Owners of multi-apartment buildings exercising their right of shared ownership and having a legitimate need to use a parking space in the yard, even if it belongs to another owner, can claim the use of the parking space and the compensation to be paid. This was stated by the Supreme Court of Lithuania in a ruling issued on 6 May 2025.
When developers build apartment complexes or neighborhoods of single-family homes on their own land, there are often cases where, when selling apartments or houses, the spaces intended to serve the main structures—such as parking lots or access roads—are not allocated proportionally among residents. According to Eimantas Čepas, an attorney at the law firm AVOCAD , this Supreme Court ruling is an important signal for both residents and real estate developers. “This case sets a precedent that allows for a clearer definition of the legal basis for using infrastructure belonging to another entity, especially when it comes to long-term use and the public interest,” the lawyer notes.
Who has the right to use the yard?
The circumstances of the case before the Supreme Court revealed that the parking lot adjacent to the apartment building is owned by a private legal entity, UAB, but has been used for many years by the residents of the apartment building, as the detailed planning documents, in implementing the requirement to provide a certain number of parking spaces, envisaged that it would serve the main building, an apartment building. The UAB claimed that the residents had illegally occupied their territory and demanded that they stop using it.
However, the Supreme Court noted that in such situations it is important to assess the reasons for the residents' use of the parking lot, whether it is necessary for the proper operation of the apartment building, and whether there is a legal basis for declaring the parking lot to be an appurtenance of the apartment building.
Proportionality and fairness are key
The Court clarified that the mere fact that a parking lot is not a common facility does not automatically mean that the residents are not entitled to its use.
“Residents’ use of a parking lot owned by another legal entity may be justified on the grounds of fairness, reasonableness, and good faith when such use is necessary for the functioning of the apartment building and the owner is compensated for any resulting damage,” the rulingstates.
The Court stressed that it is necessary to assess all the circumstances - whether the site is actually needed for the residents' needs, whether the residents were willing to agree on the compensation, and whether the compensation is reasonable.
According to lawyer Eimantas Čeps, in situations where the owner of the land or building agrees to the use and the parties agree on reasonable compensation, the use arrangement is considered legal and reasonable.
In his view, this ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania may have significant consequences for the residents of cities throughout Lithuania, especially in densely urbanised areas where infrastructure development, ownership and actual use of land or buildings often intersect. Despite the fact that the land or structures serving the main buildings sometimes remain outside the common ownership of the residents after the real estate projects are realised, the actual use or purpose of such land or structures may provide a legal basis for declaring them to be subordinate and for deciding their legal status and fate accordingly.
“With this ruling, the Supreme Court of Lithuania recognizes the legal significance of such established practice, provided it complies with the principles of reasonableness, fairness, and proportionality, and encourages constructive resolutions between communities and owners of private land plots or buildings,” says the attorney.
This decision sends a clear message: urban infrastructure and land use must be addressed through dialogue, consensus and fair compensation. Residents, developers and municipalities alike are encouraged to strike a balance between property rights and the public interest, and the Supreme Court's jurisprudence provides a valuable basis for finding lasting solutions in an urbanised environment.
“The principle of justice should not be limited to cadastral maps alone—it must also reflect the actual living conditions of people,” notes an AVOCAD lawyer.