Friday, 13 March 2026
Romania’s real estate sector continues to evolve in a complex legal and administrative environment. Developers and investors face challenges ranging from urban planning approvals and permitting delays to litigation risks and changing regulatory frameworks. As projects become more sophisticated and scrutiny around permitting increases, legal advisors play an increasingly central role in ensuring that developments move forward while managing potential risks.
In this interview with CIJ EUROPE, Ioana Niculeasa, Head of Real Estate at NNDKP, discusses the current state of urban planning predictability in Romania, the legal vulnerabilities developers must consider when pursuing projects, and how banks and investors are adapting their due diligence processes. She also reflects on the growing importance of brownfield redevelopment, the role of legal expertise in navigating permitting complexities, and the potential opportunities that could arise from regional developments in the coming years.
One of the key questions facing the Romanian real estate market today concerns the predictability of the permitting process, particularly in Bucharest, where administrative delays have been widely discussed by investors and developers. According to Niculeasa, Romania’s legal framework technically provides a structured hierarchy of planning and permitting documents. At the top sits the General Urban Plan (PUG), which establishes the planning framework for a city. If a project deviates from this framework, additional zoning documentation such as a PUZ or PUD may be required before a building permit can ultimately be issued.
In theory, this layered structure should provide a degree of clarity for investors. In practice, however, predictability is often reduced by delays within administrative processes. Authorities responsible for issuing various approvals and endorsements do not always operate under strict timelines, leaving investors uncertain about how long the process may take.
To address these challenges, the Romanian government introduced legislative changes aimed at improving predictability. An emergency ordinance adopted in 2025 established clearer deadlines for authorities to issue required approvals during the permitting process. In certain situations, if an authority fails to respond within the designated timeframe, the lack of response may be interpreted as tacit approval. Niculeasa believes this represents a step toward greater administrative clarity, although its real impact will become clearer as it is tested in practice.
Beyond procedural delays, developers are increasingly concerned about legal challenges to zoning documentation and building permits. Administrative litigation related to urban planning has become more common, and projects can face significant delays if legal vulnerabilities emerge.
Niculeasa explains that developers must now pay close attention not only to the ownership history of a property but also to the integrity of the permitting process itself. Historically, legal due diligence focused primarily on verifying land titles and identifying potential restitution claims. Today, however, the permitting process has become just as critical.
Many of the legal risks associated with building permits arise from procedural issues rather than fundamental planning conflicts. Small errors in documentation or consultation processes can create vulnerabilities that may later be used in legal challenges by competitors, neighbours or non-governmental organisations. Public consultation procedures, environmental assessments and technical compliance with planning parameters must all be handled carefully.
According to Niculeasa, even minor administrative inaccuracies can become problematic. For example, incorrect details in environmental documentation or inconsistencies in project descriptions may create grounds for litigation. Because of these risks, developers increasingly rely on teams of specialised consultants, including lawyers, architects and technical advisors, to review permitting documentation in detail before construction begins.
Another important issue concerns the timeframe during which zoning documentation and permits may be challenged. Legislative changes in 2023 have attempted to limit the period in which certain urban documents (like building permits or PUZs) can be contested by NGOs (Non-Governmental Organization), providing greater legal certainty once the defined timeframe has passed. While challenges from directly affected individuals may still occur, the introduction of clearer time limits for the plaintiffs like the NGOs represents an attempt to balance legal oversight with development predictability.
Financial institutions have also adapted their approach in response to these risks. Banks financing real estate projects now conduct more extensive due diligence not only on property ownership but also on the permitting framework surrounding a development. In many cases, financing agreements require confirmation that the relevant documentation has been publicly disclosed and that the period for legal challenges (at least of the NGOs) has passed.
As a result, legal advisors now carry greater responsibility when preparing due diligence reports. Lawyers must assess not only whether permits have been issued correctly but also the likelihood that those permits could face future legal challenges. According to Niculeasa, this expanded scope of legal analysis has increased the importance of collaboration between real estate and litigation teams within law firms.
In order to strengthen their expertise in this area, Niculeasa explains that her team has studied the broader legal principles underlying urban planning regulations, including legal doctrine from jurisdictions such as France, whose administrative legal framework has influenced Romanian legislation. Understanding the conceptual foundations of urban planning law helps lawyers anticipate how courts may interpret regulatory provisions in disputes.
Despite the complexities of the Romanian system, Niculeasa notes that other European countries offer useful comparisons. For example, the Czech Republic is often cited as having one of the lowest risks of permitting-related litigation in the region due to clearer planning regulations and more streamlined administrative processes. Romania’s development patterns, particularly in Bucharest, have historically been less structured, which has contributed to today’s challenges.
When discussing development strategies, Niculeasa expresses a particular interest in brownfield redevelopment projects. These developments involve converting former industrial or underused sites into new residential, commercial or mixed-use projects. Although brownfield projects can present complex legal and environmental considerations, they also offer opportunities for urban regeneration.
From a legal perspective, brownfield developments may involve more complex ownership histories and potential environmental liabilities, particularly if former industrial activities left contamination on the site. Environmental due diligence is therefore a crucial step in assessing these projects. However, brownfield sites often benefit from existing infrastructure such as roads, utilities and public transport connections, which can make redevelopment more attractive than building entirely new infrastructure for greenfield developments.
In addition, planning approvals may sometimes be easier to obtain for brownfield projects because redevelopment of previously used sites can be seen as beneficial for local communities. Converting underutilised land into productive urban spaces can support regeneration while avoiding the loss of agricultural land.
Looking beyond Romania’s domestic market, Niculeasa also sees potential opportunities linked to regional developments. If geopolitical conditions change and reconstruction efforts begin in neighbouring Ukraine, Romania could play a significant role in supporting economic activity related to rebuilding infrastructure and industry. Some investors are already exploring opportunities in regions connected to major transport routes leading eastward.
Such developments would likely generate increased legal work in areas including property transactions, construction contracts and regulatory compliance. While the precise scale of these opportunities remains uncertain, the possibility illustrates how regional dynamics may influence Romania’s real estate and infrastructure sectors in the future.
Despite the ongoing challenges surrounding permitting and litigation risks, Niculeasa remains cautiously optimistic about the direction of the Romanian regulatory environment. Legislative changes have introduced new tools aimed at improving predictability, although their effectiveness will only become clear as they are implemented in practice.
For now, she advises investors to approach each project individually and to rely on strong advisory teams capable of analysing both the legal and technical aspects of development.
As Romania’s real estate market continues to mature, the interaction between law, planning policy and investment will remain a defining feature of the sector. For legal professionals such as Ioana Niculeasa, navigating that intersection requires not only technical expertise but also adaptability and a long-term perspective.
In a market where regulations, administrative procedures and investment conditions are constantly evolving, the role of legal advisors is increasingly focused on guiding projects through complexity while helping investors move forward with confidence.
© 2026 cij.world
