Andrey Makarov on innovations in legal regulation in the field of renovation and ITD

In June 2025, the State Duma approved a bill initiated by the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg (467032-8) aimed at increasing protection of citizens' rights in the context of renovation and the ITD. It was determined that:

• Regional authorities will be entitled to exclude from the ITD the multi-apartment buildings (MAB) that did not explicitly support renovation at a general meeting of residents (previously it was implied that if residents did not hold a meeting and did not vote against demolition, then their silence was incorrectly equated to voting for demolition, despite the formal law requirement on the consent of 2/3 of residents to renovation).
• Authorities of regional cities (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Sevastopol) will be able to offer residents closer relocation as part of renovation (not within the city, but within their district).

Such amendments could have a positive impact on protecting citizens' rights in the context of renovation and the ITD. However, unfortunately, such measures are insufficient to address the complex ITD issues:

1. The law merely grants regional authorities the relevant rights, but does not impose any obligations. This means that St. Petersburg (which introduced the bill and where Governor Alexander Beglov imposed a moratorium on ITD from 2022, taking into account public discontent with resettlement conditions) may adopt relevant decisions, however, other regions may not adopt them, which would prevent citizens from being protected during resettlement in other RF regions and create a situation of inequality of civil rights.
2. The bill proposed to more clearly define only protective measures for residents of multi-apartment buildings, ensuring that a building cannot be demolished without the consent of 2/3 of its residents. However, similar measures are not provided for residents of individual housing (IH) and townhouses, and there is no official voting procedure for them. This is a paradoxical situation where residents of even the smallest multi-apartment building have the right to vote at owners' meetings, however, residents of townhouses, even though they may number hundreds in a chain of such housing, have no such right to officially vote. There have been cases where local authorities have reclassified apartment buildings as townhouses to deprive residents of their voting rights.    
3. It should be noted that in December 2024, amendments were made to the Urban Development Code. Previously, individual housing and townhouses could only be demolished within ITD solely along with dilapidated and hazardous apartment buildings (based on the principle of territorial proximity). Now, demolition is possible without such a requirement. Therefore, residents of such buildings require enhanced guarantees for protection of their housing and property rights.
4. The law stipulates that, as part of renovation, individual housing construction and townhouses may only be demolished if they are dilapidated in accordance with regional legislation. However, regional specifics are very important, and it's not just that violations are possible when recognizing a house dilapidated or in poor technical condition. A clear example is the Novosibirsk region, where the criterion for demolition was the lack of connection to centralized utility networks, such as sewerage. Even numerous owners of new and expensive private villas have found their homes slated for demolition because the local administration has failed to provide them with a centralized sewer connection. Another example of abuse is when a house is deemed dilapidated simply based on its year of construction (without regard to its actual condition, repairs, etc.).

In this regard, further legislative steps are needed to unconditionally prohibit the demolition of any housing within renovation and ITD (multi-apartment buildings, individual housing, townhouses) without the explicit consent of 2/3 of the owners.