New RJUE: what changes for anyone waiting for a decision

More than a year waiting for a decision

Anyone building in Portugal knows the wait, and so do we. We have had Council processes taking more than a year. In one of them, even after requesting a certificate of tacit approval (deferimento tácito), we were still without a final express decision.

We are not saying this to single out a Council. We say it because this is exactly the problem the RJUE revision seeks to address, and because a process like this shows clearly what it changes and what it does not. It also leaves two practical lessons. Anyone who has not yet bought can ask the question before buying, through a prior information request (pedido de informação prévia, PIP): what can be built there, and under which urban title (título urbanístico). And anyone with a process awaiting a decision needs a dated record of every application and every response: that is what makes it possible to request tacit approval, lodge a complaint or demonstrate the delay.

What takes effect on 1 October

On 1 October 2026, the revision of the Regime Jurídico da Urbanização e da Edificação (RJUE) takes effect, approved by Decreto-Lei n.º 108/2026, de 29 de maio.¹ It had been scheduled for 3 August. Decreto-Lei n.º 155-B/2026, de 31 de julho postponed it to give municipalities time to adapt their IT platforms.² On the same day, Portaria n.º 320/2026/1 was published, approving the application forms and list of documents to be submitted, and taking effect with the law.³

In summary, for anyone buying, building or refurbishing a house:

• the overall decision period gives way to statutory deadlines for each stage, with tacit approval of the architectural design, the licence and prior information;
• in the cases set out in law, works in areas covered by a subdivision, detailed plan or implementation unit that already establish the parameters follow prior notification (comunicação prévia), without an authorising act, and the Council checks afterwards;
• favourable prior information remains an instrument for confirming, with binding effect, the planning viability of an operation before buying;
• the deadline for declaring a licence void falls from ten to three years, with exceptions, and also applies to licences already issued;
• the Council checks less before deciding, and compliance of the works becomes the responsibility of those who develop, design, supervise and carry them out.

This text summarises what the law says, with the Article from which each rule comes, and what it does not resolve. We are architects, engineers and builders under the same contract, and that is the position from which we read it.

What changes in a process that takes too long

Under the regime still in force, the law did not state clearly by when the Council could request corrections: Article 11 referred only to “after submission of the application” (paragraph 2) and to a “specified period of 15 days” (paragraph 5), without saying from when it ran.⁴ The revision fixes this. Validation has 20 days from submission of the application; if, within that time, the Council does not request corrections, reject it at the outset or notify an extension, the application is deemed to be correctly documented and the decision period can no longer be extended (Art. 11(2) and (5)). The deadlines for deciding prior information run from that point or, where there are external consultations, from the arrival of the final opinion or the end of its deadline, whichever comes first (Art. 16(1) and (2)).

What you hold when the Council does not reply also changes. Tacitly approved prior information is now documented by the application containing the summary of the operation, the proof of submission and the proof of payment of the fees and other charges due and, where required, the land cessions (Art. 16(8) and (9)). It does not depend on a certificate of tacit approval.

What no law can resolve on its own is a Council that does not reply. A tacit title based on an application without an express decision may be challenged, and it is natural for a bank or buyer to ask for more than silence. In those cases, an express decision remains more valuable, and it is still necessary to press for one.

The impact on projects

A prior information request is used to decide: whether to buy, what to design, and with what budget. Until there is an answer, none of that is decided. The licensing design either waits or moves forward at the client’s risk, the budget prepared at the start ages, and the land, if already bought, costs money without producing anything.

The revision does not remove this risk, but it changes how it is managed:

• submitting a complete application first time matters more, because validation has a fixed end date and, after it, the deadlines run;
• qualified prior information, where favourable and complete, can remove the need for a licence, and time invested in it is time gained in the next stage;
• a construction timetable should distinguish statutory timeframes from Council practice, and allow for the difference;
• anyone buying should confirm the urban title of what they are buying, because the sale document must mention it (Art. 4-A(14)).

The deadlines, as written

Under the previous regime, which continues to apply to some pending processes, the Council has an overall deadline to decide a licensing application, counted from submission and indexed to construction area: 120 days up to 300 m², 150 days up to 2,200 m² or for classified properties, 200 days above that and for subdivisions.⁵ The revision ends this single deadline and returns to deadlines for each stage.

Deadlines in days are counted in working days, under the general rule in the Código do Procedimento Administrativo.⁶

Three details determine the actual timetable and rarely appear in summaries.

The 30 days for the architectural design begin at the end of validation or, where there are external consultations, when the final opinion arrives or its deadline ends (Art. 20(3)).

The 20 days for the final decision run from approval of the architectural design if the specialist designs were submitted with the initial application, or from submission of those designs if they followed later; if documents submitted during the prior hearing are admitted, they run from their receipt (Art. 23(2) and Art. 24-A). Submitting them at the outset avoids an interval that can reach six months, or more with an extension.

If, within the 20 days for validation, the Council does not request corrections or notify an extension, the application is deemed correctly documented and the decision period can no longer be extended (Art. 11(5)). The extension of the architectural assessment, allowed only once and only due to particular complexity, must also be notified within that period (Art. 20(9)).

With everything submitted at once and without external consultations, the sum of the maximum deadlines for the three stages of a building-works licensing application is 70 working days. It is a ceiling for a scenario in which nothing goes wrong, not a minimum period or a forecast: the Council may decide earlier, and one request for corrections, an external consultation or an extension is enough to move it.

How tacit approval is documented

If the Council does not decide within the deadline, there is tacit approval of the architectural design (Art. 20(12)), the licence application (Art. 23(1)) and the prior information request (Art. 16(6)). In validation, silence has a different effect: the application is deemed correctly documented, not approved. Knowing whether tacit approval has formed requires checking the count, suspensions and notifications in the process.

A tacitly approved licence now has a clear title: the last application submitted on the official form, containing the summary of the operation, proof of submission and proof of payment of fees and other charges, as well as proof of land cessions where these apply (Art. 4-A(2) and (5)). The portaria approving the forms explains why: under the previous regime, proof of fee payment was not enough to characterise the works before notaries, land registries and buyers.³ The forms are the same throughout the country, and municipal platforms cannot add stages, formalities or documents beyond those set out in the law and the portarias (Art. 8-A(2)).

The other side is also clear. Sérvulo & Associados anticipates that disputes will shift from licensing acts to the formation of tacit approval and the validity of responsibility statements (termos de responsabilidade).⁷ A tacit title is only as sound as the process behind it.

Prior notification: starting without an authorising act

Prior notification is the procedure for works in areas where a subdivision, detailed plan or implementation unit has already fixed the parameters — alignments, footprint, heights, number of storeys and dwellings, areas and uses — among other cases listed in law (Art. 4(4)). There is no validation or authorising act. Once the notification is correctly documented and the fees and other charges are paid, work may begin, provided the Council is informed at least five days beforehand (Art. 34(2) and Art. 80-A(1)).

The Council checks afterwards. Subsequent review of the project's compliance with legal and regulatory requirements expires one year after payment of fees and other charges or, if later, on the date use begins (Art. 35(10)). Until now, it was ten years.⁸ During that period, the Council may request, once only, that a missing document be submitted within 10 days, failing which the notification is deemed defective (Art. 35(9)). And the end of that period does not prevent inspection, at any time, of whether the works comply with what was notified (Art. 35(11)).

Before buying: prior information

For anyone assessing a plot of land, or a house to extend, this is the tool that matters most.

A prior information request may be simple, covering viability and constraints — indices, building heights, setbacks, easements and infrastructure — or qualified, where it includes massing and footprint, the architectural design, the proposed use programme and the other elements required by law (Art. 14(1) and (2)). Favourable information binds the entities competent to make the subsequent decision (Art. 17(1)) and removes the need for new consultations with external entities (Art. 13(2)). Qualified favourable information, if it contains all applicable elements, exempts the works from a licence and prior notification, provided they are carried out exactly on the terms in which they were assessed (Art. 17(2) and Art. 6(1)(h)). For operations covered by Art. 4(2)(d), which include classified properties or those in the process of classification, and external works in protection zones, prior notification applies instead of the exemption (Art. 4(4)(l)).

It has a time limit. Favourable information gives two years, from notification or tacit approval, to submit the licence application or prior notification or, in the case of qualified information, to begin the works. Once that period has ended, the applicant may request once only that the Council declare that the assumptions remain in place; with that declaration, or without a reply within the statutory deadline, there is one further year (Art. 17(5) to (7)). These deadlines do not displace the other statutory causes of expiry (Art. 71).

In practice, it makes it possible to know the planning viability of an operation before paying for the land. We therefore recommend assessing, case by case, whether it is worth requesting it before completion and, with the buyer’s lawyer, whether the promissory contract should be conditional on the result.

More stable titles, including those already in place

The deadline for the Council to declare a licence or prior information void, and for the Public Prosecutor or a popular action to seek this in court, becomes three years after issue (Art. 69(4)). Until now, it was ten.⁹ There are exceptions: national monuments and their protection zones and, where the facts constitute a crime, the applicable limitation period (Art. 69(4) and (5)).

The rule also applies to licences already issued. For these, the three years run from 1 October 2026, unless, under the old law, the deadline ends earlier (Decreto-Lei n.º 108/2026, Art. 12(3) and (4)).¹ It protects the title, not what was built outside it, and does not prevent decisions in actions brought within the deadline.

On sale, the document recording the transaction must mention the urban title or the seller’s declaration that they hold it or do not hold it, failing which it may be annulled (Art. 4-A(14)). Checking the title, and comparing what is licensed with what has been built, becomes the first step in any purchase.

Refurbishment: what remains exempt

Without prejudice to works on classified properties and in protection zones that Art. 4(2)(d) subjects to a licence, and to special legislation, the following remain exempt from a licence and prior notification, among others (Art. 6(1) and Art. 6-A):

• conservation works;
• internal alterations that do not affect façades, heights or roofs and do not affect the structure, or which, where they do affect it, are accompanied by a structural design and responsibility statement, and by a seismic-strengthening design where required by law, submitted with the notice of commencement of works;
• reconstruction that restores the façades and roof in accordance with the building’s last valid precedent (Art. 2(c)).

Replacing window frames with more efficient ones, while maintaining the geometry and volumetric relationship of the components and an exterior finish identical to the original, is exempt even in protection zones for classified properties (Art. 6-A(1)(j)).

Any increase in footprint, construction area, height or volume is an extension (Art. 2(e)) and follows the applicable procedure, unless there is a statutory exemption, such as that resulting from qualified prior information.

Who is responsible when the Council did not check beforehand

The reform does not remove scrutiny. It moves it.

Applications include proof of civil-liability insurance for the authors and coordinator of the designs, and works cannot begin without proof for the site director.³ Approval of the design or municipal inspection does not exempt the technicians from responsibility for carrying out the works under the conditions of the licence or notification (Art. 100-A(9)). In works carried out without the required procedure, or outside the conditions of notification or exemption, the developers and clients, contractors and site directors are jointly and severally liable; and an owner who knows of unlawful works is considered a developer, with that knowledge presumed, unless proven otherwise, if they allowed access to the property to those who carried them out (Art. 100-A(3) and (5)). Fines can reach €200,000 for natural persons and €450,000 for legal persons (Art. 98).

Coordination between design, site supervision and construction is necessary, and the client’s legal responsibility remains regardless of the procurement model. Since 2016, WALLNUT has brought architecture, engineering and construction together in a single contract: design and construction are coordinated by the same firm, with WALLNUT as the point of contact throughout the design and construction, within the agreed scope.

Anyone who already has a process at the Council

The new regime applies to procedures begun from 1 October and also to those begun earlier that are still at the validation and preliminary-assessment stage. In these cases, the applicant may take the steps needed to adapt the application to the new rules (Decreto-Lei n.º 108/2026, Art. 12(1) and (2)).¹ The remainder continue, procedurally, under the former regime, but the new rules on nullity and expiry deadlines apply to them nonetheless (Art. 12(3)).

What the law does not resolve

The deadlines are statutory maximums. External consultations, requests for corrections and extensions can add time, and do not depend only on whoever designs.

Entry into force was delayed precisely so that Councils could adapt their platforms.² In the first weeks, practice is likely to vary from municipality to municipality.

During the legislative process, the Associação Nacional de Municípios Portugueses raised reservations about the Government’s proposal: the reduction in decision deadlines, the conference mechanism for external consultations, the rules on nullity and the limit on subsequent review.¹⁰

And we found no official national series of actual licensing timeframes. There is not yet experience of applying this regime that makes it possible to anticipate how long processes will take.

A reform that exchanges waiting for responsibility favours those who arrive prepared. If you are assessing land or a house to refurbish, we begin with what can be built: the urban title, the municipal plan, the constraints and, where worthwhile, prior information before buying. Talk to us before you buy.

This text is for information only and does not replace legal advice or confirmation with the relevant Council. Articles cited without identification of an instrument are from the RJUE, in the wording republished by Decreto-Lei n.º 108/2026 and corrected by Declaração de Retificação n.º 29-A/2026/1. The legislation exists only in Portuguese; quotations from it are our translation.¹¹

References

1. Decreto-Lei n.º 108/2026, de 29 de maio, Diário da República, 1.ª série, n.º 104, which revises the RJUE and republishes it in an annex, https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/108-2026-1128002421. ↩
2. Decreto-Lei n.º 155-B/2026, de 31 de julho, Diário da República, 1.ª série, n.º 147, suplemento, which amends Article 13 of Decreto-Lei n.º 108/2026 and sets the entry into force date as 1 October 2026, https://files.diariodarepublica.pt/1s/2026/07/14705/0000200003.pdf. ↩
3. Portaria n.º 320/2026/1, de 31 de julho, Diário da República, 1.ª série, n.º 147, which approves the application forms and supporting documents and repeals Portarias n.os 71-A/2024 and 71-B/2024, https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/portaria/320-2026-1153698591. ↩
4. Ordem dos Arquitectos, «Decreto-Lei n.º 108/2026, de 29 de maio – RJUE – Documento de trabalho: versão comparada», updated on 25 June 2026, Article 11, previous and new wording side by side, https://ordemdosarquitectos.org/backend/uploads/DL_108_2026_RJUE_DOC_Trabalho_OA_Versao_Comparada_atualizada_25_06_2026_a79bfadb7b.pdf. ↩
5. Decreto-Lei n.º 10/2024, de 8 de janeiro, Article 23 of the RJUE in the wording then in force, https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/10-2024-836222484. ↩
6. Código do Procedimento Administrativo, approved by Decreto-Lei n.º 4/2015, de 7 de janeiro, Article 87(c): “The specified period is suspended on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays”, https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/4-2015-66041468. ↩
7. Sérvulo & Associados, «As alterações ao RJUE introduzidas pelo Decreto-Lei n.º 108/2026: da reforma do Simplex Urbanístico à procura de maior segurança jurídica», 6 August 2026, https://www.servulo.com/en/knowledge/As-alteraces-ao-RJUE-introduzidas-pelo-decreto-lei-n-1082026-Da-reforma-do-Simplex-Urbanistico/9850/. ↩
8. Cuatrecasas, «Guia Prático Simplex Urbanístico 2.0: Revisão do RJUE», 16 June 2026, https://www.cuatrecasas.com/pt/portugal/imobiliario/art/guia-pratico-simplex-urbanistico-2-0-revisao-do-rjue-1. ↩
9. Decreto-Lei n.º 136/2014, de 9 de setembro, which set the deadline in Article 69(4) of the RJUE at 10 years, https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/136-2014-56501680. ↩
10. «Alterações nos licenciamentos: ANMP pede ao Governo "ponderação e cautela"», idealista/news, 11 February 2026, https://www.idealista.pt/news/imobiliario/construcao/2026/02/11/73884-alteracoes-nos-licenciamentos-anmp-pede-ao-governo-ponderacao-e-cautela. ↩
11. Declaração de Retificação n.º 29-A/2026/1, de 27 de julho, Diário da República, 1.ª série, n.º 143, suplemento, https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/declaracao-retificacao/29-a-2026-1152696606. ↩