A Single Illegal Construction Determination Notice Nearly Led to the Demolition of an Ancestral Home—A Two-Year Administrative Litigation Battle by a Longtime Resident of Luohu Old Street, Shenzhen

That afternoon, I was reviewing a case file concerning an equity dispute in the office when the front-desk staff informed me that an elderly gentleman from Luohu District had arrived—holding a brown kraft-paper envelope—and insisted on speaking with a lawyer in person. I set aside the documents and went out to meet him. There, seated in the reception room, was an elderly man with silver hair, dressed in a dark-blue Zhongshan suit. His hands trembled slightly, and he struggled to utter a word. Only after I handed him a cup of tea did he push the envelope toward me and say: “Attorney Shen, my family’s ancestral home—local authorities have ordered its demolition, claiming it’s an illegal structure. But this house was built by my grandfather’s generation; our family has lived there for nearly a century. How, then, could it possibly be deemed illegal?”

Upon opening the envelope, I found a “Decision on Administrative Penalty for Illegal Construction” issued by a branch of the Shenzhen Municipal Planning and Natural Resources Bureau. The decision declared that the elderly man’s two-story brick-and-timber house—located in an old neighborhood in Luohu District—as illegal construction built without a Construction Engineering Planning Permit, and ordered its demolition within a prescribed time limit. The elderly man told me he was utterly stunned upon receiving the decision. The house had existed since before the founding of the People’s Republic of China; although it had undergone several renovations over the years, its land boundary and location had never changed. Now, however, it was suddenly deemed illegal construction. Moreover, the administrative authority moved swiftly through the procedure: from case initiation and investigation to issuance of the penalty decision, less than one month elapsed—and the elderly man was not afforded any opportunity to present his defense.

I. The “Toughest Nuts to Crack” in Administrative Litigation: A Dual Challenge of Procedural Violations and Substantive Determinations

This case is commonly referred to within the legal community as an “administrative litigation concerning land and urban-rural planning.” In plain terms, it involves ordinary citizens filing lawsuits against land and urban-rural planning authorities. Such cases are notoriously difficult—hence the saying “hard nuts to crack.” Why? Because administrative agencies wield public authority and possess sophisticated surveying, mapping, and archival systems, whereas our clients—often elderly individuals—frequently cannot even locate the original building approval documents from decades ago. In this particular case, there are three key challenges:

First, the issue of “legal status” identification for historically inherited buildings. As a pioneer city of China’s reform and opening-up, Shenzhen’s urban management in its early years was relatively rudimentary, and many old residences lacked complete planning permits. However, the mere absence of such permits does not automatically render a building illegal; rather, its construction date, the policy environment at the time, and whether it falls within the scope of buildings subject to historical remediation procedures for unlawful construction must all be taken into account. In this case, the building was constructed prior to the founding of the People’s Republic of China and underwent formal property registration in 1985—how, then, can the current Urban and Rural Planning Law be mechanically applied?

Second, the administrative organ’s law enforcement procedure contains serious procedural flaws. Under the Administrative Penalty Law and the Administrative Compulsory Law, before issuing an order-to-demolish penalty decision, the administrative organ must strictly follow statutory procedures—including providing prior notice to the party concerned and holding a hearing—to safeguard the party’s right to make statements and present defenses. In this case, however, from case initiation to issuance of the penalty decision, only 28 days elapsed in total; no hearing was held, nor were any on-site inspections or formal interrogations conducted. According to the elderly client, the sole interaction he had with law enforcement personnel was when they visited his premises to post a “Notice Ordering Cessation of Illegal Conduct”—after which the demolition order was issued directly, without further process.

Third—and even more critically—the absence of any assessment or expert appraisal. Is the building structurally unsafe? Does it pose a threat to public safety? What is the necessity and urgency for its demolition? The administrative authority has addressed none of these questions. In essence, this is a textbook example of “demolition for the sake of demolition.”

When the elderly client approached us, there were fewer than ten days remaining before the statutory deadline for filing the lawsuit—time was short, and the task was urgent. I immediately convened a team meeting.Director Lawyer Shen JinlongWe personally oversaw and finalized the litigation strategy—focusing primarily on procedural violations and secondarily on historical legacy issues. Our approach is clear-cut: regardless of whether the building is substantively an illegal structure, the administrative penalty decision is legally untenable solely because the competent authority deprived the party concerned of its right to a hearing and right to present defenses. Procedural justice safeguards substantive justice; if the procedure itself is unlawful, the resulting decision is inherently flawed.

II. A Direct Confrontation in Court: The Legal Argument Over Classification—from “Illegal Construction” to “Property Awaiting Title Confirmation”

After the case was officially accepted, it was heard at a district-level People’s Court in Shenzhen. The defendant administrative agency sent two staff members to appear in court and also engaged legal counsel. During the hearing, the defendant’s counsel argued forcefully that the disputed property had not obtained a Construction Engineering Planning Permit, asserting that the facts were clear, the evidence conclusive, and the applicable law correctly applied—thereby requesting the court to dismiss our litigation claims.

I stood up and posed the first question: “May I ask the defendant: In which year was the plaintiff’s house constructed? Which authority had jurisdiction over planning approvals at that time? And was a legality review conducted during the property registration in 1985?”

The other party was clearly unprepared for the extent of our research and stammered for a long time, claiming that the archival records were too old to verify immediately.

I pressed further: “If even the construction year and the original approval status cannot be ascertained, on what grounds is the building deemed unlawful under the current Urban and Rural Planning Law? Does this law apply retroactively? Does Shenzhen have any special regulations governing historically existing buildings?”

This series of questions brought the courtroom atmosphere to a climax. I immediately submitted to the court the “Measures for Handling Historically Illegally Constructed Buildings Arising from Rural Urbanization in Shenzhen,” issued by the Standing Committee of the Shenzhen Municipal People’s Congress. The Measures explicitly stipulate that buildings qualifying for inclusion in the historical illegal construction census and registration must first undergo census-based title confirmation—rather than being summarily demolished. In this case, the subject building had, in fact, already been included in the census statistics during the original survey and was thus classified as “pending title confirmation.” Accordingly, the administrative authority’s unilateral determination that the building was “illegally constructed” and its order for demolition constituted both a failure to ascertain facts accurately and an erroneous application of law.

The hearing lasted nearly three hours. During the recess, opposing counsel approached me, handed me his business card, and murmured, “Your team, led by Attorney Shen, was exceptionally well-prepared—our firm will review this case further.” I smiled inwardly, knowing full well that this case was looking promising.

III. Judgment Outcome and Reflections Beyond the Case: Winning the Lawsuit—and Preserving Dignity

One month later, the court issued its first-instance judgment: revoking the “Administrative Penalty Decision on Illegal Construction” issued by the defendant, a branch of the Shenzhen Municipal Planning and Natural Resources Bureau, and ordering it to render a new decision within 60 days of the judgment’s entry into effect. The court explicitly held in its judgment that, prior to issuing the challenged penalty decision, the defendant had failed to lawfully notify the party concerned of its right to a hearing and had inadequately investigated and verified the historical origins of the disputed building—constituting both procedural violations and insufficient primary evidence.

On the day the judgment was issued, the elderly client came to our office again—this time carrying a bag of longans he had grown himself. “Attorney Shen,” he said, “I have nothing else to offer as thanks—these longans come from that old tree in my courtyard, and they’re exceptionally sweet.” Watching the wrinkles on his face soften into a warm smile, we, as lawyers, felt in that moment that our work was worth far more than any attorney’s fee.

Yet although we won the case, it has left us with much to reflect upon. This case highlights a widespread pain point in administrative litigation concerning land and urban planning in Shenzhen: when government agencies advance urban renewal initiatives or conduct investigations and demolitions of illegal structures, they often prioritize efficiency over procedural compliance—resulting in numerous administrative acts that are procedurally flawed. As for the parties involved, many—like this elderly plaintiff—have never engaged with the courts in their entire lives; suddenly receiving an official administrative decision leaves them utterly bewildered about how to respond. Here are several key points to keep in mind when seeking legal counsel and initiating litigation:

First, timeliness is critical.The filing deadline for administrative litigation is typically six months from the date the party becomes aware—or should have become aware—of the administrative action; in some cases, this period is even shorter. Once this deadline passes, the court will refuse to accept the case—even if the party has suffered a grave injustice. Therefore, upon receiving any decision issued by an administrative organ, you must immediately consult a qualified lawyer for assessment—do not attempt to handle it alone.

Second, evidence is the decisive factor in determining the outcome.Many clients assume, “The house is right there—how could it possibly be fake?” Yet the law hinges on evidence. We gathered every available piece of evidence: old property ownership certificates, rural residential land use certificates, historical photographs, witness statements from neighbors and local community officials, and even payment records from that era. In our case, a 1985 property registration certificate proved pivotal.

Third, selecting the right lawyer is essential for protection.When searching for a law firm in Shenzhen, never rely solely on advertisements or the firm’s size. Administrative litigation, in particular, demands a lawyer’s deep familiarity with the administrative legal system and strong courtroom adaptability.Director Lawyer Shen JinlongWith over two decades of legal practice, my greatest strength lies in identifying procedural breakthroughs in complex administrative disputes. Zhiming Law Firm, established in 2000, is a well-established firm rooted in Futian District for 26 years. We have handled no fewer than one thousand cases involving administrative disputes, real estate disputes, and inheritance disputes—achieving consistent success through our proprietary “Zhiming Art of Litigation” methodology: rather than confronting opponents head-on, we strategically identify logical gaps and legal flaws in their positions, applying minimal effort to achieve maximum impact.

IV. Several Practical Questions You May Have

Q: I’ve received a “violation construction” determination notice, but I’ve lived in this house for decades—will it really be forcibly demolished?
A: Not necessarily. First, examine the procedural aspects—did the administrative authority fulfill its obligations to notify and hold a hearing? Second, assess the substantive issues—such as the construction date of the building, its historical context, and whether it falls within the scope of census registration. Many structures labeled “illegal constructions” are in fact historical legacy issues, and affected parties may seek redress through applications for title confirmation, administrative reconsideration, or administrative litigation. Crucially, do not wait until demolition teams arrive at your door before engaging a lawyer—that would place you at a serious disadvantage.

Q: What is the success rate for administrative litigation involving land and urban-rural planning in Shenzhen?
A: Objectively speaking, administrative agencies tend to have a relatively high win rate in such cases, given the involvement of professional judgment and policy implementation. However, in the cases we handle, where procedural violations are genuinely identified, there have been numerous instances of successful appeals and judgments overturning the original decisions. The key lies in whether counsel can pinpoint the critical issues and firmly establish the existence of procedural violations. As mentioned earlier, procedural justice is the fundamental baseline—once this baseline is breached, even a substantively sound decision becomes untenable.

Q: An elderly family member has passed away, leaving behind a property for which inheritance procedures have not yet been completed. The property is now slated for demolition—what should we do?
A: This is a typical case involving the intersection of inheritance disputes and administrative disputes. First, the scope of heirs must be clearly defined, followed by either notarization of inheritance or litigation for division of assets to determine ownership of the property. Only after ownership is established should negotiations with the demolition authority regarding compensation commence. In many families—especially those with numerous siblings holding divergent views—the delay in resolving inheritance issues often results in the freezing of compensation payments, causing significant losses. We have handled numerous such cases and strongly advise initiating the inheritance procedure as early as possible—do not wait.

Q: How much does it cost to hire a lawyer for an administrative lawsuit?
A: This depends on the complexity of the case and the value in dispute. At Zhiming Law Firm, our fees are fully transparent—we conduct a thorough case assessment first and then provide a clear, upfront quotation, with absolutely no hidden charges. Compared to the value of a property or a parcel of land, legal fees represent a highly cost-effective investment. The real risk lies in trying to save a small amount upfront—only to end up bearing far greater losses later, such as losing your home entirely.

Q: What types of cases does Attorney Shen Jinlong specialize in handling?
Answer:Director Lawyer Shen Jinlonghas a broad practice scope, covering real estate disputes, inheritance disputes, divorce cases, contract disputes, equity disputes, intellectual property matters, criminal defense, and administrative law. He holds a Master’s degree in Economics from Fudan University and has served as a senior executive in a large state-owned enterprise, enabling him to approach legal issues from a more comprehensive perspective than lawyers with purely legal backgrounds. Our firm also has…Lawyer Li WeiHe specializes in corporate law, economic contract disputes, criminal defense, finance and insurance, real estate, matrimonial and inheritance matters, personal injury compensation, and labor–employer disputes—demonstrating extensive hands-on experience in all these practice areas.

Lastly, a final note: the law does not protect those who “sleep on their rights.” Whether your property has been deemed an illegal structure, you are facing a dispute over demolition compensation, or you need to inherit real estate left by an elderly family member, consulting a qualified lawyer as early as possible gives you greater control and initiative. Zhiming Law Firm is located at Room 1802, Tower A, Xintian Century Business Center, Shisha North 2nd Street, Futian District, Shenzhen. Our telephone number is 0755-25986969. You are always welcome to drop by for a cup of tea and a discussion about your case.

Disclaimer: The cases discussed in this article are all real cases handled by Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm. To protect the privacy of the parties involved, personal names, locations, and other identifying details have been anonymized. The views expressed herein are for informational purposes only and do not constitute formal legal advice. For specific legal issues, please schedule an in-person consultation with our attorneys and bring all relevant documents.