The Berlin Administrative Court ruled last week that the temporary furnished letting of flats in conservation areas constitutes a change of use requiring authorisation, provided the accommodation was previously let on a permanent basis. This decision affects owners who temporarily provide accommodation in such areas.
The owner of a residential building in Berlin-Neukölln had filed a lawsuit against the official requirement for authorisation. The property is located in a designated conservation area. The plaintiff let 15 residential units in this building for periods ranging from a minimum of three to a maximum of twelve months. The offering included both single rooms and entire flats at a fixed price, which covered internet access, heating and operating costs, and furnishings.
The Neukölln district office prohibited the plaintiff from letting the flats on a temporary basis with an order dated 22 December 2025. The authority justified this with a change of use compared to the previous indefinite letting, which would require a special conservation area authorisation. The plaintiff, however, argued that the flats continued to be used for residential purposes and therefore no such authorisation was necessary.
The 19th Chamber of the Administrative Court dismissed the lawsuit and confirmed the district's right to prohibit. The court stated that the practised temporary furnished letting is fundamentally suitable for displacing the resident population. Flats let under this business model would no longer be available to households with children and low-income households, which characterise the specific conservation area. The change of use therefore has a displacing effect and contradicts the objectives of the conservation area ordinance.
Uwe Bottermann, lawyer and partner at the law firm Bottermann::Khorrami, sees a potential point of attack in the court's reasoning. He noted that the question of planning law coverage for furnished temporary flat lettings plays no role from a conservation law perspective. In his view, a residential use should still be assumed. Bottermann emphasises that the effects of temporary letting on existing tenancies in the conservation area would have to be examined and it would have to be proven that an actual change in effect exists before intervening in property rights.
The judgment, Bottermann continued, paves the way for additional restrictions on temporary lettings, instead of critically questioning the hypothetical assumptions of administrative actions. In addition to prohibition orders, significant fines are now also to be expected.
