Does every deviation—even by a few centimeters—from the minimum distance specified in legislation automatically constitute illegal construction? In its latest ruling, the Supreme Court of Lithuania sent a clear message: not always. Commenting on the latest case law, AVOCAD attorney Kamilė Šemeklytė notes that a mere formal non-compliance does not necessarily mean that the structure or utility networks will have to be removed.
In this case, the court examined a dispute between the owners of neighboring plots regarding sewage networks installed too close to the plot boundary and a possible failure to maintain the required distance from a manhole. The plaintiff sought to have the defendants remove part of the sewage and water supply networks at their own expense, as, according to him, they had been installed less than 1 meter from the boundary of his plot, and the sewage networks—less than 10 meters from the manhole located on his plot. However, the courts at all levels dismissed the claim, and the Supreme Court of Lithuania upheld these decisions.
The crux of this case is the court’s answer to the question of whether every instance of failure to comply with the minimum distance requirement must be formally regarded as automatically giving rise to an obligation to remedy the consequences of the construction. The Supreme Court of Lithuania clearly emphasized that the Civil Code cannot be applied mechanically. The court recalled previous case law, according to which very minor deviations from the distances established by law may be considered insignificant if they do not actually violate either public objectives or the rights of the owner of the neighboring plot.
According to an AVOCAD attorney, this ruling is significant in that it demonstrates once again that disputes regarding construction and utility networks cannot be resolved solely on the basis of a ruler. “The Supreme Court clearly stated in this case that a mere formal discrepancy of a few centimeters does not automatically mean that the construction is unlawful. It is not only the deviation itself that is assessed, but also its significance—whether it actually infringes on a neighbor’s rights or undermines the objectives protected by law,” says K. Šemeklytė.
What mattered was not the current data, but the data available at the time of completion of construction
A key issue in the case was which distances should be taken into account—the current ones or those that existed at the time of completion of construction.
The plaintiff relied on subsequent measurements, according to which the distance from the sewer lines to the boundary of his plot was even smaller in some places. However, the courts determined that, when deciding on the legality of the construction, the most important factor is the situation at the time of completion of the construction. And at that time, the distances measured were 1.04 m, 0.98 m, and 0.92 m.
This meant that the deviations from the required 1-meter distance were only 2 and 8 centimeters. The Supreme Court of Lithuania acknowledged that such deviations are insignificant and do not in themselves constitute grounds for declaring the construction unlawful. “In practice, this is very important. The court emphasized that one cannot automatically rely on measurements taken several years later and conclude from them that the construction was unlawful from the very beginning. The actual situation at the time when the structure or networks were installed and construction was completed must be assessed,” the lawyer emphasizes.
The court did not limit itself to formal logic, but considered the actual impact
It is also important to note that the courts considered not only the specific measurements but also the broader context: the networks were installed in an area where other utilities were already present, and the plaintiff failed to propose any realistic alternatives for relocating such a network without infringing on the interests of others. This demonstrates a consistent approach by the courts—even when a certain deviation formally exists, the court still assesses proportionality, the actual consequences, and whether the most stringent measure is indeed justified. According to Kamilė Šemeklytė, this ruling sends an important message to both owners of neighboring plots and builders: it is not enough for the court to simply show that a figure does not meet the standard. “It is necessary to justify why the violation is significant, what actual consequences it causes, and why the removal of the construction’s effects is a proportionate measure,” she states.
Another part of the case concerned the plaintiff’s claim that the sewer lines had been installed too close to a manhole located on his property. However, the courts found that there was insufficient evidence in the case to prove that this manhole actually existed at the time the disputed sewer lines were being designed and installed.
The plaintiff argued that this was obvious, but the Supreme Court of Lithuania emphasized a fundamental principle of civil procedure: each party must prove the facts on which it bases its claims. If a claim is based on the fact that a certain object already existed during the period relevant to the dispute, it is precisely that fact that must be proven.
The court also rejected the argument that a so-called surprise decision had been rendered in this part of the case. The Supreme Court explained that the existence of the shaft well had been one of the key facts of the case from the very beginning, and therefore the plaintiff should have understood that it was necessary to substantiate this claim with evidence.
“This is a very clear reminder that in civil cases, a logical narrative or a belief in one’s own righteousness is not enough. If a claim is based on a specific factual circumstance—for example, that the well was already there before the pipes were installed—that circumstance must be proven. In other words, the procedural obligation to prove a fact does not disappear even when a party believes the fact is self-evident,” notes the AVOCAD attorney.
This ruling by the Supreme Court of Lithuania is relevant to anyone dealing with property boundaries, the installation of utilities, renovations, or disputes regarding the legality of construction. On the one hand, it confirms that the courts uphold property rights and the distances established by law. On the other hand, this protection is not strictly formal—very minor deviations that do not cause actual harm may be considered insignificant. The success of a dispute depends not only on whether a formal non-compliance can be demonstrated, but also on whether the party can precisely substantiate when the violation occurred, its extent, which rights it actually infringes, and what legal consequences should apply. “From a practical standpoint, this is a very useful case. It demonstrates that in disputes over minimum distances, it is not only the text of the regulation that matters, but also the evidence, the timing, and the assessment of proportionality. This means that, whether planning construction or preparing for a dispute, it is essential to very carefully assess the factual circumstances and the evidence,” summarizes K. Šemeklytė.