Amsterdam homeowner must remove rooftop terrace over incorrect reading of 1896 permit

A homeowner in Amsterdam city center must remove his roof terrace or pay a penalty of €10,000 to the municipality over an incorrectly interpreted construction permit from 1896, the Amsterdam court ruled last week.

The municipality informed the homeowner in May 2025 that he had to remove the rooftop terrace and accompanying outdoor staircase because his permit did not allow it. Failure to do so would result in a fine of €10,000. The owner, who rents out the property, disagreed and took the matter to court.

Both the owner and the municipality referred to the building’s construction permit, in which drawings show a “flat” area with a doorway leading to it. According to the owner, this referred to a rooftop terrace. A subsequent permit from 1904 shows drawings of fencing surrounding the roof terrace. And in 2020, the Monuments Care Agency granted an environmental permit without raising objections to the existing roof terrace.

The owner also argued that removing the terrace and staircase would have significant contractual and financial consequences for him. Without the outdoor space, the apartment would decrease in value, and he expects the tenant to leave. He also argued that the fine was disproportionate.

The municipality interpreted the “flat” area marked in the 1896 permit differently. According to the city, the term only indicates a flat roof and not a roof terrace. The city cited case law from the Council of State showing that the fact that a structure appears on a drawing accompanying a building permit granted later does not mean it was constructed legally. It also argued, based on aerial photographs, that the current rooftop terrace was only added to the building around 2012.

The court ruled in the municipality’s favor. After examining the 130-year-old construction permit, the judge could not determine whether it refers to and permits a rooftop terrace. The court added that removing the terrace and outdoor staircase would serve the public interest, and there is no prospect of the city legalizing the structure. “The plaintiff has not submitted a new application, and moreover, the Municipal Executive has made it clear that it does not wish to permit the current situation. Consequently, there is no concrete prospect of legalization,” the court said. “It is not necessary to refrain from enforcement,” the court said in its ruling.

The homeowner has until June 17 to remove the rooftop terrace and the outdoor staircase. Failure to do so will result in a fine.