Administrative Court (VG) Karlsruhe: Why formal illegality of residential use of a building regularly justifies building control measures up to prohibition of use.

The Administrative Court (VG) Karlsruhe has decided that a building control prohibition of use – combined with an order for direct enforcement in the form of forced eviction – may be based solely on formal illegality of use.

By means ofdecision of 14 May 2025 (Az. 14 K 3937/25), the Administrative Court (VG) Karlsruhe has confirmed the immediately enforceable prohibition of use of a building used for residential purposes, which was operated without the required building permit and under serious deficiencies in fire safety regulations. The central issue in the proceedings was the question of whether a building control prohibition of use – combined with an order for direct enforcement in the form of forced eviction – may be based solely onformal illegality of use. The court answers in the affirmative: use undertaken without a building permit is contrary to public law provisions and may be prohibited pursuant to § 65 Abs. 1 Satz 2 LBO BW. In particular, where – as in the decided case – additionalmaterial deficienciesare present (here: egregious violations of fire safety), there is no room for a different decision.

What was at issue? Long-standing breaches, ignored building requirements, concrete fire hazard

The applicant is the owner of a large building that was originally approved for cultural purposes with only one residential unit. In fact, over the years 36 apartments were set up without permission and rented to up to 46 persons.

The city had previously issued building control orders on several occasions. As early as 2017, prohibitions of use and toleration orders became final and binding. Nevertheless, the owner continued with the use. Following a fire alarm in February 2025, an intensive building inspection took place. In doing so, the authority identified massive deficiencies:

• missing or blocked escape routes,
• unprotected load-bearing structures,
• non-functioning fire alarm systems,
• taped-over smoke detectors,
• improper electrical installations,
• unsecured skylights on the roof.

These hazards led on 21 March 2025 to ageneral administrative order, which prohibited the use, ordered immediate enforcement and threatenedforced eviction. The applicant opposed this before the Administrative Court.

The legal considerations of the Administrative Court (VG) Karlsruhe

1. Legal basis: § 65 Abs. 1 Satz 2 LBO BW

The court confirms that use may be prohibited if it is contrary to public law provisions. This is already the case here because ofthe missing building permit(formal illegality).

The distinctive feature: the Administrative Court (VG) expressly emphasises thatformally illegal use regularly justifies prohibition of use – even if (as yet) no material violations are present or clarified.

2. No obvious permissibility

It is true that prohibition of use may not be arbitrary. The prerequisite is that the permissibility of the useis not obvious – this is clearly not the case here, since the illegal use was associated with serious violations of fire safety regulations.

3. Admissibility of the general administrative order

The authority was permitted to decide on ageneral-concrete administrative orderon account of the constantly changing body of residents (§ 35 Satz 2 LVwVfG BW). The individual identification of all residents was impracticable.

4. No discretionary errors, no disproportionality

The measure was also lawful from the perspective of the principle of proportionality. In view of concrete dangers to life and health as well as the owner's inaction, recourse to an immediately enforceable prohibition of use together with forced eviction was necessary.

A milder measure – such as a renewed threat of compulsory payment – would be ineffective, since the owner had disregarded earlier measures. The authority was entitled under § 26 Abs. 2 LVwVG to threaten and apply direct enforcement.

Conclusion and legal assessment

The decision makes clear thatformal breaches of building law are not to be regarded as trifling matters. The authorities are not obliged to wait until actual hazards occur. Formal illegality alone, resulting from violation of the permit requirement – particularly in the case of sensitive uses such as residential space – constitutes a serious legal problem. Where concrete sources of danger such as fire safety deficiencies are additionally evident, administrative action is unavoidable – even if it significantly intrudes upon property and personal rights.

What can formal illegality mean for owners and landlords?

The decision is a clear signal: anyone who introduces building uses without a permit – particularly in the residential sector – risks not only prohibition orders, but alsoforced evictions without further delay.

Do not delay – contact us.
Our firm specialising inadministrative law,AVANTCORE Rechtsanwältein Stuttgartadvises you comprehensivelyon prohibitions of use, fire safety requirements, forced evictions and your further legal scope of action.

Fast. Precise. Forceful enforcement.