicas que intervienen en esta materia; de donde\r\nencontramos, normas legales, normas de carácter reglamentario con valor ley\r\n(ley en sentido material), y por supuesto, normas reglamentarias. De tal\r\nsuerte, que bien podemos concluir, que nuestro ordenamiento jurídico\r\nurbanístico está conformado por normas de distinta naturaleza, precisamente en\r\nvirtud de dos factores importantes, en primer lugar, por el órgano o\r\ninstitución de la que dimana (sea, la Asamblea Legislativa,\r\nel Poder Ejecutivo o Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, o las\r\nmunicipalidades); y en segundo lugar, y como derivado del anterior, él ámbito\r\nde cobertura de la regulación, sea, de vinculación nacional, regional o local. Así,\r\nlas regulaciones urbanísticas de orden legal no resultan un problema jurídico,\r\nni en la doctrina, ni en la jurisprudencia, toda vez que las mismas son\r\nlegítimas, siempre y cuando se aprueben mediante votación calificada, esto es,\r\ncon el voto mínimo de treinta y ocho diputados, en razón de su contenido; en\r\nlos términos previstos en el párrafo segundo del artículo 45 de la propia\r\nConstitución Política, en tanto de ellas, se imponen limitaciones de interés solcial. No está de más reiterar que este requisito de\r\nvotación calificada no es meramente formal, sino sustancial, en cuanto implica\r\nel necesario consenso entre las diversas fracciones de los partidos políticos\r\nque integran la\r\n Asamblea Legislativa. Por ello, no hay mayor discusión acerca\r\nde la legitimidad y rango normativo de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, que cumple a\r\ncabalidad con el requisito constitucional, al haber sido aprobada en\r\ncumplimiento del requisito constitucional. Ahora bien, en tanto las\r\nregulaciones urbanísticas constituyen un conjunto de normas heterogéneas,\r\nprecisamente por derivar de diversas instancias públicas, y en consecuencia,\r\ncomo manifestación de diversas instancias del poder público (Poder Legislativo,\r\npoder Administrativo y poder local). Es nuestro criterio, que el análisis de\r\nestas regulaciones debe partir del contenido del artículo 45 constitucional,\r\ncuyo párrafo segundo legitima el establecimiento de\r\nlimitaciones de interés social a la propiedad, siempre y cuando las mismas sean\r\nestablecidas mediante ley calificada, requisito sustancial y no formal, al\r\nimplicar el consenso legislativo para su adopción. En este sentido, tal y como\r\nlo ha considerado la\r\n Sala Constitucional en su jurisprudencia, las limitaciones y\r\nregulaciones de orden urbanístico son de interés social, en tanto se imponen\r\nprecisamente para facilitar la convivencia en sociedad, y se traducen en\r\nimpedimentos u obligaciones para el propietario, y que en su mayoría, tienen un\r\norigen bastante antiguo en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico, al derivar -muchas de\r\nellas- de disposiciones del Código Civil, que data de mil ochocientos ochenta y\r\nocho. La jurisprudencia constitucional ha reconocido dos tipos interés social\r\nque legitiman -o justifican- la imposición de limitaciones a la propiedad:\r\nestos son las relativos a la protección del ambiente y las de orden\r\nurbanístico, estas últimas, a partir del desarrollo que se hace en la\r\nsentencia número 4205-96, supra citada. De manera,\r\nque en sentido estricto, debiera de estimarse que los planes urbanísticos -todos\r\nen general, sea los de ámbito nacional, regional y local-, en razón de su\r\ncontenido, tienen el rango normativo de leyes en sentido material, toda vez que\r\nimpone obligaciones, deberes y limitan derechos, en particular el ejercicio del\r\nderecho de propiedad, tal y cual lo señala el jurista argentino\r\nEdgardo O. SCOTTI :\n\r\n\r\n\n\"Un\r\nplan para determinado núcleo urbano implica no sólo establecer políticas\r\ndestinadas a la adecuada organización de las actividades en el espacio, sino\r\nsignifica orientar y condicionar las acciones de los sectores públicos y\r\nprivados mediante la utilización de instrumentos jurídicos que, mediante\r\nestímulos, exigencias o prohibición es, delimitan el ejercicio del derecho de\r\npropiedad y las demás funciones y usos que pueden desarrollarse en el ámbito\r\nurbano.\"(Derecho y Planeamiento Urbano.Editorial\r\nUniversidad, Buenos Aires. Argentina. 1983. p. 77.)\n\r\n\r\n\nA\r\neste respecto, no queda duda de la directa incidencia de los planes\r\nurbanísticos sobre el ejercicio de los derechos fundamentales de la propiedad\r\nprivada y de la libertad de empresa, en tanto del contenido de sus\r\nregulaciones, se infiere también el desarrollo de la industria y comercio\r\n(artículos 45 y 47 de la Constitución Política), así como la consiguiente\r\ntutela de otro derecho fundamental, sea, la de un ambiente ambiente\r\ny ecológicamente equilibrado (artículo 50 de la Constitución Política);\r\ntal y como lo consideró la Sala Constitucional en sentencia número 5303-93:\n\r\n\r\n\n\"...\r\nla limitación a la propiedad impuesta por un plan regulador es\r\nconstitucionalmente posible, debido a que el derecho de propiedad no es\r\nilimitado, antes bien, existe un marco general dentro del que puede actuar el\r\npropietario y que debe ser compatible con el contenido constitucional de ese\r\nderecho. Por lo expresado, a juicio de este Tribunal, la limitación impuesta,\r\nen tanto ajustada a un plan regulador vigente, no violenta como se sugiere en\r\nel recurso el artículo 45 de la Constitución Política,\r\nen tanto ese plan regulador no desconstitucionalice\r\nla propiedad privada que se vea afectada por ese instrumento. A contrario sensu, si las limitaciones exceden los parámetros mínimos\r\nde razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, resultarían\r\ncontrarias a la\r\n Constitución Política.\".-\n\r\n\r\n\nAsí, se\r\nha estimado que el contenido que se impone en los diversos planes urbanísticos\r\n-en su completa dimensión, sea los nacionales, regionales y locales- es acorde\r\ncon la exigencia constitucional, por derivar de una disposición legal –la Ley de Planificación Urbana-,\r\nque sí fue aprobada en cumplimiento del condicionante constitucional –dos\r\ntercios del total de los miembros de la Asamblea Legislativa-,\r\nen virtud de lo cual, esa legitimación se transfiere a los mismos. Y\r\naunando a lo anterior, debe considerarse que, los planes regionales, en este\r\ncaso, el Plan Regional de Desarrollo Urbano, del Gran Área Metropolitana, tiene\r\nese carácter en virtud de expreso mandato legal, conforme al artículo 64 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana,\r\nen tanto indican textualmente:\n\r\n\r\n\n\"Artículo\r\n64.- El Plan Regulador Metropolitano, sus reglamentos y las\r\nenmiendas respectivas, adquirirán fuerza de ley para todas las\r\nmunicipalidades del circuito que haya acordado su adopción.\"El\r\nresaltado no es del original.)\n\r\n\r\n\nFinalmente,\r\nrespecto de los planes reguladores municipalidades, podemos defender este valor\r\n–de ley en sentido material- con base en los siguientes motivos: a) en\r\nrazón de su contenido, que impone obligaciones para los\r\npropietarios y limitaciones a la propiedad, según se indicó anteriormente; b.)\r\nen razón de su procedimiento reforzado de aprobación, que\r\nconstituye una manifestación de la democracia directa; en tanto para la\r\naprobación de estas regulaciones, se requiere, como requisito esencial,\r\nla celebración de una audiencia oral y pública, en los términos\r\nprevistos en el artículo 19 de la\r\n Ley de Planificación Urbana; y asimismo, el plan se adopta e\r\nimpone mediante acuerdo del Concejo municipal, órgano deliberativo de los\r\nmunicipios; y c) por equiparación legal, de lo dispuesto\r\nen el transcrito artículo 64 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana. Ergo, si una\r\nordenación urbanística a nivel regional adquiere el rango de ley para la Municipalidad que lo\r\nadopta, y ello es por acuerdo del Concejo, lo propio es que también esa\r\ncondición la adquiera el que ha sido gestado por el propio municipio y rige\r\núnicamente su circunscripción territorial. En todo caso, nuestro Tribunal\r\nConstitucional, ha señalado de manera clara y precisa, que los planes\r\nreguladores, no obstante ser regulaciones reglamentarias emanadas de las\r\nmunicipalidades, tienen el rango normativo de las leyes en sentido material. En\r\ntal sentido pueden consultarse las sentencias número 2006-13330, de las\r\ndiecisiete horas treinta y tres minutos del seis de diciembre del dos mil seis;\r\n2007-5575; de las quince horas veinticuatro minutos del veinticinco de abril\r\ndel dos mil siete y 2008-18438, de las diecisiete horas cincuenta y seis\r\nminutos del once de diciembre del dos mil ocho.\n\r\n\r\n\nIX.- DEL OTORGAMIENTO Y EFECTOS DE LOS USOS DE SUELO.- Habiéndose hecho\r\nreferencia a la competencia de las municipalidades en el ámbito del urbanismo\r\nlocal y el contenido y trascendencia de las regulaciones urbanísticas; se\r\nprocede a clarificar el contenido y efectos de los usos de suelo,\r\nen atención a que el contenido de la decisión impugnada, es precisamente la\r\ndeterminación de un uso no conforme, respecto de la actividad pretendida por la\r\ninteresada. En efecto, los certificados de uso del suelo son actos\r\nadministrativos de naturaleza declarativa y no constitutiva, en\r\ntanto acreditan hechos o circunstancias, de manera que no crean ni\r\nmodifican situaciones jurídicas –tal y como lo señala la\r\njurisprudencia administrativa, así por ejemplo Procuraduría General de la República en sus\r\ndictámenes número C-327-2001 y C-357-2003–, toda vez que se trata de un acto\r\njurídico concreto por medio del cual la Administración\r\n(local o el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, según corresponda, esto\r\nes si se trata de un fraccionamiento, en el primero caso, o de una urbanización\r\nen el segundo), acredita la conformidad o no del uso del suelo con lo\r\nestablecido en la zonificación respectiva; conforme lo dispone el artículo 28\r\nde la Ley de\r\nPlanificación Urbana. En este sentido es que debe tenerse en cuenta que\r\nla doctrina y la jurisprudencia – tanto constitucional como\r\ncontencioso-administrativa- ha señalado que los planes urbanísticos son\r\ndisposiciones normativas en los cuales se disciplina el uso del suelo, de\r\nmanera que inciden sobre los derechos privados (derecho de propiedad)\r\npredeterminando los modos de goce y de utilización del bien. Así, se prohibe el otorgamiento de visado cuando el uso pretendido\r\nsea incompatible con el dispuesto en la respectiva regulación. En forma concordante,\r\ndel Reglamento de Zonificación del Uso del Suelo de la GAM, se entiende que todo\r\ninmueble tiene una vocación urbanística que está declarada en el plan director\r\ny por lo mismo, en su artículo 12 se señala que todo interesado debe obtener\r\npreviamente el certificado correspondiente en el que se haga constar el uso\r\npermitido, que tendrá una vigencia de un año natural desde el momento en\r\nque se expide, agregando el artículo 12.4 que en caso de no haber iniciado las\r\nobras en el año de vigencia, se deberá renovarse el permiso. Luego el artículo\r\n13 señala en forma expresa: \n\r\n\r\n\n\"El certificado\r\nindicará el uso y no se interpretará como un permiso definitivo para hacer uso,\r\nocupación, ampliaciones, remodelaciones, construcción o fraccionamiento. El\r\nAlineamiento y el Certificado de Uso de suelo tendrán una vigencia de un año a\r\npartir de su emisión.\" (El subrayado no es del original.)\n\r\n\r\n\nDe tal suerte, que\r\npor medio de la certificación de uso del suelo no se decide cuál es el\r\nuso permitido, en tanto éste ya ha sido previamente determinado en\r\nel reglamento de zonificación, que integra el plan regulador local; de manera que\r\nsimplemente se acredita cuál es el uso debido según lo establecido\r\nreglamentariamente, además de hacer constar si el uso que se le está dando a un\r\ndeterminado terreno es o no conforme con dicha reglamentación, con lo\r\ncual, es un acto meramente declarativo, sin crear, modificar o extinguir\r\nninguna situación jurídica, como sí ocurre con los actos administrativos\r\nconstitutivos. Por esta razón la expedición del certificado del uso del suelo\r\nno puede asimilarse a una licencia de construcción, en tanto no resulta\r\nlegítimo alegar que se constituye en un acto declarativo de derechos. De manera\r\nque es precisamente por su naturaleza declarativa, que los certificados\r\nde uso del suelo no dan lugar, por sí mismos, a la adquisición de un derecho\r\nsubjetivo ni consolidan, por sí mismos, situación jurídica alguna. La\r\ncertificación de uso del suelo es meramente descriptiva respecto de una\r\nsituación fáctica determinada en relación con lo dispuesto normativamente, en\r\nrazón de lo cual, por su medio, no resulta posible consolidar ninguna situación\r\njurídica preexistente al acto certificante.\n\r\n\r\n\nX.- Sin embargo, es\r\nimportante tener en cuenta que el certificado de uso del suelo, como acto\r\nadministrativo declarativo que es, sí se constituye en un acto de gran\r\nimportancia, en tanto su contenido y función es acreditar hechos o situaciones\r\njurídicas que sirven de base para la adopción de actos administrativos por\r\nmedio de los cuales sí se crean, modifican o extinguen situaciones jurídicas,\r\ntal es el caso, por ejemplo, de las autorizaciones para construir o para\r\ntramitar patentes municipales para ejercer determinadas actividades, para cuya\r\nadopción requiere –sine qua non– del correspondiente certificado de uso del suelo. En\r\nvirtud de lo anterior, es que salta a la vista la importancia de que los mismos\r\nsean otorgados conforme al bloque de legalidad, esto es, a las regulaciones\r\nurbanísticas, sean éstas los planes reguladores urbanísticos propios de cada\r\ncantón o de los planes regionales (por ejemplo, el GAM) o de las dictadas por\r\nel Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, de aplicación supletoria en\r\nausencia de las propias locales (Transitorio II de la Ley de Planificación Urbana y\r\nsentencias número 4205-96 y 2003-11397 de la Sala Constitucional).”", "body_en_text": "**IV.- MUNICIPAL COMPETENCE**\n**IN MATTERS RELATING TO**\n** URBAN PLANNING OF THE CANTON. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FROM WHICH IT DERIVES.-** Given that\nthe claim concerns the issuance of a certificate for a non-conforming land use, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to make some brief\nobservations regarding the competence of local governments in urban planning matters. It is clarified that this power has a dual aspect, thus,\nfirst, with regard to the definition of regulatory provisions—promulgation of the respective regulations—regulatory plans (planes reguladores) and related regulations—and second, with regard to control\n—exercise of the police power (poder de policía)—in the territorial circumscription. In\neffect, it must be remembered that urban planning regulation has traditionally been entrusted, without any discussion, to the municipalities,\nsince it has been considered that\n\n\n\"(...)\nurban planning competence has been a genuine municipal competence, perhaps\nthe very first among all\" (GARCÍA DE ENTERRÍA,\nEduardo and PAREJO ALFONSO, Luciano, Lecciones de Derecho Urbanístico. Editorial\nCivitas, Madrid, Spain, S.N.E.,\n1981. p. 116.);\n\n\nsuch that it has\nbeen configured as a tradition of Urban Planning Law, especially in\nthose moments when its content has been expressed by means of \"building and urban police ordinances,\" under the competence of local\ngovernments, on the understanding that public urban planning competence belongs to\nthe city, and consequently, to the municipalities. Thus, urban planning\ninitially was an exclusively municipal competence. Subsequently, as\nit ceased to be a function specific to the urban sphere and sought\nto encompass the planning of the entire territory, other higher\nAdministrations took responsibility for it, thereby modifying the competence level\nof urban planning matters, by including other bodies, in our context,\nsuch as the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo —a decentralized\nentity—, and the Ministries of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications,\nwith the Secretaría\n Técnica Ambiental (a deconcentrated body) and the Ministry of\nNational Planning. But with regard strictly to local\nurban planning, it is worth recalling that it is in the Construction Law,\napproved by Decree-Law number 833, of November fourth, nineteen\nforty-nine—a pre-constitutional norm, having been\npromulgated by the De Facto Government of the Founding Junta of\nthe Second Republic,\nled by José Figueres Ferrer—where it is established that the\nMunicipalities are responsible for ensuring that cities and other towns\nmeet the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort, and beauty\nin their public roads and in the buildings and constructions erected on the lands of\nthe same, without prejudice to the powers that the laws\ngrant in these matters to other administrative bodies (Article 1), as well\nas that no building may be erected in the country that contravenes its\nprovisions (Article 74). And notwithstanding that our current Political Constitution\n—of November seventh, nineteen forty-nine— is somewhat\nsparse in defining the proper and essential functions of the\nmunicipalities, constitutional jurisprudence—specifically in\nrulings number 5097-93, 5303-93, 6706-93, 4205-96, and 2003-3656—has\ninterpreted that, based on the provisions of its Articles 169 and the first paragraph\nof Article 170, primary ownership in matters of local urban\nplanning corresponds to the municipalities, to the exclusion of any other\npublic entity. In this sense, in the Municipal Code, number 4574,\nof May fourth, nineteen seventy,—in force until nineteen\nninety-eight—, urban planning matters were expressly recognized as a municipal competence,\nin its Article 4. In consonance with the foregoing\nprovision, and as a derivative of the constitutional norms,\nArticles 15 and 19 of the\n Ley de Planificación Urbana, number 4240, of November\nfifteenth, nineteen sixty-eight, are concordant, as they stipulate textually:\n\n\n\"Article\n15.- Pursuant to the precept of Article 169 of the Political Constitution,\nthe competence and authority of the\nmunicipal governments to plan and control urban development, within\nthe limits of their jurisdictional territory, is recognized. Consequently, each\none of them shall provide what is appropriate to implement a regulatory plan (plan regulador), and the\nrelated urban development regulations, in the areas where it must govern,\nwithout prejudice to extending all or some of its\neffects to other sectors, where qualified reasons prevail for establishing a\nspecific controlling regime.\" (Emphasis is not from the original.)\n\n\n\"Article\n19.- Each Municipality shall issue and promulgate the procedural rules\nnecessary for the due observance of the regulatory plan (plan regulador) and for the\nprotection of the interests of health, safety, comfort, and well-being of\nthe community.\" (Emphasis is not from the original.)\n\n\n**V.- MUNICIPAL COMPETENCE**\n**IN THE VERIFICATION**\n** OF COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN PLANNING NORMS.-** As for the second\nmentioned sphere, it pertains to the control exercised by municipal\nAuthorities regarding compliance with local urban planning regulations. In\nthis sense, as this Tribunal has indicated in various rulings\n(among them, numbers 175-2009, of fifteen hours forty minutes,\nand 176-2009, of fifteen hours fifty minutes, both of January thirtieth,\ntwo thousand nine), \"local governments must act\nin a timely manner in the exercise of the police power (poder de policía), using the\npowers that the legal system has granted them to achieve their\ngoals\" (underlining is not from the original); which in the matter of\nurban planning, is realized in the control of urbanization and\nsubdivision (fraccionamiento) processes, and which is specifically realized in a exhaustive manner in Article 1 of the Construction Law, as\nit literally provides:\n\n\n\"The\nMunicipalities of the\n Republic are responsible for ensuring that cities and other\ntowns meet the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort,\nand beauty in their public roads, in the buildings and constructions erected on\nthe lands of the same, without prejudice to the powers that the laws\ngrant in these matters to other administrative bodies.\"\n\n\nFor its part, the \"police power (poder de policía)\" is the\ncompetence recognized to the Administration, so that, based on a\nlaw, it may regulate and rule an activity, in order to ensure public\norder, health, tranquility, the safety of persons, as well as\nthe moral, political, and economic organization of society; an attribution,\nby virtue of which, the imposition of restrictions on the enjoyment of fundamental\nrights is reasonable, as its justification is found\nprecisely in the consideration that fundamental rights are\nlimited by those of other persons, given that they must\ncoexist with each and every one of the other fundamental rights. Whereby,\nthe measures that the State adopts for the purpose of protecting\nsafety, health, and tranquility are of public social interest, which are\nmanifested through the police power (poder de policía), understood as the regulatory power\nover the enjoyment of rights and the fulfillment of constitutional\nduties. (In this sense, one may consult rulings\nnumber 401-91, of fourteen hours of February twentieth, and 619-91, of\nfourteen hours forty-five minutes of March twenty-second, both\nrulings of nineteen ninety-one, and 2003-2864, of fifteen hours\ntwenty minutes of April ninth, two thousand three, of the Constitutional Chamber.)\n\n\n**VI.- OF**\n**URBAN PLANNING REGULATIONS IN GENERAL AND MUNICIPAL ONES.-** The content of urban planning regulations, in our legal\nsystem (Costa Rican), must then be clarified. First of all, it is\nnoted that the term \"urban planning regulations\"\nmust be understood in a broad sense and not restricted to the regulations that\nin this matter emanate from a municipal agreement; as it refers to\nthe generality of urban planning instruments, which derive\nfrom various administrative bodies, and which in doctrine has been\nconceptualized as\n\n\n\"[...]\nan instrument, approved by an act of Public Power, that orders the\nterritory, establishing provisions for the siting of production\nand residence centers in a manner convenient for the better\ndistribution of the population; regulates land use for its\npublic and private purpose and, especially, its urbanization and building, and, by\ndoing so, defines the content of the right of property and programs the development\nof urban planning management.\" (CARCELER\nFERNÁNDEZ, Antonio. Introducción al Derecho Urbanístico. Second\nEdition. Editorial Tecnos,\nS.A. Barcelona. Spain. 1992. p. 34.)\n\n\nThus,\nat the national level, there are various urban planning regulations, according\nto the body responsible for their adoption and, consequently, the scope of\ncoverage of the national territory over which they exercise their application: namely, those\nof national order and regional ones, the approval of which is the responsibility\nof the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy and Instituto\nNacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, which contain the general guidelines of\nplanning in this matter, and finally, the local, cantonal, or municipal ones, which are those elaborated,\nprocessed, approved, and executed by the municipalities. When the term\n\"regulatory plan (plan regulador)\" is used, a term adopted by our\nnational legislation in Article 1 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, which defines it as:\n\n\n\"the\nlocal planning instrument that defines, in a set\nof plans, maps, regulations, and any other document, graphic, or supplement,\nthe development policy and the plans for the distribution of the population, land\nuses, circulation routes, public services, community facilities, and\nconstruction, conservation, and rehabilitation of urban areas\";\n\n\npopularly,\nreference is made to urban planning regulations emanating\nfrom local governments; however, we must understand that the regulations of the first two orders are also comprised, namely, national\nand regional ones, as they have the same content and fulfill the same ordering\nfunction of the territory, at the urban level and in determining the possible\nland uses. These regulatory bodies have a specific content,\nnamely, the ordering and planning of land use, for the creation of\nurban centers—cities, urbanizations (urbanizaciones), industrial projects or parks,\nparks, public roads, public services, etc.—within the scope of a\nterritorial circumscription, whether the canton or part thereof; or also at a regional\nlevel, in the case of the Regional Urban Development Plan, of the Gran Área\nMetropolitana, approved by Decree number 3332, of April twenty-sixth\nof nineteen eighty-two, and its amendments; which at the moment is the only\nurban planning regulation in our country issued at a regional level; and without\na regulation of this nature having been adopted at the national level\nat this time. Consequently, this implies the location, with respect to\npublic buildings, and zoning (zonificación), with respect to private\nbuilding. Thus, it not only determines the use or purpose of lots, but also\ntheir configuration and size; population density,\nthe percentage of the land that may be used, the number of floors, the type and\npurpose of buildings; all of the foregoing, subject to uniform general\nnorms for each kind thereof throughout the entire zone. Likewise,\nit guides the architectural composition of buildings, and regulates, in case\nof necessity, their aesthetic characteristics; a competence that, it is not superfluous\nto point out, has not been exercised at this time in our country (except,\nperhaps, in very sporadic cases). They are composed of both written norms\nand graphics, plans, and annexed documents that help determine their\ncontent, which is of an absolutely normative character, which has the\nfollowing effects: a) they regulate the faculties of the exercise of the right\nof property, according to the classification and qualification of the lands contained\ntherein; b) they have indefinite validity, but are susceptible to being\nmodified by subsequent revisions; c) their efficacy is \"erga omnes,\"\nalthough reduced to a specific territory or territorial circumscription,\naccording to its level (national, regional, or local), as it binds both\nthe Administration\nin general and private individuals; and d) it cannot contain reservations of\ndispensation.\n\n\n**VII.- THE CONTENT OF**\n**REGULATORY PLANS (PLANES REGULADORES).-** It is by reason of its broad content that, for regulatory plans (planes reguladores), the\nLey de Planificación Urbana establishes in its Article 21 the principal\nregulations that are complementary normative instruments to any urban planning\nregulation, known as a \"Plan,\" whether national, regional, or local,\nnamely:\n\n\na.- the ZONING (ZONIFICACIÓN) one: by\nwhich norms for the use of the territory are established, it being necessary to recall\nthat it is a basic concept of urban planning, consisting of reserving specific\nzones of a territory for concrete needs or functions; and it encompasses from\nthe creation of industrial zones to the establishment of residential,\npolitical-administrative zones, sports zones, green zones, zones of special environmental\nprotection, and others (CALVO MURILLO, Virgilio, \"Derecho\nUrbanístico: Fundamentos e Instituciones\", Revista Judicial,\nYear II, No. 5, Poder Judicial of Costa Rica, September 1977, p. 92.) It is the first, and perhaps most\nimportant, regulation that must accompany every urban planning plan, in\naccordance with Article 21, subsection 1) of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, given that, as\nits name indicates, it is responsible for the ordering and determination of land\nuse, with a view to the rational use of the land and to ensure\nsatisfactory environmental living conditions and qualities, thereby\nconditioning the use of real estate property, through the delimitation of\nareas, according to the adopted categorization. (BANDEIRA\nDE MELLO, Celso Antonio. Figuras jurídicas del planeamiento urbano en el\nBrasil. In: Derecho y Planeamiento Urbano. Editorial Universidad,\nBuenos Aires. Argentina. 1983. pp. 388 and 389.) In this way, the urban\nplanning regime of the right of property is not uniform by the mere fact that the\nland is subject to planning, but rather differs according to the type of land under which\nthe property in question is classified; which demonstrates the importance\nof zoning (zonificación). (CARCELLER FERNÁNDEZ,\nAntonio. Instituciones de Derecho Urbanístico. Fifth edition. Editorial\nMontecorvo, S.A. Madrid, Spain. 1992. p. 333.) Thus,\nfrom this regulation, the exact definition of the possible (permitted)\nuses in each zone is established, with the consequent impact on the right\nof property; by conditioning where one can and must reside, where one\ncan trade, where services must be provided, where industry\ncan be established, and where one can engage in recreation and entertainment; which leads\nus to consider the seriousness with which it must be formulated, which requires\nnot only criteria of opportunity and convenience, but above all technical and\nobjective ones. It is clear that the content of the land statute\ndetermines the scope of ownership and conditions its exercise, diversifying into\nsituations favoring private initiative and likewise establishing\nlinkages that restrict its exercise. The function of classifying\nthe land to establish the corresponding legal regime falls to\nthe General Plan, of which the zoning regulation (reglamento de zonificación) forms part; which\nmust contain the urban planning classification and qualification of the land. By\nclassification is meant the category or type of land (urban,\ndevelopable, programmed or not, and non-developable, industrial,\nreserve or for environmental protection, residential, institutional, etc.) according to\nits basic urban planning purpose; qualification applies to designate the\nsubdivision of those land types into zones characterized by specific\nurban planning contents or uses; and in this sense, it is linked to the\nzoning (zonificación) technique, which was born when it became desirable to separate buildings\nintended for residential purposes from industrial installations. It is clear that the\nregulations contained in the zoning regulation (reglamento de zonificación) come to assist in\nthe delineation of the content of the right of property, insofar as its\ncontent is the result of the constitutional and legal regime of property,\nas it is not an absolute right, but subject to regulations by virtue of the\nrecognition of the fundamental element of the social function of property and\nthe contingencies of urban coexistence. The legitimacy of the\nregulations or limitations contained in the zoning (zonificación) norms is\nconditioned on the following principles: a) only norms\nof a general nature constitute zoning (zonificación), that is, those that encompass a\ncategory of goods, also qualified by their spatial location, insofar\nas such location is not singularizing, and b)\nzoning (zonificación) regulations cannot be unlimited, as they must\npreserve the essential core of the right of property (of use, enjoyment, and\ndisposal, not in an unrestricted sense); otherwise, one would be facing a\nsuppression of the right, that is, an expropriation. Thus, zoning (zonificación) cannot\nentail the annulment or paralysis of the manifestations of the right\nof property, which must in no way be confused with the expressions or\npatrimonial meaning of the property. There is only an obligation to indemnify\nfor the imposition of these measures when they affect the essential core of this\nright, defined by constitutional jurisprudence as the possibility of\ncarrying out some type of exploitation of the property, perhaps not the one desired by its\nowner. Thus, limitations imposed on\nthe property that allow the owner the possibility of \"normally\"\nexploiting the property will be legitimate, except, of course, for the part or function affected\nby the limitation imposed by the State, thereby respecting the natural use\nof the property, by maintaining its value as a means of production or economic value in\nthe market. (In this sense, among others, see rulings number\n0796-91, of fifteen hours ten minutes of April twenty-sixth,\nnineteen ninety-one; number 5893-95, of nine hours\nforty-eight minutes of October twenty-seventh, nineteen ninety-five, and number 2345-96, of nine hours twenty-four minutes of May\nseventeenth, nineteen ninety-six.) The Full Court so stated in\nrelation to the limitations to be imposed on property when they exceed the\nindicated limit, in an extraordinary session of June sixteenth, nineteen\neighty-three:\n\n\n\"[...] that is\nsay 'limitations' as Article 45 calls them, but not the dispossession of\nprivate property nor the deprivation of a primary attribute of ownership, because\npreventing the enjoyment of goods amounts, at least in this case, to a form of\nexpropriation without the prior indemnification requirement ordered by the Political Charter.\"\n\n\nThe Constitutional\n Chamber ruled in the same sense in the aforementioned rulings number 5097-93 and\n2345-96, under the following considerations:\n\n\n\"IV) For the Chamber, the reasonable limits\nthat the State may impose on private property, in accordance with its\nnature, are constitutionally possible as long as they do not empty its content.\nWhen this occurs, it ceases to be a reasonable limitation and becomes\na deprivation of the right itself\" (ruling number 5097-93, cited above);\n\n\n\"It\nis, therefore, that the attributes of property may be limited, as long as the\nowner reserves for himself the possibility of normally exploiting the property,\nexcluding, of course, the part or function affected by the limitation imposed\nby the State. Outside these parameters, if social welfare demands\nsacrifices from one or from a few only, they must be compensated, just as\noccurs when the sacrifice imposed on the owner is of such an entity\nthat it causes him to lose the property in its entirety. Thus, the limitation to\nproperty withstands constitutional analysis when the impairment of the\nessential attributes of property—those that allow the natural\nuse of the thing within the current socio-economic reality—does not\ncause the nature of the good to disappear or make the use of the thing\nimpossible, because the State imposes authorization or approval requirements so\ncomplex that they entail, in fact, the impossibility of usufructuating the good\"\n(ruling number 2345-96, cited above).\n\n\nThus,\nArticle 24 of the\nLey de Planificación Urbana determines the content of these regulations as\nfollows: a) the determination of land uses; b)\nmatters relating to the location, height, and construction area of\nbuildings; c) the area and dimensions of lots, which\nhas a direct impact on the determination of land density; d)\nthe size of setbacks, courtyards, and other open spaces, and lot\ncoverage by buildings and structures; e) the provision of space for\nparking, loading, and unloading of vehicles off the streets; f)\nsize, location, and characteristics of signs or advertisements; and g)\nany other architectural or urban planning detail related to land use,\nthe regulation of which is of interest to the local community. For this reason, it is\nobligatory to reserve zones that have a special affectation by reason of their\nuse, such as those near airports, those having an\naffectation for the protection of forest, historical, and\narchitectural heritage, or natural heritage of the State, which derive from Articles\n50 and 89 of the\n Political Constitution, as ordered by Article 25 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana;\n\n\nb.- the SUBDIVISION (FRACCIONAMIENTO)\nand URBANIZATION one: which, according to Article 32 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana,\nseeks to determine under what conditions a municipality shall permit or\nregulate subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization projects (urbanizaciones) in its\njurisdiction, for which requirements are provided pertaining to access to\npublic roads, the transfer of areas for public use, standards for the construction of\nstreets and sidewalks, pavements, pipelines, stormwater and sanitary\ndrainage, electrification and public lighting, among others. In this sense, the\nimportance for Urban Planning Law of controlling\nsubdivision (fraccionamiento) actions must be highlighted, which offers no doubt whatsoever. In this regard,\nthe Administrative Contentious Superior Tribunal states:\n\n\n“IV.- From what has been said, it is necessary\nto insist that the control of urban development as a competence of\nmunicipalities implies both the power to issue regulatory plans (planes reguladores), but\nabove all, it implies the competence to 'control' the subdivision (fraccionamiento) of\nlands through those same regulatory plans (planes reguladores) and by granting the\ncorresponding municipal approval (visado) to the respective plan, as expressed in\nnumber 33 of the cited Ley de Planificación Urbana. In the same order\nof things, according to Article 10, subsection 2) of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, it is the responsibility of the Urban Planning Directorate\nof the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo to approve (visar) the corresponding\nplans regarding urbanization or subdivision (fraccionamiento) projects for\nurbanization purposes prior to municipal approval (Article 33 ibidem). This is a competence that translates into a\ncontrol function on the part of the\n Urban Planning Directorate in relation to the urban planning and\ncontrol of the municipalities (Articles 7, subsection 3) and 9 of the aforementioned law). They become advisors or overseers,\nbeing able to inform or even report to the Municipalities regarding a\npossible infraction of the law or the local regulatory plan (plan regulador), even being able to issue\nan act of suspension of a specific work, where an\ninfraction of the law in matters of urban planning has been verified. According to Article 36, subsection\nb) ibidem, the municipalities cannot grant the\nrespective approvals (visados) to plans for urban planning projects in areas subject to\ncontrol when they do not have the required permit (visado of the Urban Planning Directorate).”\n(Third Section, Administrative Contentious Superior Tribunal, ruling\nnumber 791-2002 of ten hours ten minutes of September twenty-seventh, two thousand two.) (Emphasis is not from the\noriginal.)\n\n\nAnd indeed,\nomitting controls (visados) for\nsubdivision (fraccionamiento) purposes is one of the most common and dangerous ways to circumvent\nurban planning standards and to thwart all the regulatory\ninstruments in the matter, which causes serious consequences.\n\nAmong\nthese, we can cite the impossibility of planning and supplying basic\nservices, the construction of housing complexes in high-risk zones\nfor natural emergencies, or building in zones that, due to their characteristics,\nshould not be designated for construction, because they are aquifer recharge areas or\nhave high environmental value; just to mention a few\nexamples;\n\nc.- the OFFICIAL MAP (MAPA OFICIAL): which,\npursuant to Article 1 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), \"is the map or set of maps in which\nthe exact position of the layouts of public roads and areas to be\nreserved for community uses and services is indicated\"; the content of which is regulated in\nArticles 42 and 43 of the aforementioned Law:\n\n\"Article\n42.- The regulation of the Official Map shall establish the rules on\nreserves, acquisition, use, and conservation of the areas necessary for roads,\nparks, plazas, buildings, and other community uses, expressing the location and\nsize of those already delivered to the public service and those demarcated only\npreventively.\"\n\n\"Article\n43.- The Official Map, together with the plans or the cadastre that\ncomplement it, shall constitute a special reliable registry of the ownership and\naffectation to the public domain of the lands or spaces already delivered to\npublic uses\";\n\nd.- the URBAN RENEWAL (RENOVACIÓN URBANA) plan: whose content is determined in Article 51 of the\nreference Law,\nin the following manner:\n\n\"Article\n51.- The Urban Renewal Regulation shall contain the regulations\nlocally adopted to conserve, rehabilitate, or remodel\ndefective, deteriorated, or decaying urban areas, taking into account the\ninconvenient subdivision (parcelación) or construction, the lack of community services and facilities,\nor any other condition adverse to general safety, health, and\nwelfare\";\n\nwhich\nis of transcendental importance, especially when dealing with the protection\nof the architectural historical heritage, or for safeguarding the safety\nof a neighborhood's inhabitants;\n\ne.- and\nfinally, the CONSTRUCTION (CONSTRUCCIONES) regulation; which aims\nto technically regulate all the requirements that any type of\nconstruction must meet, according to the definition of the concept given in Article 1 of the reference Law, which\ndefines it as \"any structure that is fixed or incorporated into a piece of land;\nit includes any work of building, reconstruction, alteration, or expansion\nthat implies permanence.\" Thus, its objective is to establish the rules for\nthe planning, design, and construction of buildings, streets, sports\nfields, industrial and machinery installations, and all those works\nadditional to these, regarding everything related to architecture and civil,\nelectrical, mechanical, or sanitary engineering, with the purpose of promoting, ensuring, and protecting\nhealth, economy, comfort, and common welfare through requirements that guarantee\nin such works their solidity, stability, safety, healthiness, adequate\nlighting, and ventilation.\n\nVIII.- THE LEGAL NATURE OF REGULATORY PLANS (PLANES REGULADORES) AND\nTHEIR CONTENT.- Urban planning regulations, which as indicated,\ncomprise a very varied set of norms; product of the action of the\nvarious public entities that intervene in this matter; where\nwe find legal norms, norms of a regulatory character with the force of law\n(law in the material sense), and of course, regulatory norms. So\nmuch so that we can well conclude that our urban planning legal framework\nis composed of norms of a different nature, precisely by\nvirtue of two important factors: firstly, the body or\ninstitution from which they emanate (be it the Legislative Assembly (Asamblea Legislativa),\nthe Executive Branch, the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism, or the\nmunicipalities); and secondly, and as a derivative of the former, the\nscope of the regulation's coverage, be it national, regional, or local binding. Thus,\nurban planning regulations of a legal nature do not pose a legal problem,\nneither in doctrine nor in jurisprudence, given that they are\nlegitimate, as long as they are approved by a qualified vote, that is,\nwith the minimum vote of thirty-eight deputies, due to their content; in\nthe terms provided in the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) itself,\ninsofar as they impose social interest limitations. It is worth reiterating that this requirement of\na qualified vote is not merely formal, but substantial, insofar as it implies\nthe necessary consensus among the various fractions of the political parties\nthat make up the Legislative Assembly (Asamblea Legislativa). Therefore, there is no major discussion about\nthe legitimacy and normative rank of the Urban Planning Law, which fully\ncomplies with the constitutional requirement, having been approved in\ncompliance with the constitutional requirement. Now then, while\nurban planning regulations constitute a set of heterogeneous norms,\nprecisely because they derive from various public instances, and consequently,\nas a manifestation of various instances of public power (Legislative Branch,\nAdministrative Branch, and local power), it is our opinion that the analysis of\nthese regulations must start from the content of Article 45 of the Constitution, whose second paragraph legitimizes the establishment of\nsocial interest limitations on property, as long as they are\nestablished through a qualified law, a substantial and not formal requirement, as it\nimplies legislative consensus for its adoption. In this sense, as\nhas been considered by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in its jurisprudence, the limitations and\nregulations of an urban planning nature are of social interest, insofar as they are imposed\nprecisely to facilitate coexistence in society, and translate into\nimpediments or obligations for the owner, and which, in their majority, have an\norigin quite old in our legal system, deriving -many\nof them- from provisions of the Civil Code, dating from eighteen hundred and eighty-eight. The constitutional jurisprudence has recognized two types of social interest\nthat legitimize -or justify- the imposition of limitations on property:\nthese are those relating to environmental protection and those of an\nurban planning nature, the latter, based on the development made in\nruling number 4205-96, cited above. In such a way\nthat, in a strict sense, it should be considered that urban plans -all\nin general, be they national, regional, and local in scope-, by reason of their\ncontent, have the normative rank of laws in the material sense, given that\nthey impose obligations, duties, and limit rights, particularly the exercise of the\nright to property, just as the Argentine jurist Edgardo O. SCOTTI points out:\n\n\"A\nplan for a specific urban nucleus implies not only establishing policies\naimed at the adequate organization of activities in space, but\nit means guiding and conditioning the actions of the public and\nprivate sectors through the use of legal instruments that, through\nincentives, requirements, or prohibitions, delimit the exercise of the right to\nproperty and the other functions and uses that can be developed in the\nurban sphere.\" (Derecho y Planeamiento Urbano. Editorial\nUniversidad, Buenos Aires. Argentina. 1983. p. 77.)\n\nIn\nthis regard, there is no doubt about the direct incidence of urban\nplans on the exercise of the fundamental rights of private\nproperty and freedom of enterprise, insofar as from the content of their\nregulations, the development of industry and commerce is also inferred\n(Articles 45 and 47 of the Political Constitution), as well as the consequent\nprotection of another fundamental right, that is, a healthy\nand ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Political Constitution);\nas considered by the Constitutional Chamber in ruling number 5303-93:\n\n\"...\nthe limitation on property imposed by a regulatory plan is\nconstitutionally possible, because the right to property is not\nunlimited; rather, there exists a general framework within which the\nowner may act and which must be compatible with the constitutional content of that\nright. For what has been expressed, in the judgment of this Tribunal, the limitation imposed,\ninsofar as it is adjusted to a valid regulatory plan, does not violate, as suggested in\nthe appeal, Article 45 of the Political Constitution,\nas long as that regulatory plan does not deconstitutionalize\nthe private property that is affected by that instrument. A contrario sensu, if the limitations exceed the minimum parameters\nof reasonableness and proportionality, they would be\ncontrary to the Political Constitution.\"\n\nThus, it\nhas been considered that the content imposed in the various urban plans\n-in their complete dimension, be they national, regional, and local- is consistent\nwith the constitutional requirement, as it derives from a legal provision –the Urban Planning Law-,\nwhich was indeed approved in compliance with the constitutional condition –two\nthirds of the total members of the Legislative Assembly-,\nby virtue of which, that legitimization is transferred to them. And\nin addition to the above, it must be considered that regional plans, in this\ncase, the Regional Urban Development Plan of the Greater Metropolitan Area (Plan Regional de Desarrollo Urbano del Gran Área Metropolitana), have\nthat character by virtue of an express legal mandate, pursuant to Article 64 of the Urban Planning Law,\ninsofar as it states textually:\n\n\"Article\n64.- The Metropolitan Regulatory Plan, its regulations, and the\nrespective amendments, shall acquire the force of law for all the\nmunicipalities of the circuit that has agreed to its adoption.\" (The\nhighlighting is not from the original.)\n\nFinally,\nregarding municipal regulatory plans, we can defend this value\n–of law in the material sense- based on the following reasons: a) by\nreason of its content, which imposes obligations on\nowners and limitations on property, as indicated previously; b.)\nby reason of its reinforced approval procedure, which\nconstitutes a manifestation of direct democracy; insofar as for the\napproval of these regulations, it is required, as an essential requirement,\nthe holding of an oral and public hearing, in the terms\nprovided in Article 19 of the Urban Planning Law; and likewise, the plan is adopted and\nimposed by agreement of the Municipal Council, the deliberative body of the\nmunicipalities; and c) by legal equivalency, from the provision\nin the transcribed Article 64 of the Urban Planning Law. Ergo, if an\nurban planning ordinance at the regional level acquires the rank of law for the Municipality that\nadopts it, and this is by agreement of the Council, it is proper that this\ncondition is also acquired by the one that has been developed by the municipality itself and governs\nsolely its territorial circumscription. In any case, our Constitutional\nCourt has clearly and precisely indicated that regulatory plans,\ndespite being regulatory rules emanating from\nmunicipalities, have the normative rank of laws in the material sense. In\nthis sense, rulings number 2006-13330, of\nseventeen hours thirty-three minutes of the sixth of December, two thousand six;\n2007-5575; of fifteen hours twenty-four minutes of the twenty-fifth of April,\ntwo thousand seven, and 2008-18438, of seventeen hours fifty-six\nminutes of the eleventh of December, two thousand eight, may be consulted.\n\nIX.- THE ISSUANCE AND EFFECTS OF LAND USE (USOS DE SUELO).- Having made\nreference to the competence of the municipalities in the field of local\nurbanism and the content and transcendence of urban planning regulations, we\nproceed to clarify the content and effects of land uses,\nbearing in mind that the content of the challenged decision is precisely the\ndetermination of a non-conforming use, regarding the activity sought by the\ninterested party. In effect, land use certificates are administrative\nacts of a declaratory and not constitutive nature,\ninsofar as they certify facts or circumstances, such that they do not create nor\nmodify legal situations –just as the\nadministrative jurisprudence points out, thus for example the Office of the Attorney General (Procuraduría General de la República) in its\nopinions number C-327-2001 and C-357-2003–, given that it concerns a specific\nlegal act by means of which the Administration\n(local or the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism, as appropriate, that\nis, if it concerns a subdivision (fraccionamiento), in the first case, or a housing development (urbanización)\nin the second), certifies the conformity or not of the land use with what is\nestablished in the respective zoning; as provided in Article 28\nof the Urban Planning Law. In this sense, it must be taken into account that\nthe doctrine and jurisprudence – both constitutional and\ncontentious-administrative- have indicated that urban plans are\nnormative provisions that discipline land use, so\nthat they affect private rights (right to property)\nby predetermining the modes of enjoyment and utilization of the good. Thus, the issuance of a visa is forbidden when the intended use\nis incompatible with that provided in the respective regulation. Concordantly,\nfrom the Zoning Regulation for Land Use of the GAM, it is understood that every\nproperty has an urbanistic vocation that is declared in the master plan\nand likewise, in its Article 12, it is indicated that any interested party must obtain\nprior the corresponding certificate stating the permitted\nuse, which will have a validity of one calendar year from the moment\nit is issued, adding Article 12.4 that in case of not having started the\nworks within the year of validity, the permit must be renewed. Then Article\n13 states expressly:\n\n\"The certificate\nshall indicate the use and shall not be interpreted as a definitive permit to carry out use,\noccupation, expansions, remodeling, construction, or subdivision. The\nAlignment and the Land Use Certificate shall have a validity of one year\nfrom their issuance.\" (The underlining is not from the original.)\n\nThus,\nthrough land use certification, it is not decided what the\npermitted use is, insofar as this has already been previously determined in\nthe zoning regulation, which forms part of the local regulatory plan; so that\nit simply certifies what the required use is, according to what is established\nby regulation, in addition to stating whether the use being given to a\ndetermined piece of land conforms or not with said regulation, which\nmeans it is a merely declaratory act, without creating, modifying, or extinguishing\nany legal situation, as occurs with constitutive administrative\nacts. For this reason, the issuance of a land use certificate\ncannot be assimilated to a construction permit, insofar as it is not\nlegitimate to claim that it constitutes a declaratory act of rights. So\nit is precisely because of its declaratory nature that land use\ncertificates do not, by themselves, give rise to the acquisition of a subjective\nright nor consolidate, by themselves, any legal situation. Land\nuse certification is merely descriptive regarding a\ndetermined factual situation in relation to what is normatively provided, for\nwhich reason, through it, it is not possible to consolidate any legal\nsituation pre-existing to the certifying act.\n\nX.- However, it is\nimportant to bear in mind that the land use certificate, as a declaratory administrative\nact that it is, does constitute an act of great\nimportance, insofar as its content and function is to certify facts or legal\nsituations that serve as the basis for the adoption of administrative acts\nthrough which legal situations are indeed created, modified, or extinguished,\nsuch is the case, for example, of authorizations to build or to\nprocess municipal licenses to exercise certain activities, for whose\nadoption it requires –sine qua non– the corresponding land use certificate. By\nvirtue of the foregoing, the importance that they\nbe issued in accordance with the legality block is evident, that is, with the urban planning\nregulations, be these the urban regulatory plans specific to each\ncanton or the regional plans (for example, the GAM) or those dictated by\nthe National Institute of Housing and Urbanism, of supplementary application in the\nabsence of local plans (Transitory Provision II of the Urban Planning Law and\nrulings number 4205-96 and 2003-11397 of the Constitutional Chamber).”\n\nIn this sense, as this Court has indicated in various pronouncements (among them, numbers 175-2009, at fifteen hours forty minutes, and 176-2009, at fifteen hours fifty minutes, both of January thirtieth, two thousand nine), *\"local governments must act in a timely manner in the exercise of police power (poder de policía), using the powers that the legal system has granted them to achieve their purposes\"* (the underlining is not from the original); which, in the matter of urban planning, is realized in the control of urbanization and subdivision (fraccionamiento) processes, and which is specifically realized in article 1 of the Construction Law, as it literally provides:\n\n\"The Municipalities of the Republic are responsible for ensuring that 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 their land, without prejudice to the powers that the laws grant in this matter to other administrative bodies.\"\n\nFor its part, the \"police power (poder de policía)\" is the competence recognized to the Administration, so that, based on a law, it regulates and governs an activity, in order to ensure public order, health, tranquility, the safety of persons, as well as the moral, political, and economic organization of society; an attribution by virtue of which the imposition of restrictions on the enjoyment of fundamental rights is reasonable, insofar as its justification lies precisely in the consideration that fundamental rights are limited by those of other persons, since they must coexist with each and every one of the other fundamental rights. Thus, the measures adopted by the State for the purpose of protecting safety, health, and tranquility are of public social interest, which are manifested through the police power, understood as the regulatory power over the enjoyment of rights and the fulfillment of constitutional duties. (In this regard, see the judgments number 401-91, at fourteen hours of February twentieth and 619-91, at fourteen hours forty-five minutes of March twenty-second, both rulings of nineteen ninety-one, and 2003-2864, at fifteen hours twenty minutes of April ninth, two thousand three, of the Constitutional Chamber.)\n\n**VI.- ON URBAN PLANNING REGULATIONS IN GENERAL AND MUNICIPAL ONES.-** The content of the urban planning regulations in our legal system (Costa Rican) must then be clarified. First of all, it is noted that the term \"urban planning regulations (regulaciones urbanísticas)\" should be understood in a broad sense and not restricted to the regulations in this matter emanating from a municipal agreement; insofar as it refers to the generality of urban planning instruments, which derive from various administrative instances, and which in doctrine has been conceptualized as\n\n\"[...] *an instrument, approved by an act of the Public Power, that organizes the territory, establishing provisions on the location of production and residence centers in a manner convenient for the best distribution of the population; regulates the use of land for public and private purposes and, in particular, its urbanization and building, and, in doing so, defines the content of property rights and programs the development of urban management.*\" (CARCELER FERNÁNDEZ, Antonio. *Introducción al Derecho Urbanístico*. Second Edition. Editorial Tecnos, S.A. Barcelona. Spain. 1992. p. 34.)\n\nThus, at the national level, there are various urban planning regulations, according to the body responsible for their adoption and, consequently, the scope of coverage of the national territory over which they apply: that is, those of national order and regional ones, whose approval is the responsibility of the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy and the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism, which contain the general guidelines for planning in this matter, and finally, the local, cantonal, or municipal ones, which are those that the municipalities elaborate, process, approve, and execute. When the term \"regulatory plan (plan regulador)\" is used, a meaning that is adopted by our national legislation in Article 1 of the Urban Planning Law, which defines it as:\n\n\"*the local planning instrument that defines, in a set of maps, plans, regulations, and any other document, graphic, or supplement, the development policy and the plans for population distribution, land uses, circulation routes, public services, community facilities, and construction, conservation, and rehabilitation of urban areas*\";\n\npopularly, reference is made to urban planning regulations deriving from local governments; however, we must understand that the regulations of the first two orders, that is, the national and regional ones, are also included, insofar as they have the same content and fulfill the same function of ordering the territory, at an urban level and in determining the possible uses of the land. These regulatory bodies have a specific content, that is, the ordering and planning of land use, for the creation of urban centers –cities, urbanizations, industrial projects or parks, parks, public roads, public services, etc.– within the scope of a territorial circumscription, be it the canton or part of it; or also at a regional level, in the case of the Regional Urban Development Plan for the Great Metropolitan Area, approved by Decree number 3332, of April twenty-sixth, nineteen eighty-two, and its reforms; which at the moment is the only urban planning regulation in our country enacted at a regional level; and without a regulation of this nature having been adopted at the national level to date. Consequently, this implies the *location*, regarding public buildings, and the *zoning*, regarding private construction. Thus, it not only determines the use or purpose of lots, but also their configuration and size; population density, the percentage of land that can be used, the number of floors, the class, and the purpose of buildings; all the foregoing, subject to uniform general rules for each kind thereof in the entire zone. Likewise, it guides the architectural composition of the buildings, and regulates, if necessary, their aesthetic characteristics; a competence that, it is worth noting, has not been exercised so far in our country (except, perhaps, in very sporadic cases). They are composed of both written rules and graphics, plans, and attached documents that help determine their content, which is of an absolutely normative nature, which has the following effects: **a)** they regulate the powers of exercising property rights, according to the classification and qualification of the lands contained therein; **b)** they have indefinite validity, but are susceptible to modification by subsequent revisions; **c)** their effectiveness is \"*erga omnes*\", although reduced to a specific territory or territorial circumscription, depending on its level (national, regional, or local), insofar as it binds both the Administration in general and private individuals; and **d)** they may not contain dispensation reservations.\n\n**VII.- ON THE CONTENT OF REGULATORY PLANS.-** Due to its broad content, the Urban Planning Law establishes in its Article 21 which are the main regulations that are complementary normative instruments of any urban planning regulation, known as a \"Plan\", whether national, regional, or local, namely:\n\n**a.- the *ZONING* one:** through which rules for the use of the territory are established, remembering that it is a basic concept of urban planning, consisting of reserving certain zones of a territory for specific needs or functions; and it ranges from the creation of industrial zones to the establishment of residential, political-administrative zones, sports zones, green zones, special environmental protection zones, and others (CALVO MURILLO, Virgilio, \"*Derecho Urbanístico: Fundamentos e Instituciones*\", *Revista Judicial*, Year II, No. 5, Poder Judicial de Costa Rica, September 1977, p. 92.) It is the first, and perhaps most important, regulation that must accompany every urban plan, in accordance with Article 21, subsection 1) of the Urban Planning Law, since, as its name indicates, it is responsible for the ordering and determination of land use, with a view to rational land use and to ensure satisfactory environmental conditions and qualities of life, thereby conditioning the use of real estate property, through the delimitation of areas, according to the categorization adopted. (BANDEIRA DE MELLO, Celso Antonio. *Figuras jurídicas del planeamiento urbano en el Brasil*. In: *Derecho y Planeamiento Urbano*. Editorial Universidad, Buenos Aires. Argentina. 1983. pp. 388 and 389.) Thus, the urban planning regime of property rights is not uniform by the mere fact that the land is subject to planning, but differs according to the type of land in which the property in question is classified; which highlights the importance of zoning. (CARCELLER FERNÁNDEZ, Antonio. *Instituciones de Derecho Urbanístico*. Fifth edition. Editorial Montecorvo, S.A. Madrid, Spain. 1992. p. 333.) Thus, from this regulation, the exact definition of the possible (permitted) uses in each zone is established, with the consequent impact on property rights; by conditioning where one can and should reside, where one can trade, where services must be provided, where industry can be carried out, and where one can recreate and entertain; which leads us to consider the seriousness with which it must be formulated, which requires, not only criteria of opportunity and convenience, but above all technical and objective ones. It is clear that the content of the land statute determines the scope of ownership and conditions its exercise, diversifying into situations favoring private initiative, and likewise, establishes linkages that restrict its exercise. The function of classifying land for the establishment of the corresponding legal regime is the responsibility of the General Plan, of which the zoning regulation forms part; which must contain the urban planning classification and qualification of the land. By classification, one should understand the category or type of land (urban, developable, programmed or unprogrammed, and non-developable, industrial, reserve or for environmental protection, residential, institutional, etc.) according to its basic urban planning purpose; the qualification applies to designate the subdivision of those types of land into zones characterized by specific urban planning contents or uses; and in this sense, it is linked to the technique of zoning, which arises when there is a tendency to separate residential buildings from industrial facilities. It is clear that the regulations contained in the zoning regulation contribute to outlining the content of property rights, insofar as the content thereof is the result of the constitutional and legal regime of property, as it is not an absolute right, but subject to regulations by virtue of the recognition of the fundamental element of the social function of property, and the contingencies of urban coexistence. The legitimacy of the regulations or limitations contained in the zoning rules is conditioned to the following principles: **a)** only the rules of a general nature compose zoning, that is, those that cover a category of goods, also qualified by their spatial location, insofar as such location is not singularizing, and **b)** the zoning regulations cannot be unlimited, as they must preserve the essential core of the property right (of use, enjoyment, pleasure, and disposition, not in an unrestricted sense); otherwise, one will be facing a suppression of the right, that is, an expropriation. So, zoning cannot entail the annulment or paralysis of the manifestations of property rights, which in no way should be confused with the patrimonial expressions or meaning of property. There is only an obligation to compensate for the imposition of these measures when they reach the essential core of this right, defined by constitutional jurisprudence as the possibility of carrying out some type of exploitation of the good, perhaps not the one desired by its owner. Thus, legitimate will be the limitations imposed on property that allow the owner the possibility of \"normally\" exploiting the good, except, of course, the part or function affected by the limitation imposed by the State, thereby respecting the natural use of the good, by maintaining its value as a means of production or economic value in the market. (In this regard, see, among others, judgments number 0796-91, at fifteen hours ten minutes of April twenty-sixth, nineteen ninety-one; number 5893-95, at nine hours forty-eight minutes of October twenty-seventh, nineteen ninety-five, and number 2345-96, at nine hours twenty-four minutes of May seventeenth, nineteen ninety-six.) So stated the Full Court in relation to the limitations to be imposed on property when they exceed the indicated limit, in an extraordinary session of June sixteenth, nineteen eighty-three:\n\n\"[...] *that is, 'limitations' as Article 45 calls them, but not dispossession of private property nor deprivation of a primary attribute of ownership, because preventing the enjoyment of the goods is equivalent, at least in this case, to a form of expropriation without the requirement of prior compensation ordered by the Political Constitution.*\"\n\nIn the same sense, the Constitutional Chamber ruled in the cited judgments number 5097-93 and 2345-96; under the following considerations:\n\n\"*IV.) For the 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 that happens, it ceases to be a reasonable limitation to become a deprivation of the right itself*\" (judgment number 5097-93, cited supra);\n\n\"*That is, the attributes of property can be limited, as long as the owner reserves for himself the possibility of normally exploiting the good, excluded, of course, the part or the function affected by the limitation imposed by the State. Outside these parameters, if social welfare demands sacrifices from one or from a few only, they must be compensated, the same as when the sacrifice imposed on the owner is of such an identity that it causes them to lose the good in its entirety. Thus, the limitation on property withstands constitutional analysis, when the impact on the essential attributes of property, which are those that allow the natural use of the thing within the current socio-economic reality, does not make the nature of the good disappear or make the use of the thing impossible, because the State imposes authorization or approval requirements so complex that they imply, in fact, the impossibility of usufructing the good*\" (judgment number 2345-96, cited supra).\n\nThus, Article 24 of the Urban Planning Law determines the content of these regulations in the following manner: **a)** the determination of land uses; **b)** matters relating to the location, height, and building area of constructions; **c)** the area and dimensions of lots, which has a direct impact on the determination of land density; **d)** the size of setbacks, yards, and other open spaces, and the coverage of the lot by buildings and structures; **e)** the provision of space for parking, loading, and unloading of vehicles off the streets; **f)** size, location, and characteristics of signs or advertisements; and **g)** any other architectural or urban planning detail regarding land use, whose regulation is of interest to the local community. For this reason, it is mandatory to reserve zones that have a special designation due to their use, such as those near airports, those that have a designation for the protection of forest and historical and architectural heritage, or natural heritage of the State, which derive from Articles 50 and 89 of the Political Constitution, as ordered by Article 25 of the Urban Planning Law;\n\n**b.- the *SUBDIVISION and URBANIZATION* one:** which, in accordance with Article 32 of the Urban Planning Law, aims to determine under what conditions a municipality must permit or regulate subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization projects in its jurisdiction, for which requirements are provided corresponding to access to public roads, transfer of areas for public use, rules for the construction of streets and sidewalks, pavements, piping, storm and sanitary drainage, electrification and public lighting, among others. In this sense, the importance for Urban Planning Law of the control of subdivision actions (control de las acciones de fraccionamiento) must be highlighted, which offers no doubt. In this regard, the Superior Administrative Litigation Court states:\n\n\"*IV.- From what has been said, it must be insisted that the control of urban development as a competence of the municipalities implies both the power to enact regulatory plans, but above all, it implies the competence to 'control' the subdivision (fraccionamiento) of lands by means of the same regulatory plans and with the granting of the corresponding municipal approval to the respective plan, as expressed in numeral 33 of the cited Urban Planning Law. In the same order of things, according to Article 10, subsection 2) of the Urban Planning Law, it corresponds to the Urban Planning Directorate of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism to approve the corresponding plans for urbanization or subdivision projects for urbanization purposes prior to municipal approval (Article 33 ibidem). It is a competence that translates into a control function by the Urban Planning Directorate in relation to the urban planning and control by municipalities (Articles 7, subsection 3) and 9 of the above-indicated law). They become advisors or overseers, being able to report or even denounce to the Municipalities, regarding a possible infraction of the law or the local regulatory plan, even being able to issue an act of suspension of a determined work, in which the infraction of the law on urban planning has been proven. According to Article 36, subsection b) ibidem, municipalities cannot grant the respective approvals to plans for urban projects in areas subject to control when they do not have the required permit (approval of the Urban Planning Directorate).*\" (Third Section, Superior Administrative Litigation Court, judgment number 791-2002 at ten hours ten minutes of September twenty-seventh, year two thousand two.) (The highlighting is not from the original.)\n\nAnd indeed, omitting the controls (approvals) for subdivision (fraccionamiento) purposes is one of the most common and dangerous ways of circumventing urban planning standards and overthrowing all regulatory instruments in the matter, causing serious consequences.\n\nAmong\nthese, we can cite the impossibility of planning and supplying basic\nservices, the construction of housing complexes in high-risk zones\ndue to natural emergencies or building in zones that, due to their characteristics,\nshould not be designated for constructions, because they are aquifer recharge areas or\nhave high environmental value; just to cite a few\nexamples;\n\nc.- the OFFICIAL MAP (MAPA OFICIAL):\nwhich, pursuant to article 1 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), \"is the map or set of maps in which\nthe exact position of the layouts of public roads and areas to be\nreserved for community uses and services is indicated\"; whose content is regulated in\narticles 42 and 43 of the cited Law:\n\n\"Article\n42.- The regulation of the Official Map (Mapa Oficial) shall establish the rules on\nreserves, acquisition, use, and conservation of the areas necessary for roads,\nparks, plazas, buildings, and other community uses, expressing the location and\nsize of those already delivered to public service and those demarcated only\npreventively.\"\n\n\"Article\n43.- The Official Map (Mapa Oficial), together with the plans or the cadaster that\ncomplements it, shall constitute a special reliable registry on ownership and\naffectation to the public domain of the lands or spaces already delivered to public\nuses\";\n\nd.- the of URBAN RENEWAL (RENOVACIÓN URBANA):\nwhose content is determined in articles 51 allows\nof the reference Law, in the following manner:\n\n\"Article\n51.- The Urban Renewal Regulation (Reglamento de Renovación Urbana) shall contain the regulations\nthat are locally adopted to conserve, rehabilitate, or remodel\ndefective, deteriorated, or decaying urban areas, taking into account the\ninconvenient parceling or building, the lack of community services and facilities,\nor any other condition adverse to general safety, health, and\nwell-being\";\n\nwhich\nis of transcendental importance, especially when dealing with the protection\nof the historical architectural heritage, or for the safeguarding of the safety\nof the inhabitants of a neighborhood;\n\ne.-\nand finally, the of CONSTRUCTIONS (CONSTRUCCIONES); which seeks\nto technically regulate all the requirements that any type of\nconstruction must meet according to the definition of the concept given in article 1 of\nthe reference Law, which holds it as \"any structure that is fixed or incorporated into a land;\nincludes any work of building, reconstruction, alteration, or expansion\nthat implies permanence.\" Thus, its objective is to set the norms for\nthe planning, design, and construction of buildings, streets,\nsports fields, industrial and machinery installations, and all those works\nadditional to these, in everything related to architecture, civil,\nelectrical, mechanical, or sanitary engineering, with the purpose of promoting, ensuring, and protecting\nhealth, economy, comfort, and common well-being through requirements that guarantee\nin such works their solidity, stability, safety, health, illumination, and\nadequate ventilation.\n\n**VIII.- OF THE LEGAL NATURE (NATURALEZA JURÍDICA) OF THE REGULATORY PLANS (PLANES REGULADORES) AND\nTHEIR CONTENT.-** The urban planning regulations, which as indicated,\ncomprise a very varied set of norms; a product of the action of the\nvarious public entities that intervene in this matter; from which we\nfind, legal norms, norms of a regulatory nature with the value of law\n(law in the material sense), and of course, regulatory norms. In such a way,\nthat we can well conclude, that our urban planning legal order\nis made up of norms of different natures, precisely by\nvirtue of two important factors, firstly, by the organ or\ninstitution from which it emanates (be it, the Legislative Assembly (Asamblea Legislativa),\nthe Executive Branch (Poder Ejecutivo) or the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo), or the\nmunicipalities); and secondly, and as derived from the previous, the scope\nof coverage of the regulation, be it, of national, regional, or local linkage. Thus,\nthe urban planning regulations of a legal order are not a legal problem,\nneither in doctrine, nor in jurisprudence, since they are\nlegitimate, provided they are approved by qualified vote, that is,\nwith the minimum vote of thirty-eight deputies, due to their content; in\nthe terms provided in the second paragraph of article 45 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) itself,\nas they impose limitations of social interest. It is not superfluous to reiterate that this requirement of\nqualified vote is not merely formal, but substantial, as it implies\nthe necessary consensus among the various fractions of the political parties\nthat make up the Legislative Assembly (Asamblea Legislativa). For this reason, there is no major discussion about\nthe legitimacy and normative rank of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), which fully\ncomplies with the constitutional requirement, having been approved in\ncompliance with the constitutional requirement. Now, while the\nurban planning regulations constitute a set of heterogeneous norms,\nprecisely because they derive from various public instances, and consequently,\nas a manifestation of various instances of public power (Legislative Branch (Poder Legislativo),\nAdministrative power, and local power). It is our criterion, that the analysis of\nthese regulations must start from the content of article 45 of the Constitution,\nwhose second paragraph legitimizes the establishment of\nlimitations of social interest to property, provided they are\nestablished by qualified law, a substantial and not merely formal requirement, by\nimplying the legislative consensus for their adoption. In this sense, just as\nthe Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has considered in its jurisprudence, the limitations and\nregulations of an urban planning order are of social interest, as they are imposed\nprecisely to facilitate coexistence in society, and translate into\nimpediments or obligations for the owner, and which mostly, have a\nquite ancient origin in our legal order, by deriving -many\nof them- from provisions of the Civil Code, dating from eighteen eighty-eight.\nThe constitutional jurisprudence has recognized two types of social interest\nthat legitimize -or justify- the imposition of limitations on property:\nthese are those related to environmental protection and those of urban planning\norder, the latter, from the development made in\njudgment number 4205-96, cited above. In such a way,\nthat in a strict sense, it should be considered that the urban plans (planes urbanísticos) -all\nin general, be they those of national, regional, and local scope-, due to their\ncontent, have the normative rank of laws in the material sense, since they\nimpose obligations, duties, and limit rights, in particular the exercise of the\nright of property, just as the Argentine jurist\nEdgardo O. SCOTTI states:\n\n\"A\nplan for a given urban nucleus implies not only establishing policies\ndestined for the adequate organization of activities in space, but it\nmeans guiding and conditioning the actions of the public and private sectors\nthrough the use of legal instruments that, by means of\nstimuli, demands, or prohibitions, delimit the exercise of the right of\nproperty and the other functions and uses that can be developed in the\nurban sphere.\"\n(Law and Urban Planning (Derecho y Planeamiento Urbano). Editorial\nUniversidad, Buenos Aires. Argentina. 1983. p. 77.)\n\nIn this regard, there is no doubt about the direct incidence of urban\nplans on the exercise of the fundamental rights of private\nproperty and freedom of enterprise, as from the content of their\nregulations, the development of industry and commerce is also inferred\n(articles 45 and 47 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política)), as well as the consequent\nprotection of another fundamental right, be it, that of a\nsustainable and ecologically balanced environment (article 50 of\nthe Political Constitution (Constitución Política));\njust as the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) considered in judgment number 5303-93:\n\n\"...\nthe limitation to property imposed by a regulatory plan (plan regulador) is\nconstitutionally possible, because the right of property is not\nunlimited; rather, there exists a general framework within which the\nowner can act and which must be compatible with the constitutional content of that\nright. For what has been expressed, in the judgment of this Court, the imposed limitation,\nas long as it is adjusted to a current regulatory plan (plan regulador), does not violate as suggested in\nthe appeal article 45 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política),\nas long as that regulatory plan (plan regulador) does not deconstitutionalize\nthe private property that is affected by that instrument. On the contrary,\nif the limitations exceed the minimum parameters\nof reasonableness and proportionality, they would be\ncontrary to the Political Constitution (Constitución Política).\"-\n\nThus, it\nhas been considered that the content imposed in the various urban plans (planes urbanísticos)\n-in their complete dimension, be they national, regional, and local- is consistent\nwith the constitutional requirement, by deriving from a legal provision –the\nUrban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana)-,\nwhich was indeed approved in compliance with the constitutional condition –two\nthirds of the total members of\nthe Legislative Assembly (Asamblea Legislativa)-,\nby virtue of which, that legitimation is transferred to them. And\nadding to the above, it must be considered that, regional plans, in this\ncase, the Regional Urban Development Plan (Plan Regional de Desarrollo Urbano), of the Great Metropolitan Area (Gran Área Metropolitana), has\nthat character by virtue of an express legal mandate, pursuant to article 64 of\nthe Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana),\nas they textually indicate:\n\n\"Article\n64.- The Metropolitan Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Metropolitano), its regulations, and the\nrespective amendments, shall acquire the force of law for all the\nmunicipalities of the circuit that have agreed upon its adoption.\" (The\nhighlighting is not from the original.)\n\nFinally,\nregarding municipal regulatory plans (planes reguladores municipalidades), we can defend this value\n–of law in the material sense- based on the following reasons: a) by\nreason of their content, which imposes obligations on\nowners and limitations on property, as indicated previously; b.)\nby reason of their reinforced approval procedure, which\nconstitutes a manifestation of direct democracy; as for the\napproval of these regulations, it is required, as an essential requirement,\nthe holding of an oral and public hearing, in the terms\nprovided in article 19 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana); and likewise,\nthe plan is adopted and imposed by means of an agreement of the Municipal Council (Concejo municipal), the deliberative body of the\nmunicipalities; and c) by legal equivalence, from what is provided\nin the transcribed article 64 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana).\nTherefore, if an\nurban planning ordinance at a regional level acquires the rank of law for\nthe Municipality (Municipalidad) that\nadopts it, and this is by agreement of the Council, it stands to reason that this\ncondition is also acquired by the one that has been created by the municipality itself and governs\nonly its territorial circumscription. In any case, our Constitutional\nCourt, has clearly and precisely indicated, that\nregulatory plans (planes reguladores), despite being regulatory regulations emanating from the\nmunicipalities, have the normative rank of laws in the material sense. In\nthis sense, judgments number 2006-13330, of\nseventeen hours thirty-three minutes of December sixth, two thousand six;\n2007-5575; of fifteen hours twenty-four minutes of April twenty-fifth,\ntwo thousand seven and 2008-18438, of seventeen hours fifty-six\nminutes of December eleventh, two thousand eight can be consulted.\n\n**IX.- OF THE ISSUANCE AND EFFECTS OF LAND USES (USOS DE SUELO).-**\nHaving referred to the competence of municipalities in the field of local urbanism\nand the content and significance of urban planning regulations; we\nproceed to clarify the content and effects of land uses (usos de suelo),\nin consideration that the content of the contested decision, is precisely the\ndetermination of a non-conforming use, regarding the activity intended by the\ninterested party. Indeed, the certificates of land use (certificados de uso del suelo) are administrative\nacts of a declaratory and not constitutive nature, as\nthey certify facts or circumstances, so that they do not create or\nmodify legal situations –just as the\nadministrative jurisprudence indicates, for example, the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de la República) in its\nopinions number C-327-2001 and C-357-2003–, since it is a concrete legal\nact by means of which the Administration (Administración)\n(local or the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo), as appropriate, that\nis if it concerns a subdivision (fraccionamiento), in the first case, or of a development (urbanización)\nin the second), certifies the conformity or not of the land use with what is\nestablished in the respective zoning; pursuant to the provisions of article 28\nof the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana). In this sense, it must be taken into account that\nthe doctrine and the jurisprudence – both constitutional and\ncontentious-administrative- has indicated that urban plans (planes urbanísticos) are\nnormative provisions in which the use of land is disciplined, so\nthey affect private rights (property right)\npredetermining the modes of enjoyment and utilization of the asset. Thus, the\ngranting of a visa is prohibited when the intended use\nis incompatible with that provided in the respective regulation. In a concordant manner,\nfrom the Zoning Regulation for Land Use (Reglamento de Zonificación del Uso del Suelo) of\nthe GAM, it is understood that every\nproperty has an urban planning vocation that is declared in the master plan (plan director)\nand for this reason, in its article 12 it is indicated that every interested party must previously obtain\nthe corresponding certificate in which the permitted use is recorded,\nwhich will have a validity of one calendar year from the moment\nit is issued, adding article 12.4 that in case works have not been started\nin the year of validity, the permit must be renewed. Then article\n13 expressly indicates:\n\n\"The certificate\nwill indicate the use and will not be interpreted as a definitive permit to make use,\noccupation, expansions, remodeling, construction, or subdivision (fraccionamiento). The\nAlignment and the Land Use Certificate (Certificado de Uso de suelo) will have a validity of one year from\ntheir issuance.\" (The underline is not from the original.)\n\nIn such a way, that\nby means of the certification of land use (uso del suelo) it is not decided what the\npermitted use is, as this has already been previously determined in\nthe zoning regulation, which integrates the local regulatory plan (plan regulador); in such a way that\nit simply certifies what the use is according to what is established\nregulatorily, in addition to recording whether the use that is being given to a\nspecific land is or is not in conformity with said regulation, with which,\nit is a merely declaratory act, without creating, modifying, or extinguishing\nany legal situation, as does occur with constitutive administrative\nacts. For this reason, the issuance of the land use certificate (certificado del uso del suelo)\ncannot be assimilated to a construction license, as it is not\nlegitimate to allege that it constitutes an act declaratory of rights. In such a way,\nthat it is precisely due to its declaratory nature, that land use certificates (certificados de uso del suelo) do not give rise, by themselves, to the acquisition of a subjective right nor do they consolidate, by themselves, any legal situation. The\ncertification of land use (uso del suelo) is merely descriptive regarding a\nfactual situation determined in relation to what is normatively provided, by\nreason of which, through it, it is not possible to consolidate any\nlegal situation preexisting the certifying act.\n\n**X.-**\nHowever, it\nis important to take into account that the land use certificate (certificado de uso del suelo), as a declaratory administrative\nact that it is, does constitute an act of great\nimportance, insofar as its content and function is to certify facts or legal\nsituations that serve as the basis for the adoption of administrative acts through\nwhich legal situations are created, modified, or extinguished,\nsuch is the case, for example, of authorizations to build or to\nprocess municipal patents to exercise certain activities, for whose\nadoption it requires –sine qua non– the corresponding land use certificate (certificado de uso del suelo). By\nvirtue of the foregoing, the importance that they\nare granted in accordance with the legality block stands out, that is, to the urban planning\nregulations, be they the urban planning regulatory plans (planes reguladores urbanísticos) of each\ncanton or the regional plans (for example, the GAM) or those dictated by\nthe National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo), of supplementary application in\nthe absence of the local ones (Transitional Provision II of\nthe Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana) and\njudgments number 4205-96 and 2003-11397 of\nthe Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional)).\"\n\n**IV.- ON MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION REGARDING THE URBAN PLANNING OF THE CANTON. THE NORMATIVE REGULATION DERIVING FROM IT.-** Given that the claim concerns **the issuance of a certificate for a non-conforming land use**, this Tribunal considers it appropriate to make some brief reflections on the jurisdiction of local governments in urban planning matters. It is clarified that said power has a dual aspect, thus, firstly, concerning the **definition of normative regulations** -promulgation of the respective regulations -regulatory plans (planes reguladores) and related regulations- and secondly, concerning **control** -exercise of police power (poder de policía)- within the territorial jurisdiction. Indeed, it should be remembered that **urban planning regulation has been entrusted traditionally, and without any discussion, to the municipalities (municipalidades)**, insofar as it has been considered that\n\n\"[...] *urban planning jurisdiction has been a genuine municipal jurisdiction, perhaps the first among all\"* (GARCÍA DE ENTERRÍA, Eduardo and PAREJO ALFONSO, Luciano, *Lecciones de Derecho Urbanístico*. Editorial Civitas, Madrid, Spain, S.N.E., 1981. p. 116.);\n\nso that it has been configured as a tradition of Urban Planning Law, especially at those times when its content has been expressed through \"*construction and urban police ordinances*\", under the jurisdiction of local governments, with the understanding that public urban planning jurisdiction is inherent to the city, and consequently, to the municipalities. Thus, urban planning begins as an exclusively municipal jurisdiction. Subsequently, as it ceases to be a function specific to the urban sphere and seeks to encompass the planning of the entire territory, other higher Administrations become responsible for it, thereby modifying the jurisdictional level of urban planning matters, by including other instances, in our environment, such as the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo -a decentralized entity-, and the Ministries of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, with the Secretaría Técnica Ambiental (a deconcentrated body) and the Ministry of National Planning. But regarding what properly concerns **local urban planning**, it is worth remembering that it is in the Ley de Construcciones, approved by Decreto-Ley number 833, of November fourth, nineteen forty-nine -a pre-constitutional norm, having been promulgated by the De Facto Government of the Junta Fundadora de la Segunda República, directed by José Figueres Ferrer-, where it is established that **the Municipalities are in charge of ensuring that 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 their lands**, without prejudice to the powers that laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies (Article 1), as well as that no building may be erected in the country that contravenes its provisions (Article 74). And despite the fact that our current Political Constitution –of November seventh, nineteen forty-nine- is somewhat sparse in defining the proper and essential functions of the municipalities, constitutional jurisprudence -specifically in judgments number 5097-93, 5303-93, 6706-93, 4205-96, and 2003-3656-, has interpreted that based on the provisions of its Articles 169 and the first paragraph of Article 170, **primary ownership in matters of local urban planning belongs to the municipalities, to the exclusion of any other public entity**. In this sense, in the Código Municipal, number 4574, of May fourth, nineteen seventy, -in force until nineteen ninety-eight-, urban planning matters were expressly recognized as a municipal jurisdiction in its Article 4. In accordance with the previous provision, and **as a derivative of constitutional norms, Articles 15 and 19 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, number 4240, of November fifteenth, nineteen sixty-eight are concordant**, insofar as they textually provide:\n\n\"***Article 15.-** Pursuant to the precept of Article 169 of the Political Constitution, the jurisdiction and authority of municipal governments to plan and control urban development, within the limits of their jurisdictional territory, is recognized. Consequently, each one of them shall provide what is appropriate to implement a regulatory plan, and the related urban development regulations, in the areas where it must govern, without prejudice to extending all or some of its effects to other sectors, where qualified reasons prevail for establishing a specific controlling regime.*\" (Emphasis not in original.)\n\n\"***Article 19.-** Each Municipality shall issue and promulgate the necessary procedural rules for the due compliance with the regulatory plan and for the protection of the interests of health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the community.*\" (Emphasis not in original.)\n\n**V.- ON MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION IN VERIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN PLANNING NORMS.-** As for the second area stated, it concerns the control exercised by the Municipal Authorities regarding compliance with local urban planning regulations. In this sense, as this Tribunal has indicated in various pronouncements (among them, numbers 175-2009, at fifteen hours forty minutes; 176-2009, at fifteen hours fifty minutes, both of January thirty, two thousand nine), \"[...] *local governments must act in a timely manner in the* ***exercise of police power***, *using the powers that the legal system has granted them to achieve their purposes*\" (the underline is not from the original); which in urban planning matters, is concretized in the control of urbanization and subdivision processes, and which is definitively materialized in Article 1 of the Ley de Construcciones, insofar as it literally provides:\n\n\"*The Municipalities of the Republic are in charge of ensuring that cities and other towns meet the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort, and beauty in their public thoroughfares, in the buildings and constructions erected on their lands, without prejudice to the powers that laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies.*\"\n\nFor its part, \"**police power**\" is the jurisdiction recognized to the Administration, so that, based on a law, it regulates and rules an activity, in order to ensure **public order, health, tranquility, the safety of persons, as well as the moral, political, and economic organization of society**; an attribution, by virtue of which, the imposition of restrictions on the enjoyment of fundamental rights is reasonable, insofar as its justification lies precisely in the consideration that fundamental rights are limited by those of other persons, given that they must coexist with each and every one of the other fundamental rights. Whereby, the measures that the State adopts with the purpose of protecting safety, health, and tranquility are of public social interest, which manifest themselves through police power, understood as the regulatory power over the enjoyment of rights and the fulfillment of constitutional duties. (In this sense, one may consult judgments number 401-91, at fourteen hours of February twentieth, and 619-91, at fourteen hours forty-five minutes of March twenty-second, both resolutions of nineteen ninety-one, and 2003-2864, at fifteen hours twenty minutes of April ninth, two thousand three, of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional).)\n\n**VI.- ON URBAN PLANNING REGULATIONS IN GENERAL AND MUNICIPAL ONES.-** The content of urban planning regulations in our legal system (Costa Rican) must then be clarified. First of all, it is noted that the term \"**urban planning regulations (regulaciones urbanísticas)**\" must be understood in a broad sense and not restricted to the regulations in this matter emanating from a municipal agreement; insofar as it refers **to the generality of urban planning instruments, which derive from various administrative instances**, and which in doctrine has been conceptualized as\n\n\"[...] *an instrument, approved by an act of Public Power, which orders the territory, establishing provisions on the location of production and residential centers in the manner convenient for the best distribution of the population; regulates the use of land for its public and private purpose and, in particular, its urbanization and building, and, in doing so, defines the content of property rights and programs the development of urban management.*\" (*CARCELER FERNÁNDEZ, Antonio. *Introducción al Derecho Urbanístico*. Second Edition. Editorial Tecnos, S.A. Barcelona. Spain. 1992. p.\n\n34.)

\n\n

Thus,\nat the national level there are various urban planning regulations, depending\non the body responsible for their adoption and, consequently, the scope of\ncoverage of the national territory over which they exercise their application: namely, those\nof a national order and regional ones, whose approval is the responsibility\nof the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy and the National Institute\nof Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo), which contain the general guidelines for\nplanning in this matter, and finally, local, cantonal or municipal ones,\nwhich are those that the municipalities prepare, process, approve, and execute. When the term\n\"regulatory plan (plan regulador)\" is used, an expression adopted by our\nnational legislation in Article 1 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), which defines it as:

\n\n

\"the\nlocal planning instrument that defines, in a set\nof maps, plans, regulations, and any other document, graphic, or supplement,\nthe development policy and the plans for the distribution of the population, land\nuses, circulation routes, public services, community facilities, and\nconstruction, conservation, and rehabilitation of urban areas\";

\n\n

commonly\nreference is made to urban planning regulations emanating\nfrom local governments; however, we must understand that the regulations of the first two orders are also included, that is, the national\nand regional ones, insofar as they have the same content and fulfill the same\nland-ordering function, at the urban level and in determining the possible uses\nof the land. These regulatory bodies have specific content,\nthat is, the ordering and planning of land use, for the creation of\nurban centers –cities, housing developments, industrial projects or parks,\nparks, public roads, public services, etc.– within the scope of a\nterritorial circumscription, whether the canton or part thereof; or also at the\nregional level, as in the case of the Regional Urban Development Plan of the Greater\nMetropolitan Area (Plan Regional de Desarrollo Urbano, del Gran Área Metropolitana), approved by Decree number 3332 of April twenty-sixth,\nnineteen hundred eighty-two, and its amendments; which is currently the only\nurban planning regulation in our country enacted at the regional level; and without, at\nthis time, any regulation of this nature having been adopted at the national level.\nConsequently, this implies the location, with respect to\npublic buildings, and zoning, with respect to private\nconstruction. Thus, it not only determines the use or purpose of lots, but also\ntheir configuration and extent; the population density,\npercentage of land that may be used, number of floors, class, and\npurpose of buildings; all of the foregoing, subject to general\nuniform standards for each class thereof throughout the entire zone. Likewise, it\nguides the architectural composition of buildings, and regulates, if\nnecessary, their aesthetic characteristics; a power that it is worth\npointing out has not been exercised at this time in our country (except,\nperhaps, in very sporadic cases). They are composed of both written standards\nand graphics, plans, and attached documents that help to determine their\ncontent, which is of an absolutely normative nature, producing the\nfollowing effects: a) they regulate the powers of exercising the right\nof property, according to the classification and qualification of the land\ncontained therein; b) they remain in force indefinitely, but are susceptible to\nbeing modified by subsequent revisions; c) their effectiveness is \"erga omnes\",\nalthough reduced to a specific territory or territorial circumscription,\ndepending on its level (national, regional, or local), insofar as it binds both the\nPublic Administration\nin general, and private individuals; and d) they cannot contain dispensation\nreservations.

\n\n

VII.- THE CONTENT OF\nREGULATORY PLANS.- Due to their extensive content, the Urban Planning Law\nestablishes in its Article 21 the main\nregulations that are complementary normative instruments of any urban planning\nregulation, known as a \"Plan\", whether national, regional, or local,\nnamely:

\n\n

a.- the ZONING regulation: by\nwhich standards are established for the use of the territory, bearing in mind\nthat it is a basic concept of urbanism, consisting of reserving certain\nzones of a territory for specific needs or functions; and it ranges from\nthe creation of industrial zones to the establishment of residential,\npolitical-administrative, sports, green, special environmental\nprotection, and other zones (CALVO MURILLO, Virgilio, \"Urban Planning Law:\nFundamentals and Institutions (Derecho Urbanístico: Fundamentos e Instituciones)\", Judicial Journal (Revista Judicial),\nYear II, No. 5, Judicial Branch of Costa Rica, September 1977, p. 92.) It is the first, and perhaps most\nimportant regulation that must accompany any urban planning plan, in\naccordance with Article 21, subsection 1) of the Urban Planning Law, given that, as\nits name indicates, it is responsible for the ordering and determination of land\nuse, with a view to rational land use and to ensure\nsatisfactory environmental living conditions and qualities, thereby\nconditioning the use of real estate property, through the delimitation of\nareas, according to the adopted categorization. (BANDEIRA\nDE MELLO, Celso Antonio. Legal figures of urban planning in\nBrazil. In: Law and Urban Planning (Derecho y Planeamiento Urbano). Editorial Universidad,\nBuenos Aires. Argentina. 1983. pp. 388 y 389.) Thus, the urban planning\nregime of property law is not uniform by the mere fact of the\nland being subject to planning, but differs according to the type of land in which\nthe property in question is classified; which highlights the importance\nof zoning. (CARCELLER FERNÁNDEZ,\nAntonio. Institutions of Urban Planning Law (Instituciones de Derecho Urbanístico). Fifth edition. Editorial\nMontecorvo, S.A. Madrid, Spain. 1992. p. 333.) Thus,\nbased on this regulation, the exact definition of the possible (permitted) uses\nin each zone is established, with the consequent impact on the right\nof property; by conditioning where one can and must reside, where one\ncan trade, where services must be provided, where\nindustry can be carried out, and where one can recreate and entertain; which\nleads us to consider the seriousness with which it must be formulated, requiring, \nnot only criteria of opportunity and convenience, but above all technical and\nobjective ones. It is clear that the content of the land statute (estatuto del suelo)\ndetermines the scope of ownership and conditions its exercise, diversifying into\nsituations favoring private initiative, and likewise, establishes\nlinkages that restrict its exercise. The function of classifying\nthe land for the establishment of the corresponding legal regime is incumbent upon\nthe General Plan, of which the zoning regulation forms part; which,\nmust contain the urban planning classification and qualification of the land. By\nclassification, one must understand the category or type of land (urban,\ndevelopable, programmed or non-programmed and non-developable, industrial,\nreserve or for environmental protection, residential, institutional, etc.) according\nto its basic urban planning purpose; qualification applies to designate the\nsubdivision of those types of land into zones characterized by specific\ncontents or urban planning uses; and in this sense, it is linked to the\ntechnique of zoning, which was born when there was a tendency to separate construction\nintended for residence from industrial facilities. It is clear that the\nregulations contained in the zoning regulation come to assist in\nthe delineation of the content of the right of property, insofar as the content\nthereof is the result of the constitutional and legal regime of property,\nas it is not an absolute right, but subject to regulations by virtue of the\nrecognition of the fundamental element of the social function of property,\nand the contingencies of urban coexistence. The legitimacy of the\nregulations or limitations contained in the zoning rules is\nconditioned by the following principles: a) only rules of a general nature make up the\nzoning, that is, those that cover a category of goods, also qualified by their spatial location, insofar\nas such location is not singling-out, and b)\nzoning regulations cannot be unlimited, as they must\npreserve the essential core of the right of property (of use, enjoyment, pleasure, and\ndisposal, not in an unrestricted sense); otherwise, one would be facing a\nsuppression of the right, that is, an expropriation. Therefore, zoning cannot\nlead to the nullification or paralysis of the manifestations of the right\nof property, which should in no way be confused with the expressions or\npatrimonial meaning of property. There is only an obligation to compensate\nfor the imposition of these measures when they reach the essential core of this\nright, defined by constitutional jurisprudence as the possibility of\ncarrying out some type of exploitation on the property, perhaps not the one desired by its\nowner. Thus, limitations imposed on\nproperty that allow the owner the possibility of \"normally\" exploiting\nthe property will be legitimate, except, of course, for the part or function affected\nby the limitation imposed by the State, thereby respecting the natural use\nof the property, by maintaining its value as a means of production or economic value in\nthe market. (In this regard, among others, see judgments number\n0796-91, of fifteen hours ten minutes ontwentysixth\nof April nineteen hundred ninety-one; number 5893-95, of nine hours\nforty-eight minutes of October twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred ninety-five, and number 2345-96, of nine hours twenty-four minutes of May seventeenth,\nnineteen hundred ninety-six.) This was indicated by the Full Court (Corte Plena) in\nrelation to the limitations to be imposed on property when they exceed the\nindicated limit, in an extraordinary session of June sixteenth, nineteen\nhundred eighty-three:

\n\n

\"[...] that is, 'limitations' as Article 45 calls them, but not dispossession of\nprivate property nor deprivation of a primary attribute of ownership, because\npreventing the enjoyment of goods is equivalent, at least in this case, to a form of\nexpropriation without the requirement of prior compensation ordered by\nthe Political Constitution.\"

\n\n

The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) ruled in the same sense\nin the aforementioned judgments number 5097-93 and\n2345-96; under the following considerations:

\n\n

\"IV.) For the Chamber (Sala), the reasonable limits\nthat the State can impose on private property, according to its\nnature, are constitutionally possible insofar as they do not empty its content.\nWhen that occurs, it ceases to be a reasonable limitation to become\na deprivation of the right itself\" (judgment number 5097-93, cited supra);

\n\n

\"That\nis, the attributes of property can be limited, as long as the\nowner reserves for himself the possibility of normally exploiting the property,\nexcluding, of course, the part or the function affected by the limitation imposed\nby the State. Outside these parameters, if social well-being demands\nsacrifices from one or only a few, it must be compensated, just as\nhappens when the sacrifice imposed on the owner is of such an entity\nthat it causes him to lose the property entirely. Thus, the limitation on\nproperty resists constitutional analysis, when the affectation to the\nessential attributes of property, which are those that allow the natural use\nof the thing within the current socio-economic reality, does not\ncause the nature of the property to disappear or make the use of the thing impossible,\nbecause the State imposes authorization or approval requirements so\ncomplex that they imply, in fact, the impossibility of usufructing the property\"\n(judgment number 2345-96, cited supra).

\n\n

Thus,\nArticle 24 of the Urban Planning Law determines the content of these regulations in the\nfollowing manner: a) the determination of land uses; b)\nmatters relating to the location, height, and construction area of\nbuildings; c) the surface area and dimensions of lots, which\nhas a direct impact on the determination of land density; d)\nthe size of setbacks, yards, and other open spaces, and coverage of the\nlot by buildings and structures; e) the provision of space for\nparking, loading, and unloading of vehicles off the streets; f)\nsize, location, and characteristics of signs or advertising announcements; and g)\nany other architectural or urban planning detail relating to land use,\nwhose regulation is of interest to the local community. For this reason, it is\nmandatory to reserve zones that have a special affectation due to their\nuse, such as those near airports, those that have an\naffectation for the protection of forest and historical\nand architectural heritage, or natural heritage of the State, which derive from Articles\n50 and 89 of the Political Constitution, as ordered by Article 25 of\nthe Urban Planning Law;

\n\n

b.- the SUBDIVISION (FRACCIONAMIENTO)\nand URBANIZATION regulation: which, according to Article 32 of\nthe Urban Planning Law,\nseeks to determine under what conditions a municipality must permit or\nregulate subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization projects in its\njurisdiction, for which requirements are established corresponding to access to\nthe public road, transfer of areas for public use, standards for construction of\nstreets and sidewalks, pavements, pipes, storm and sanitary drains,\nelectrification and public lighting, among others. In this sense, the\nimportance for Urban Planning Law of the control of subdivision (fraccionamiento) actions must be highlighted, which is beyond any doubt. In this regard,\nthe Superior Contentious Administrative Court (Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo) states:

\n\n

“IV.- From what has been said, it should\nbe reiterated that the control of urban development as a power of\nmunicipalities implies both the authority to issue regulatory plans (planes reguladores), but\nabove all, it implies the power to “control” the subdivision (fraccionamiento) of\nlands by means of those same regulatory plans (planes reguladores) and with the granting of the\ncorresponding municipal approval (visado municipal) to the respective plan, just as expressed by\nnumeral 33 of the aforementioned Urban Planning Law. In the same order\nof things, according to Article 10, subsection 2) of\nthe Urban Planning Law, it is the responsibility of the Directorate (Dirección) of Urbanism\nof the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo), to approve (visar) the plans\ncorresponding to urbanization or subdivision (fraccionamiento) projects for\nurbanization purposes prior to municipal approval (Article 33 ibidem). This is a power that translates into a\nfunction of control by the Directorate (Dirección) of Urbanism in relation to the planning and\nurban control of the municipalities (Articles 7, subsection 3) and 9 of the supra indicated law. They become advisors or overseers,\nable to inform or even denounce the Municipalities, regarding a\npossible infraction of the law or the local regulatory plan (plan regulador), even being able to issue\nan act of suspension of a specific work, in which an\ninfraction of the law on urbanism has been verified. According to Article 36, subsection\nb) ibidem, the municipalities cannot grant the\nrespective approvals to plans for urban projects in areas subject to\ncontrol when they do not have the required permit (approval of the Directorate (Dirección) of Urbanism).”\n(Third Section, Superior Contentious Administrative Court, judgment\nnumber 791-2002 of ten hours ten minutes of September twenty-seventh\nof the year two thousand two.) (The highlighting is not from the\noriginal.)

\n\n

And indeed,\nomitting the controls (approvals) for subdivision (fraccionamiento) purposes is one of the most common and dangerous ways to circumvent\nurban planning standards and ruin all regulatory\ninstruments in the matter, causing serious consequences. Among\nthese, we can cite the impossibility of planning and supplying basic\nservices, the construction of housing complexes in high-risk zones\ndue to natural emergencies or building in zones that, due to their characteristics,\nshould not be used for constructions, because they are aquifer recharge areas or\nhave a high value from the environmental point of view; just to cite a few\nexamples;

\n\n

c.- the OFFICIAL MAP regulation: which,\naccording to Article 1 of\nthe Urban Planning Law, \"is the map or set of maps on which\nthe position of the layouts of public roads and areas to\nbe reserved for community uses and services is precisely indicated\"; whose content is regulated in\nArticles 42 and 43 of the aforementioned Law:

\n\n

\"Article\n42.- The Official Map regulation shall establish the standards on\nreservations, acquisition, use, and conservation of the areas necessary for roads,\nparks, squares, buildings, and other community uses, expressing the location and\nsize of those already delivered to public service and those demarcated only\npreventively.\"

\n\n

\"Article\n43.- The Official Map, together with the plans or the cadastre that\ncompletes it, shall constitute a special reliable registry on property and\naffectation to the public domain of the lands or spaces already delivered to public\nuses”;

\n\n

d.- the URBAN RENEWAL regulation: whose content is determined in Articles 51 et seq. of\nthe reference Law,\nin the following manner:

\n\n

\"Article\n51.- The Urban Renewal Regulation shall contain the regulations\nthat are locally adopted to conserve, rehabilitate, or remodel\ndefective, deteriorated, or decaying urban\nareas, taking into account the\ninconvenient parceling or building, the lack of services and community\nfacilities, or any other adverse condition to general safety, healthiness, and\nwell-being\";

\n\n

which\nis of transcendental importance, especially regarding the protection\nof historical-architectural heritage, or for safeguarding the safety\nof the inhabitants of a neighborhood;

\n\n

e.- and\nfinally, the CONSTRUCTIONS regulation; which seeks\nto technically regulate all the requirements that any type of\nconstruction must meet according to the definition of the concept given in Article 1 of\nthe reference Law, which\ndefines it as \"any structure that is fixed or incorporated into a land;\nit includes any work of construction, reconstruction, alteration, or expansion\nthat implies permanence.\" Thus, its objective is to set the standards for\nthe planning, design, and construction of buildings, streets, sports\nfields, industrial and machinery installations, and all those works\nadditional to these, in everything related to architectural, civil,\nelectrical, mechanical, or sanitary engineering, with the purpose of promoting, ensuring, and protecting\nhealth, economy, comfort, and common welfare through requirements that guarantee\ntheir solidity, stability, safety, healthiness, adequate lighting, and\nventilation in such works.

\n\n

VIII.- ON THE LEGAL NATURE OF REGULATORY PLANS AND\nTHEIR CONTENT.- Urban planning regulations, which as indicated,\ncomprise a very varied set of norms; the product of the action of the\nvarious public entities that intervene in this matter; hence,\nwe find legal norms, norms of a regulatory nature with the force of law\n(law in the material sense), and of course, regulatory norms. Consequently,\nwe can well conclude that our urban planning legal system\nis composed of norms of different natures, precisely by\nvirtue of two important factors: firstly, by the body or\ninstitution from which it originates (namely, the Legislative Assembly (Asamblea Legislativa),\nthe Executive Branch or the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo), or\nthe municipalities); and secondly, and as derived from the former, the scope\nof coverage of the regulation, that is, of national, regional, or local binding. Thus,\nurban planning regulations of a legal order do not pose a legal problem,\nneither in doctrine nor in jurisprudence, given that they are\nlegitimate, provided they are approved by a qualified vote, that is,\nwith the minimum vote of thirty-eight deputies, due to their content; in\nthe terms provided in the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Political\nConstitution itself, insofar as they impose limitations of social\ninterest. It is worth reiterating that this requirement of\na qualified vote is not merely formal, but substantial, as it implies\nthe necessary consensus among the various factions of the political parties\nthat make up the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, there is no major discussion about\nthe legitimacy and normative rank of\nthe Urban Planning Law, which fully complies\nwith the constitutional requirement, having been approved in\ncompliance with the constitutional requirement.

\n\nNow, insofar as urban planning regulations constitute a heterogeneous set of norms, precisely because they derive from various public authorities, and consequently, as a manifestation of various branches of public power (Legislative Power, Administrative Power, and local power), it is our opinion that the analysis of these regulations must start from the content of Article 45 of the Constitution, whose second paragraph legitimizes the establishment of socially beneficial limitations (limitaciones de interés social) on property, provided that they are established by a qualified law, a substantial and not merely formal requirement, as it implies legislative consensus for their adoption. In this regard, as the Constitutional Chamber has considered in its jurisprudence, urban planning limitations and regulations are socially beneficial, insofar as they are imposed precisely to facilitate coexistence in society, and translate into impediments or obligations for the owner, and which, for the most part, have a rather ancient origin in our legal system, deriving —many of them— from provisions of the Civil Code, which dates back to eighteen eighty-eight. Constitutional jurisprudence has recognized two types of social interest that legitimize —or justify— the imposition of limitations on property: these are those relating to ***environmental protection*** and those of ***urban planning order***, the latter, based on the development made in judgment number 4205-96, cited above. Thus, in a strict sense, it should be considered that urban plans —***all of them in general, whether national, regional, or local in scope— by reason of their content, have the normative rank of laws in a material sense, since they impose obligations, duties, and limit rights, particularly the exercise of the right to property***, as noted by the Argentine jurist Edgardo O. SCOTTI:\n\n\"*A plan for a specific urban nucleus implies not only establishing policies aimed at the adequate organization of activities in space, but also means guiding and conditioning the actions of public and private sectors through the use of legal instruments that, through incentives, requirements, or prohibitions, delimit the exercise of the right to property and the other functions and uses that can be developed in the urban sphere.*\" (Derecho y Planeamiento Urbano. Editorial Universidad, Buenos Aires. Argentina. 1983. p. 77.)\n\nIn this respect, there is no doubt about the direct impact of urban plans on the exercise of the fundamental rights of private property and freedom of enterprise, insofar as the content of their regulations also infers the development of industry and commerce (Articles 45 and 47 of the Political Constitution), as well as the consequent protection of another fundamental right, that of an environmentally and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Political Constitution); as the Constitutional Chamber considered in judgment number 5303-93:\n\n\"... *the limitation on property imposed by a regulatory plan is constitutionally possible, because the right to property is not unlimited; rather, there is a general framework within which the owner can act and which must be compatible with the constitutional content of that right. For the reasons stated, in the opinion of this Court, the limitation imposed, as long as it conforms to a current regulatory plan, does not violate, as suggested in the appeal, Article 45 of the Political Constitution, so long as that regulatory plan does not deconstitutionalize the private property affected by that instrument. Conversely, if the limitations exceed the minimum parameters of reasonableness and proportionality, they would be contrary to the Political Constitution.*\"-\n\nThus, ***it has been considered that the content imposed in the various urban plans —in their complete dimension, whether national, regional, or local— is consistent with the constitutional requirement, because it derives from a legal provision —the Urban Planning Law—, which was indeed approved in compliance with the constitutional condition —two-thirds of the total members of the Legislative Assembly—, by virtue of which, that legitimacy is transferred to them***. And adding to the above, it must be considered that regional plans, in this case, the Regional Urban Development Plan for the Greater Metropolitan Area (Plan Regional de Desarrollo Urbano del Gran Área Metropolitana), have that character by virtue of an express legal mandate, in accordance with Article 64 of the Urban Planning Law, as they textually state:\n\n\"***Article 64.—*** *The Metropolitan Regulatory Plan, its regulations, and the respective amendments, **shall acquire the force of law for all the municipalities of the circuit that have agreed to its adoption.** *\" (The emphasis is not from the original.)\n\nFinally, regarding the municipal regulatory plans, we can defend this value —**of law in a material sense**— based on the following grounds: **a) *by reason of their content***, which imposes obligations on owners and limitations on property, as indicated previously; **b.) *by reason of their reinforced approval procedure***, which constitutes a manifestation of direct democracy; insofar as for the approval of these regulations, ***an oral and public hearing is required, as an essential requirement***, in the terms provided in Article 19 of the Urban Planning Law; and likewise, the plan is adopted and imposed by agreement of the Municipal Council, the deliberative body of the municipalities; and **c) *by legal equivalence***, of the provisions of the transcribed Article 64 of the Urban Planning Law. Ergo, if a regional urban planning ordinance acquires the rank of law for the Municipality that adopts it, and this is by agreement of the Council, it is proper that this condition is also acquired by the one that has been developed by the municipality itself and governs solely its territorial circumscription. In any case, our Constitutional Court has clearly and precisely indicated that regulatory plans, despite being regulatory provisions emanating from the municipalities, have the normative rank of laws in a material sense. In this sense, judgments number 2006-13330, of seventeen hours thirty-three minutes on December sixth, two thousand six; 2007-5575, of fifteen hours twenty-four minutes on April twenty-fifth, two thousand seven; and 2008-18438, of seventeen hours fifty-six minutes on December eleventh, two thousand eight, may be consulted.\n\n**IX.- ON THE GRANTING AND EFFECTS OF LAND USE CERTIFICATES.-** Having referred to the competence of municipalities in the area of local urbanism and the content and significance of urban planning regulations, we proceed to clarify the ***content and effects of land use (usos de suelo)***, given that the content of the challenged decision is precisely the determination of a non-conforming use, regarding the activity sought by the interested party. Indeed, the ***land use certificates (certificados de uso del suelo) are administrative acts of a declaratory and not constitutive nature***, insofar as they attest to facts or circumstances, such that ***they do not create or modify legal situations*** —as noted by administrative jurisprudence, for example, the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de la República) in its opinions number C-327-2001 and C-357-2003—, since it is a concrete legal act through which the Administration (local or the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, INVU), as applicable, that is, whether it concerns a subdivision (fraccionamiento), in the first case, or a development (urbanización) in the second), certifies the conformity or non-conformity of the land use with the provisions of the respective zoning; as provided in Article 28 of the Urban Planning Law. In this sense, it must be taken into account that ***doctrine and jurisprudence —both constitutional and contentious-administrative— has indicated that urban plans are normative provisions in which land use is disciplined, so that they affect private rights (right to property) by predetermining the modes of enjoyment and use of the asset.** * Thus, the granting of approval is prohibited when the intended use is incompatible with that provided in the respective regulation. Concordantly, from the Zoning Regulation for Land Use of the GAM (Reglamento de Zonificación del Uso del Suelo de la GAM), it is understood that *every property has an urbanistic vocation that is declared in the master plan* and therefore, in its Article 12, it is indicated that *any interested party must previously obtain the corresponding certificate stating the permitted use*, which will be valid for one calendar year from the moment it is issued, with Article 12.4 adding that if works have not begun within the year of validity, the permit must be renewed. Then Article 13 expressly states:\n\n\"*The **certificate shall indicate the use and shall not be interpreted as a definitive permit to make use, occupancy, expansions, remodeling, construction, or subdivision (fraccionamiento)**. The Alignment and the Land Use Certificate shall be valid for one year from their issuance.*\" (The underlining is not from the original.)\n\nThus, through the land use certification, ***it is not decided what the permitted use is***, insofar as this has already been previously determined in the zoning regulation, which is part of the local regulatory plan; so that ***it simply certifies what the due use is according to the regulatory provisions, as well as stating whether the use being given to a specific plot of land conforms or not with said regulation***, with which it is a merely declaratory act, ***without creating, modifying, or extinguishing any legal situation***, as does occur with constitutive administrative acts. For this reason, the issuance of the land use certificate cannot be assimilated to a construction permit, insofar as it is not legitimate to claim that it constitutes a declaratory act of rights. Thus, it is precisely because of its declaratory nature, ***that land use certificates do not, by themselves, give rise to the acquisition of a subjective right nor do they, by themselves, consolidate any legal situation***. ***The land use certification is merely descriptive of a specific factual situation in relation to the normative provisions, for which reason, through it, it is not possible to consolidate any pre-existing legal situation prior to the certifying act***.\n\n**X.-** However, it is important to bear in mind that the land use certificate, as a declaratory administrative act that it is, does constitute an act of great importance, insofar as its content and function is to attest to facts or legal situations *that serve as the basis for the adoption of administrative acts through which legal situations are indeed created, modified, or extinguished*, such is the case, for example, of authorizations to build or to process municipal licenses (patentes municipales) to carry out certain activities, for the adoption of which it requires —*sine qua non*— the corresponding land use certificate. By virtue of the foregoing, the importance of these being granted in accordance with the legality framework, that is, with the urban planning regulations, whether these are the urban regulatory plans specific to each canton or the regional plans (for example, the GAM) or those issued by the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (INVU), applicable in a supplementary manner in the absence of local ones (Transitional Provision II of the Urban Planning Law and judgments number 4205-96 and 2003-11397 of the Constitutional Chamber), is readily apparent.”" }