Demolition order due to acute cliff collapse risk at steep banks lawful

Hazard prevention in building law due to erosion – municipality entitled and obliged to issue a demolition order

The advancing erosion of steep banks is increasingly presenting building authorities with difficult discretionary decisions. Between the protection of property rights and effective hazard prevention, the question as to when a building may be demolished due to lack ofstructural soundnessand concrete endangerment oflife and healthis becoming increasingly important – even if it was originally approved or protected by existing rights.

Bydecision of 23 February 2026 (Az. 8 B 7/26)the Schleswig-Holstein Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) clarified that in the event of an acuteerosion cliffat only four metres' distance from the building, the building authority – here by means of a demolition order – not only may intervene, but must do so in the interest of public safety. The relevant provisions are in particular § 58 Abs. 2 LBO SH, § 13 LBO SH and § 35 BauGB.

What was the issue exactly: residential building immediately at the erosion cliff

The applicant applied in urgent proceedings against an immediately enforceabledemolition order. His building was located on a steep bank, the slope of which was continuously receding as a result of natural erosion processes. The distance between the building and the erosion cliff was only approximately four metres.

Expert opinions from the State Agency for Coastal Protection and a structural engineer confirmed that structural soundness could only be demonstrated with minimal safety margins. Further cliff collapses – particularly during storm surge – could occur at any time. Spontaneous landslide of the building onto the beach below could not be ruled out.

The owner had acquired the property only in 2024. In the notarially executed purchase agreement, it had been expressly pointed out that there were annual cliff collapses and no guarantee for structural soundness.

In parallel, he applied to relocate the building 20 metres inland. However, this building application was rejected under building planning law.

The court's legal considerations: general clause of building law supports hazard mitigation

The court rejected the restoration of the suspensory effect. The demolition order was manifestly lawful.

The legal basis is § 58 Abs. 2 LBO SH. Under this, building authorities must ensure that public-law provisions are complied with and may take the necessary measures. Unlike in the case of a mere formal or substantive breach of building law, the original approval situation is not decisive here. What matters is the concretedanger to public safety.

A violation of § 13 LBO SH existed because the building plot was no longer suitable due to continuing erosion. The physical process of coastal cliff collapses means that the plot loses its suitability for building purposes. This eliminates the building law basis for the continued existence of the building.

The authority exercised its discretion without error. In view of the imminent endangerment of beach visitors and users of the property, the public interest clearly outweighs the property interest. It is particularly noteworthy that the demolition order was based not on breach of building law, but onconcrete hazard prevention.

The court also ruled out milder measures:

The requestedrelocation of the buildingconstitutes a new development under building planning law. In the outside development area, this is prohibited pursuant to § 35 Abs. 2 and 3 BauGB. A privilege under § 35 Abs. 4 BauGB does not apply, since no new development "at the same location" is involved.

In addition, the project is opposed by the water law building prohibition in the 150-metre strip under § 82 LWG.

Securing measures by means of big bags are also neither technically nor legally realizable in the short term and are therefore not a suitable milder measure.

Immediate enforcement of the demolition order in a situation of acute endangerment

Particularly instructive are the explanations concerning theparticular public enforcement interestunder § 80 Abs. 2 Nr. 4 VwGO. The court emphasises, drawing on the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG), that time pressure beyond mere lawfulness is required.

This is present here because, given annual cliff collapses of up to one metre or individual events of two metres, a multi-year main proceedings cannot be awaited. Warning signs or cessation of use do not eliminate the structural source of danger.

The threat of substitute performance contained in the demolition order was also confirmed.

Classification and practical significance

The decision makes clear thathazard prevention in building lawstands independently alongside conventional breach of building law. Even buildings protected by existing rights or approved buildings can be demolished if the factual circumstances change substantially and a concrete danger situation arises.

Climate-related erosion processes are increasingly gaining legal relevance. Owners in coastal areas bear the risk of natural changes, particularly if these were known at the time of acquisition.

At the same time, the decision shows that relocation or securing solutions will regularly fail to overcome building planning, water and nature conservation law hurdles. The outside area protection under § 35 BauGB remains strict.

Recommendation for owners and municipalities

Owners in exposed locations should arrange an interdisciplinary review involvingbuilding law, building planning law, water law and nature conservation law at an early stage. Those who only react after an immediately enforceable demolition order is issued will regularly be too late.

For municipalities, the decision provides clear confirmation that consistent intervention is not only permissible but required when concrete, foreseeable endangerment exists.

Our law firmAVANTCORE Rechtsanwältein Stuttgart, which specialises in administrative law among other areas, has extensive experience in complex proceedings. We advise both property owners and public authorities in strategically sensitive hazard prevention constellations and represent clients throughout Germany in urgent and main proceedings before administrative courts.