Shenzhen Futian homeowner complained of illegal construction by building walls and sealing passages, lawyer explains why the renovation within the property rights is not in violation of regulations
Lead
Recently, a homeowner on the 4th floor of the First World Plaza in Lianhua Street, Futian District, Shenzhen, built a wall in the middle of the night to close the passage between two households. Other citizens complained to the government platform, demanding that the urban management department demolish the illegal construction and investigate the behavior of splitting the project to avoid filing. On September 28th, the Lianhua Street Office responded that after on-site inspection and comparison with the completion drawings, the wall involved is located within the property rights of the owner, and the renovation behavior complies with relevant exemption regulations. The wall building project has completed information registration on September 14th, and no violations such as damaging the safety of the main structure of the house have been found so far. This complaint may seem like a neighborhood dispute, but it actually touches on several key legal issues in Shenzhen's urban renewal and housing safety management: Is the renovation within the scope of property rights equivalent to illegal construction? How to ensure the right of way for adjacent property owners? Where is the boundary for filing and exemption of decoration projects?
1、 Why doesn't building walls within the scope of property rights constitute illegal construction?
The complainant claims that the wall building behavior "changed the original layout of the building without authorization" and demands that the urban management demolish it in accordance with the law. But the street office's response gave a clear conclusion: the wall is located within the property rights of the owner and meets the exemption requirements. This involves the core criteria for determining illegal construction - whether it exceeds the property boundary, whether it has obtained planning permission, and whether it affects public interests.
According to Article 40 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China, construction of buildings and structures within urban or town planning areas shall obtain a construction project planning permit. Not all wall renovations require planning permission. The "Shenzhen Urban Planning Regulations" and the "Shenzhen Safety Production Management Measures for Small Projects and Scattered Operations below Quota" have established simplified management procedures for small projects below quota. In this case, the masonry project was registered on September 14th, indicating that it is a sporadic operation included in the scope of management, rather than a formal construction project that requires planning permission.
A lawyer from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm pointed out that the key to determining illegal construction lies in whether it exceeds the scope of property rights and whether it affects the implementation of planning. If the wall is completely located within the owner's exclusive area, does not occupy public passages, does not change the building facade, and does not affect fire evacuation, it usually does not constitute an illegal building in the sense of the Urban and Rural Planning Law. The street office confirmed that the wall is within the scope of property rights after comparing the completion drawings, based on this logic.
2、 How to balance the right of way and adjacent rights of neighboring property owners?
The complainant mentioned that after the passage was closed, customers could only enter the chess and card room through the small door next to the toilet. This raises another legal question: Does the homeowner's renovation infringe upon the neighboring rights of other homeowners or users?
Article 288 of the Civil Code stipulates that adjacent rights holders of immovable property shall handle their adjacent relationships correctly in accordance with the principles of favorable production, convenient living, solidarity and mutual assistance, and fairness and reasonableness. Article 291 further clarifies that the real estate rights holder shall provide necessary convenience to adjacent rights holders who must use their land for transportation and other purposes. But the exercise of neighboring rights is based on the premise of "necessity". If the original passage is not the only passage and an alternative passage is still retained after the renovation, it will be more difficult for adjacent owners to claim obstruction of passage.
In this case, First World Plaza is a complex that integrates residents, shopping malls, office buildings, and clubs, with a 4th floor passage connecting the chess and card room. If the passage originally belonged to the exclusive part of the owner rather than a public evacuation passage, the owner has the right to make reasonable modifications within the scope of property rights. But if the passage also serves the function of fire evacuation, the renovation must comply with the requirements of the Fire Protection Law and the Code for Fire Protection Design of Buildings, otherwise it may face administrative penalties from the fire department. The response from the street office stated that "no violations such as damaging the safety of the main structure of the house have been found so far" and did not directly involve fire safety compliance. This suggests that if the complainant has any objections to the fire escape, they can report them to the fire department separately.
3、 Why is the accusation of splitting the project to avoid filing unfounded?
The complainant also raised that the wall building behavior is suspected of splitting the project to avoid filing and acceptance. This accusation involves procedural compliance issues in engineering management.
According to the "Management Measures for Safety Production of Small Projects and Scattered Operations below Quota in Shenzhen", information registration system is implemented for small projects below quota, rather than strict construction permit system. The so-called "splitting project" usually refers to dividing the project that should be subject to construction permits into multiple small-scale projects to avoid supervision. However, in this case, the wall construction project itself belongs to small-scale projects below the limit, and information registration has been carried out according to regulations. There is no premise of "splitting" to avoid permission. After verification by the street office, it was confirmed that the project was registered on September 14, 2026, indicating that there were no defects in the procedure.
Lawyers from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm remind that Shenzhen implements a management system for small-scale projects below the quota, with the aim of simplifying approval while ensuring safety production. If the owner or construction party intentionally breaks down a large project into small projects to evade supervision, they may face administrative penalties such as suspension of work and fines. But if the project itself is small in scale and meets the management conditions, it can be constructed after registration in accordance with the law.
4、 Legal Implications for Homeowners and Property Users
This complaint ultimately ended with 'no violations found yet', but the legal risks reflected in it deserve the attention of Shenzhen property owners and users.
Firstly, renovation within the scope of property rights does not mean that construction can be carried out arbitrarily. Owners should verify whether load-bearing structures, fire exits, public pipelines, etc. are involved before renovation, and if necessary, entrust professional organizations to conduct safety assessments. According to Article 272 of the Civil Code, owners have the right to occupy, use, benefit from, and dispose of their exclusive parts of the building, but the exercise of these rights shall not endanger the safety of the building or harm the legitimate rights and interests of other owners.
Secondly, decoration projects should be registered for information in accordance with the law. Shenzhen implements management for small-scale projects below the quota. Owners or construction parties should complete registration before starting construction to avoid complaints or penalties due to procedural deficiencies.
Again, adjacent disputes should be prioritized for negotiation and resolution. If the renovation does indeed affect the rights and interests of others in terms of passage, lighting, ventilation, etc., adjacent owners may claim their rights in accordance with Articles 288 to 296 of the Civil Code, and if necessary, file a lawsuit to demand the cessation of infringement and the removal of obstacles.
Finally, complaints and law enforcement should be carried out in accordance with the law. Citizens can file complaints about suspected illegal construction through government platforms, but law enforcement agencies' determination of illegal construction must be based on facts and laws. If the complainant believes that the street office's determination is incorrect, they can apply for administrative reconsideration or file an administrative lawsuit.
Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm is deeply involved in the legal field of real estate and construction projects in Shenzhen, and can provide professional services such as decoration compliance review, adjacent rights dispute mediation, and administrative reconsideration of illegal building identification for homeowners, property users, and enterprises. Against the backdrop of increasingly refined urban renewal and community governance in Shenzhen, it is far more efficient to ensure legal compliance in advance than to respond to complaints afterwards.
