Construction Regulation: Key сhanges in 2026 and what they mean for the market

Recent months have been particularly eventful in the field of urban planning and construction regulation from the perspective of legislative and regulatory developments. This isn’t about a single isolated reform, but rather a series of decisions which, taken together, may have a significant effect on the implementation of construction projects — from obtaining initial data and permits to state architectural and construction control, as well as protecting approvals this have already been obtained.

The overall logic behind these changes is an attempt to make construction procedures more predictable, less dependent on the discretion of individual authorities, and more suitable for the rapid implementation of reconstruction projects. The Government explicitly positions this package of measures as part of a broader urban planning reform, the first stage of which is being implemented through government resolutions, while the next step is expected to involve legislative amendments in the areas of spatial planning and legal certainty in construction.

New rules for state architectural and construction control

One of the most systemic changes is updating of the procedural model for state architectural and construction control. Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 485 dated April 10, 2026 introduced changes to the approaches governing inspections, consideration of complaints, and decision-making by the state architectural and construction control authorities.

The key significance of these changes lies in the gradual implementation of the logic contained in the Law of Ukraine “On Administrative Procedure” into the sphere of architectural and construction control. In essence, control procedures are beginning to be treated as administrative proceedings in which procedural safeguards for participants must be respected.

In particular, the amendments provide for the possibility of challenging the officials of control authorities, as well as the obligation of such officials to recuse (withdraw) themselves where relevant grounds exist. This is important not just formally, but also practically: in the construction sector, the impartiality of officials often plays a decisive role in ensuring the objectivity of inspections and subsequent decisions.

A separate block of changes concerns complaints regarding violations in the field of urban development activities. Clear requirements have been established for the content and form of such complaints, along with the possibility of leaving a complaint without consideration, returning it to the applicant, and defining categories of complaints that are not subject to review. This approach is intended to reduce the risk of complaints being used as a tool to pressure developers or obstruct construction projects without proper grounds.

At the same time, these changes do not mean weaker control. On the contrary, they are intended to improve its legal quality. For example, where there is a potential threat to human life or health, the head of the control authority may make  a quick decision to conduct an inspection without collegial review of the complaint.

Another important change in practical terms is the possibility of appointing an expert examination where special expertise is required to assess compliance with legal requirements. The appointment of such an examination suspends control measures until the results are obtained, which may prevent decisions from being made without proper clarification of factual circumstances.

For bona fide market participants, this creates a clearer framework for interaction with control authorities. For the authorities themselves, it increases the requirements regarding reasoning, procedural discipline, and the quality of administrative decisions.

Choice between local construction control authorities and DIAM

Another important block of changes relates to permitting and registration procedures. For a long time, developers in municipalities where local state architectural and construction control authorities had been established and delegated the relevant powers, were in effect required to apply exclusively to those local authorities. This related to both obtaining the right to perform construction works and commissioning of completed facilities.

In practice, this model created dependence on a single authority. If a local authority operated inefficiently, delayed procedures, or adopted unreasonable decisions, developers often had no real alternative.

Under the new governmental package, an experimental mechanism has been introduced permitting developers to independently choose which authority to apply to for administrative services: either the local construction control authority or the State Inspectorate for Architecture and Urban Planning of Ukraine (DIAM).

The Ministry for Communities and Territories Development notes that this should create an alternative within a system that previously often left applicants without a real choice, while also reducing the time required to obtain documents and minimizing the risks of procedural delays.

This mechanism applies to projects carried out on the basis of a construction passport, facilities with consequence class CC1, as well as CC2 facilities within the scope of powers delegated to the respective local authority.

Importantly, where DIAM is chosen, it will perform not only permitting and registration functions, but also state architectural and construction control over the relevant project until commissioning.

Pre-trial appeal of refusals to issue urban planning conditions and restrictions (UPCR)

A truly groundbreaking change for the construction business is the introduction of a mechanism for appealing against refusals to issue Urban Planning Conditions and Restrictions (UPCR). This issue has long been one of the most problematic for developers, since refusal to issue UPCR could in effect  block a project at its initial stage.

Under the new mechanism, a developer who receives a refusal to issue UPCR may appeal against such a decision to DIAM. Applications are submitted through the Unified State Electronic System in the Construction Sector or via the Unified State Web Portal of Electronic Services.

The application must contain, among other things, information about the applicant, the urban planning and architecture authority whose decision is being appealed, the name of the construction project, the registration number of the UPCR application, the registration number of the refusal decision, and, where available, extracts from urban planning documentation.

The Ministry for Communities and Territories Development also notes that the technical possibility of filing such appeals online through the electronic portal in the Unified State Electronic System is currently under development and is expected to become operational in coming months.

The key consequence of a successful appeal is that the developer gains the right to continue project design without obtaining UPCR, provided that the project complies with urban planning documentation.

At the same time, this mechanism shouldn’t be perceived as allowing developers to ignore urban planning documentation. Compliance of design solutions with planning documentation will continue to be verified at subsequent stages, including during the issuance of permits for construction works — which, incidentally, corresponds to European practices. Therefore, it is important for developers not only to formally challenge refusals, but to also assess in advance whether the proposed project complies with applicable planning documentation.

Airfield adjacent territories and height restrictions

Another practically significant set of changes relates to development within airfield adjacent territories.

During the war, this issue has become particularly relevant because some airfields lost valid certificates or had never undergone certification at all. This complicated the process of obtaining the assessments and approvals necessary to determine whether construction was permissible and which height restrictions applied.

The Ministry for Communities and Territories Development states that the adopted changes regulate development within airfield adjacent territories, introduce mechanisms for considering relevant restrictions even in the absence of standard approvals, and update interaction procedures between urban planning, aviation, and defense authorities.

This is especially important for projects located within zones potentially affected by airfields or involving significant building heights. These amendments may unblock certain projects that had previously stalled due to the impossibility of obtaining the required approvals.

Protection zones around cultural heritage sites

Another change relates to the determination of boundaries and land use regimes within protection zones surrounding cultural heritage sites. The Government approved a new procedure intended to regulate the preparation and approval of scientific and planning documentation for such zones.

This is particularly important for cities and municipalities where legal uncertainty has existed for years: in the absence of approved documentation, a standard statutory protection zone around heritage sites was often applied automatically, potentially blocking reconstruction or new construction even where such works posed no real threat to the cultural heritage asset itself. At the same time, formal restrictions did not always ensure effective protection of the actual monuments.

The new approach is intended to enable the establishment of individualized protection regimes, including permissible building heights, dimensions, conditions for new construction, and reconstruction requirements.

According to the Ministry of Culture, the developers of the relevant documentation will be required to justify that proposed solutions do not harm the heritage site or its historical environment.

At the same time, until the final text of the resolution is officially published, its practical effects should be assessed with caution.

Based on the draft published for public discussion, protection zones are to be established through scientific and planning documentation with unlimited validity, while previously established protection zones, including those incorporated into historical and architectural reference plans, will remain valid. The draft also provides for entering information on established restrictions into the State Land Cadastre and urban planning cadastre, which is of fundamental importance for the transparency of planning restrictions.

For the development sector, this change may represent an attempt to replace formal automatic restrictions with a more individualized and scientifically justified protection regime. If implemented properly, it may simultaneously reduce uncertainty for projects located in central and historic parts of cities while strengthening genuine protection of cultural heritage.

Future time limits for challenging construction decisions

Special attention should also be paid to the governmental instruction to prepare draft legislation establishing clear time limits for challenging construction-related decisions. This issue goes beyond mere procedural convenience and relates directly to the investment predictability of construction projects.

Today, obtaining the necessary permits and approvals does not always mean that a project is protected from prolonged disputes relating to underlying decisions. A developer may obtain UPCR, secure permits for construction works, attract financing, conclude contracts, and commence construction. However, even at the advanced stages of project implementation, litigation regarding such decisions may create a risk of, in effect, blocking the project.

For businesses, this means additional costs, legal uncertainty, renegotiation of arrangements with partners or investors and, in some cases, the risk of losing the possibility to implement the project as originally planned.

That is why the idea of establishing clear limitation periods for challenging construction decisions is so important. It should answer this fundamental question: when, after completion of all the legally required procedures, may a bona fide developer consider the obtained approvals sufficiently stable for further implementation of the project?

At the same time, future regulation will require a very careful balance. On the one hand, bona fide businesses should not remain in a state of uncertainty for years. On the other hand, limitation periods should not effectively legalize obviously unlawful or unauthorized construction. Such cases should instead be addressed through proper state control and effective enforcement mechanisms.

Public procurement, pricing, and construction price database

While much of the market’s attention is focused on UPCR, permitting procedures, and control mechanisms, the governmental package also includes changes that are important for projects financed with public funds.

In particular, the Ministry for Communities and Territories Development announced a new approach to procurement in construction projects through framework agreements, allowing pre-selection of contractors meeting qualification requirements and faster appointment of contractors for specific facilities.

Approaches to construction pricing are also changing, particularly with regard to bringing cost estimates closer to actual market conditions and accounting for real costs. Additionally, the launch of a construction materials price database within the Unified State Electronic System in the Construction Sector has been announced.

This block of changes is important for reconstruction efforts, since the speed of implementing public projects depends not only on permitting procedures, but also on procurement models, realistic cost estimation, and transparency in determining construction costs.

Conclusion

Taken in unison, recent changes demonstrate an attempt to reshape construction regulation toward greater predictability.

The new rules on state architectural and construction control are intended to strengthen procedural safeguards. The possibility of choosing between local construction control authorities and DIAM reduces the dependence of developers on a single authority. The mechanism for appealing against refusals to issue UPCR creates an additional protective tool at the initial stage of projects. Amendments regarding airfield adjacent territories are expected to unblock a number of complex cases that became particularly acute in wartime. The new procedure for defining protection zones around cultural heritage sites may reduce any legal uncertainty for projects located in historical environments. Finally, the future draft bill setting out time limits for submitting challenges against construction-related decisions may become an important element of legal certainty for the market.

At the same time, the effectiveness of these changes will depend not only on the wording of the regulations, but also on how they are actually implemented in practice. For the market, it is critically important that these mechanisms do not remain merely declarative, but genuinely reduce administrative pressure, shorten procedural timelines, ensure transparency of planning restrictions, and allow bona fide developers to plan construction projects without the constant risk of unjustified obstruction.