Apartment Remodeling in Russia in 2026 — Regolamenti, Esplorazioni

Apartment Remodeling in Russia in 2026: What Is Allowed and What Is Not Under the Law

As of April 23, 2026, the issue of apartment remodeling requires a much more precise legal qualification than is usually suggested by everyday advice about demolishing non-load-bearing walls or relying on an open-plan layout. The key reason is that, after the 2024 reform, the current version of housing legislation ties legal consequences not only to changes in an apartment’s configuration in the old technical sense, but also to changes in its boundaries, floor area, the creation of new premises, and even changes in its internal layout without any change in area. In other words, the range of works that formally fall under the legal regime of Remodeling has become clearer and, in some cases, broader than it was understood to be in practice before 2024.

A homeowner’s legal mistake usually begins with a substitution of concepts: repair work is confused with Remodeling, Remodeling is confused with Alteration, and interventions affecting the facade, floor slabs, or common property are mistaken for ordinary interior repairs within one’s own apartment. Yet these legal regimes differ not only in terminology, but also in their consequences: some works fall within ordinary use of the premises, others require prior approval, others affect common property and require the expression of will of all owners, and a fourth category may already be classified as Reconstruction of a capital construction facility, falling outside ordinary housing procedures.

In 2026, the practical problems homeowners face usually revolve around misclassifying planned works before renovation begins, underestimating sanitary and structural restrictions, ignoring the status of common property, wrongly assuming that unauthorized Remodeling can be “automatically legalized,” and, finally, discrepancies between the apartment’s actual condition and the information recorded in the EGRN, which complicates transactions, mortgages, and inspections by housing supervision authorities.

What changed by 2026?

The basic federal framework for apartment Remodeling is built primarily on Articles 25–29 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation.
To distinguish Remodeling from Reconstruction, Paragraph 14 of Article 1 of the Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation is also used.
Where common property in an apartment building is affected, Articles 36 and 40 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation apply, as well as the Rules for the Maintenance of Common Property approved by Government Resolution No. 491.
If the result of Remodeling must be reflected in the cadastre and the EGRN, Federal Law No. 218-FZ and subordinate acts concerning the technical plan also come into play.
Liability for unauthorized actions is governed by Article 7.21 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
For listed heritage buildings, legislation on cultural heritage sites must also be taken into account.

The main federal change defining the legal regime in 2026 was introduced by Federal Law No. 608-FZ of December 19, 2023, and has been in effect since April 1, 2024. That law defined Remodeling as a change in the boundaries and/or area of premises, and/or the creation of new premises, and/or a change in their internal layout, including without changing boundaries or floor area. The law also expressly allows that, as a result of Remodeling, the boundaries and area of adjacent premises may change. At the same time, the procedure for completing Remodeling was changed: legally, it is considered completed not when renovation work is physically finished, but on the date when the relevant changes are entered into the EGRN.

The second important block of changes took effect on June 25, 2024. By Government Resolution No. 812 of June 17, 2024, the old Government Resolution No. 266 on application and approval forms was repealed, and by Order No. 240/pr of April 4, 2024, new forms for applications for Alteration and/or Remodeling of premises in an apartment building and new approval document forms were adopted. In practice, this means that in 2026 it is no longer possible to rely on the old 2005 forms.

By 2026, it is precisely this model—the 2024 reform plus the subsequent updating of forms—that forms the core of the current federal regime. According to the official sources collected in the article, this is the main normative shift a homeowner must take into account before beginning renovations today.

Basic legal concepts and distinctions

Remodeling under current law is not merely a matter of moving partitions. Legally, it includes changing the boundaries of the premises, changing their area, creating new premises, and changing the internal layout, including without changing boundaries or floor area. Therefore, even works that do not change the apartment’s square footage but do change its internal layout may, in 2026, fall under the legal regime of Remodeling.

Alteration is the installation, replacement, or relocation of utility networks, sanitary, electrical, or other equipment, if such actions require changes to the technical documentation of the premises. Accordingly, Alteration is concerned primarily with the apartment’s engineering systems, while Remodeling concerns its spatial organization. In practice, these two regimes often go together, but legally they are not identical: it is possible to carry out Remodeling without Alteration, and vice versa.

Reconstruction, in the sense of urban planning legislation, means changing the parameters of a capital construction facility or its parts, including its height, number of premises, area, volume, and other parameters. For a homeowner, the distinction is critical: ordinary Remodeling proceeds under housing-law approval procedures, whereas Reconstruction may move the matter into the sphere of urban planning regulation, affect the building itself, and implicate the rights of all owners in the apartment building. That is why extensions, changes to the building’s exterior contour, interventions affecting the facade, and other works that alter the parameters of the building or part of it cannot automatically be classified as mere apartment Remodeling.

The common property of an apartment building has separate legal significance. An apartment owner does not individually own the facade, load-bearing structures, engineering systems serving more than one unit, or other elements of common property. The Housing Code and Government Resolution No. 491 expressly classify, among other things, enclosing load-bearing structures, certain non-load-bearing enclosing structures, and a number of in-house engineering systems as common property. Accordingly, affecting load-bearing walls, the facade, common risers, ventilation shafts, or flue channels is no longer an exclusively internal apartment matter.

If Reconstruction, Alteration, or Remodeling is impossible without annexing part of the common property to the premises, the consent of all owners of premises in the apartment building is required. This is one of the most underestimated barriers: a homeowner may have a technically flawless project in terms of structural safety, but without a proper decision of the general meeting of owners, such works still cannot proceed lawfully. The case law of the Supreme Court confirms this logic.

What is legally possible, and what is possible only under special conditions

Federal legislation does not contain an exhaustive “positive” list of works that may always be carried out without approval. The legal point of reference works in reverse: if the work does not constitute either Remodeling or Alteration within the meaning of Article 25 of the Housing Code and does not affect common property, then it falls outside the regime of Article 26 of the Housing Code. As a result, the only category that can usually be safely treated as not requiring approval is ordinary cosmetic repair work: finishing work, replacement of coverings, door leaves, built-in furniture, plumbing, or electrical elements without relocating equipment and without changing parameters that must be reflected in technical documentation. This is a legal conclusion drawn from the current definitions, not a closed federal list; each specific case must always be checked against the premises’ technical documentation and the regional regulations.

The following works may in principle be permissible, but only through a lawful procedure:

Demolition and erection of non-load-bearing partitions.
Creating door openings in non-load-bearing walls.
Combining and dividing interior rooms.
Changing the configuration of the kitchen, corridor, storage room, or walk-in closet.
Changing the area of rooms at the expense of internal zones of the apartment that are not part of common property.

After the 2024 reform, all such actions must already be assessed with the new broad definition of Remodeling in mind. Even if the apartment’s total area does not ultimately change, a change in its internal layout may itself require approval.

Works that usually require especially strict legal and technical review include any interventions affecting load-bearing structures, openings in load-bearing walls, relocation of bathrooms and kitchens, changes to wet zones, interventions affecting ventilation, changes to engineering networks, any actions involving the facade, loggias and balconies, and the creation of new premises that change the boundaries or area of adjacent premises. At the federal level, this stricter approach is explained not by everyday prohibitions, but by the fact that a Remodeling or Alteration project must comply with the law, and where common property is affected, additional approvals from the building’s owners may be required.

A federally confirmed special restriction concerns the sanitary logic of room placement: Paragraph 24 of the Regulation approved by Government Resolution No. 47 does not allow a toilet, bathroom or shower room, or kitchen to be placed above living rooms. This leads to an important practical conclusion: relocating a bathroom or kitchen is possible only if the final layout does not violate the mandatory requirements governing room placement. For duplex apartments and certain atypical cases, the project requires separate review; the prohibition cannot be generalized without analyzing the specific configuration.

The situation with ventilation is even stricter. Federal requirements for residential premises do not allow ventilation ducts of kitchens and sanitary rooms to be combined, and in gasified buildings, smoke and ventilation ducts are directly treated as elements related to the safety of in-house gas equipment and common property. Therefore, any reduction in cross-section, dismantling of ductwork, combining of channels, or other intervention affecting ventilation should from the outset be treated as a high-risk solution.

For gasified apartments, it is important to distinguish between the federal and regional levels. According to the federal sources verified in the article, there is no single nationwide textual prohibition that can be confirmed as being formulated precisely in the terms that a kitchen with a gas stove may not be combined with a room without a door in the Housing Code or another federal act addressed directly to apartment Remodeling procedures. However, in regional practice, this rule is clearly expressed: Moscow Government Resolution No. 508-PP does not allow openings without a door between living rooms and gasified kitchens, and official explanations by city authorities consistently confirm this approach. Outside Moscow, this issue must be checked against the relevant regional act and applicable gas-safety requirements.

With loggias, balconies, relocation of radiators, and heated floors connected to building-wide systems, the legal picture is not uniform. For Moscow, official practice and the regional act proceed from the inadmissibility of combining loggias and balconies with interior rooms as a simple extension of a room, and the transfer of central-heating radiators onto loggias is officially characterized as prohibited. At the federal level, these conclusions are usually inferred from the status of enclosing structures, the facade, and the common heating system, but a universal formula for all regions of Russia is not reliably confirmed by the official federal sources referenced in the article; such a case requires review of the project, the status of the enclosing structures, and the regional procedure.

For panel buildings, older housing stock, and buildings with atypical structural schemes, there is no special federal privilege and no special federal prohibition. What matters legally is not the “age of the building” as such, but the presence of load-bearing elements, the condition of structures, and whether the works are technically permissible under the project. That is why, in standard buildings, issues concerning openings in load-bearing walls almost always require reinforcement, special calculations, and a technical opinion; in Moscow, this is directly reflected in the regional procedure, which links work on load-bearing structures to a technical opinion on admissibility and safety.

If the building is a cultural heritage site, additional permits are required. Preservation work on a cultural heritage site is carried out under monument-protection legislation and requires a special permit for such work; an ordinary housing approval procedure alone is insufficient.

So-called “apartments” require a separate legal filter. In 2025, the Supreme Court expressly noted that housing legislation does not recognize such a concept as “apartments” and does not classify them as residential premises. Accordingly, there is no universal answer here: first, the EGRN extract and the building’s status must be checked. If the matter concerns a non-residential premise in an apartment building, some rules on premises in apartment buildings may apply; if the building is not an apartment building in the housing-law sense at all, the legal regime will be different.

What is prohibited by law, and why

It is directly and unconditionally wrong to proceed from the assumption that anything is allowed inside one’s apartment. Unauthorized Alteration and unauthorized Remodeling are not allowed by law; the basic rule of Article 29 of the Housing Code is not that one may first do the work and then obtain approval, but that actions taken without the required decision already create an unlawful state of the premises.

A federally confirmed prohibition is the placement above living rooms of a bathroom, shower room, toilet, or kitchen. Therefore, relocating a bathroom to the place of a lower neighbor’s former living room or placing a kitchen above a living room in the apartment below does not comply with mandatory requirements in the ordinary apartment-building layout. This prohibition is explained not by formalism, but by sanitary and operational safety.

It is not permissible to annex part of the common property to an apartment without the consent of all owners of premises in the building. This is where the boundaries of many “gray-area” cases lie: appropriation of part of a common corridor, vestibule, attic, technical floor, alteration of the facade contour, blocking common elements, or isolating part of common space as a “private” zone. Formally, this is no longer only apartment Remodeling, but interference with someone else’s shared ownership.

Works that create a threat to the life or health of citizens or violate the rights and lawful interests of others may not be performed. This is the most important general criterion both for approval and for later judicial review of work that has already been carried out. That is why typical prohibitions concern not the “aesthetics” of renovation, but load-bearing structures, engineering safety, ventilation, access routes to utilities, and other conditions necessary for the normal operation of the building.

At the regional level, prohibitions may be specified far more strictly. For Moscow, Resolution No. 508-PP directly classifies among inadmissible solutions, in particular, openings without a door between living rooms and gasified kitchens, the placement of a gasified kitchen above a living room, and the elimination or reduction in cross-section of natural ventilation channels and the dismantling of ventilation ducts. This should not be automatically projected onto the whole country as a literal nationwide list, but for Moscow it is an operative legal norm, not a recommendation or a memo.

This also leads to the debunking of several common myths. The thesis “if a wall is not load-bearing, then anything is allowed” is legally incorrect, because even a non-load-bearing partition may change the internal layout in such a way that Remodeling arises within the meaning of Article 25 of the Housing Code. The thesis “if the neighbors did it, then it must be allowed” has no legal significance whatsoever. The thesis “we’ll legalize it automatically later” contradicts Article 29 of the Housing Code and the case law: preserving already altered premises is not automatic, but an exception granted only where it is proven that there is no threat and no violation of others’ rights. Finally, an open-plan layout in a new building does not cancel the status of the premises, the data recorded in the EGRN, or the requirement to obtain approval for changes to the internal layout.

Unauthorized Remodeling, liability, and court prospects

Remodeling is considered unauthorized when it is carried out without an approval decision or with deviations from the approved project. In that case, not only administrative liability applies, but also the housing-law mechanism that compels the owner to restore the premises to their prior condition within a reasonable time and in the established manner.

For individuals, Article 7.21 of the Code of Administrative Offenses provides for administrative liability for unauthorized Remodeling of residential premises in apartment buildings; official Moscow publications referring to this provision indicate an administrative fine for individuals of 2,000 to 2,500 rubles. However, treating the fine as the “price of legalization” is mistaken: the fine does not replace the obligation to remedy the violation or complete the proper procedure.

If the premises are not restored to their prior condition and no court decision preserving them in their altered state is produced, the law allows an extremely severe consequence: for the owner of residential premises, the sale of the premises at public auction with the obligation imposed on the new owner to restore them to their prior condition. This is not a household horror story, but a direct mechanism under Article 29 of the Housing Code. In practice, it is not applied in every case, but as a legal possibility it exists and must be taken into account when assessing risk.

A Remodeling that has already been carried out can sometimes be legalized. Legally, there are two scenarios. The first is that if the works are substantively permissible, the owner completes the missing documentation and goes through the procedure established by law and regional regulations. The second is an application to court seeking to preserve the premises in their remodeled and/or altered condition. But a court may grant such a claim only if it is proven that this does not violate the rights and lawful interests of citizens and does not create a threat to their life or health. The Supreme Court emphasizes that this is an exceptional model.

In practice, at least four categories of cases are difficult to legalize and often cannot be legalized at all:

Interventions affecting load-bearing structures without demonstrable technical admissibility.
Annexation of common property without the proper consent of all owners.
Violations of sanitary requirements concerning the placement of wet zones and kitchens.
Interventions affecting gasified and ventilation solutions that do not meet safety requirements.

For heritage buildings, the absence of permits from cultural heritage protection authorities is added to this list.

The practical risks of unauthorized Remodeling go beyond disputes with the housing inspectorate. After the 2024 reform, Remodeling is deemed completed only once the changes are reflected in the EGRN, and Rosreestr separately indicates that when choosing housing, one should check the apartment layout against the register data. This creates transaction risks: a buyer receives a property whose actual condition may not match the register; for mortgages, Rosreestr stated in its explanatory publications that banks generally do not approve housing with unauthorized Remodeling. As for insurance, the article does not confirm from official sources any special uniform federal regime specifically governing the consequences of unauthorized Remodeling; in that area, one must review the terms of the specific insurance contract.

How to obtain approval for Remodeling in 2026, and where regional differences begin

A legally correct algorithm begins not with design, but with qualification of the property. Before work begins, the owner must check the EGRN extract and the actual description of the premises, the design and technical documentation, whether the building is gasified, whether load-bearing structures, the facade, ventilation, risers, or other elements of common property are affected, whether the building is a cultural heritage site, and whether it has been declared unsafe. Without this, it is impossible to determine whether the matter concerns repair, Remodeling, Alteration, annexation of common property, or already Reconstruction.

Next, the package of documents is assembled under Part 2 of Article 26 of the Housing Code. At the federal level, the main reference points are the application itself and the Alteration and/or Remodeling project as the key substantive document; depending on the situation, title documents may be required, and if common property is affected, the minutes of the general meeting of owners are also needed. A technical opinion on the admissibility and safety of the works is not named in Article 26 of the Housing Code as a universal federal document for all cases, but in regional practice it often becomes mandatory for works involving load-bearing structures, and in Moscow this instrument is directly embedded in the current procedure.

The federal deadline for making a decision on approval or refusal is no later than 45 days from the date the documents are submitted. The decision must be issued or sent no later than 3 working days after it is adopted. The grounds for refusal are listed in the Housing Code and include, among other things, failure to submit the required documents, submission of documents to the wrong authority, and non-compliance of the project with legal requirements.

After the works are completed, the completion procedure depends on their nature.
Alteration of premises is deemed completed on the date of approval of the acceptance commission act. Remodeling of premises is deemed completed on the date changes are entered into the EGRN concerning the boundaries and/or area of the premises, or on the date of state cadastral registration of newly created premises and state registration of rights thereto.

In 2026, the technical plan is the central element in completing Remodeling. The requirements for its form and preparation are established by Rosreestr Order No. P/0082, which expressly provides for the use of the Remodeling project and the acceptance commission act.

This leads to an important practical conclusion: in 2026, a homeowner should not consider Remodeling complete merely because the builders have left and the BTI has issued a new measurement. The legally significant final step is the proper completion of the procedure and the updating of the EGRN.

Regional differences concern primarily the authority that grants approval, the administrative regulations, the filing format, additional technical materials, and the detailed specification of prohibited solutions. The federal framework is unified, but the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities organize the service differently.

For Moscow, one private example is the procedure implemented through the Moscow Housing Inspectorate and the mos.ru portal on the basis of Moscow Government Resolution No. 508-PP; according to official city information, after the act is formalized for completed Remodeling, the application to Rosreestr to enter changes into the EGRN is sent by the inspectorate itself. Official regulations of the Housing Committee establish that, in Saint Petersburg, the service is organized through district administrations. These models must not be confused: Moscow’s list of prohibitions and Moscow’s procedure are not a nationwide federal standard.

In unsafe buildings, the issue is especially sensitive. For Moscow, if a building has been declared unsafe, Remodeling and Alteration are not allowed. Although this should not be treated as an unconditional rule for all of Russia, in practical terms an owner in an unsafe building should proceed from an extremely strict approach and first verify the building’s special legal regime.

Main conclusions

Apartment Remodeling in 2026 is lawful only where the owner correctly classifies the planned works before renovation begins. After the 2024 reform, the criterion has become stricter and simpler at the same time: if the boundaries change, the area changes, new premises arise, or the internal layout changes, the legal regime of Remodeling may apply.

The practical meaning of obtaining approval is not limited to avoiding a fine. After April 1, 2024, Remodeling legally exists in conjunction with the EGRN, and therefore unrecorded changes become a problem for sale, for a buyer’s due diligence, for mortgage approval, and for any subsequent protection of the owner’s rights.

What is especially important to re-check as of the publication date

The current wording of Articles 25–29 and Article 40 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation.
The current version of the regional approval procedure in the relevant constituent entity of the Russian Federation.
Whether the building has gas, a special heritage status, unsafe-building status, or special restrictions tied to the building or its series.
The current application and approval forms.
The current requirements for the technical plan and the filing format for the EGRN.
Regional practice on loggias, radiators, gasified kitchens, and other borderline cases.

For an apartment owner

If the apartment’s internal layout changes, even without a change in area, that may constitute Remodeling within the meaning of Article 25 of the Housing Code.
If plumbing fixtures, risers, electrical, or other equipment are relocated with corresponding changes to technical documentation, that is already Alteration.
The first thing to check is whether load-bearing structures, the facade, ventilation, and building-wide engineering systems are affected.
Relocation of a bathroom or kitchen cannot be assessed without checking Paragraph 24 of Government Resolution No. 47.
If common property is affected, the matter cannot be resolved without the consent of all owners.
An opening in a load-bearing wall is a high-risk case that usually requires special calculations and a technical opinion; for Moscow this is directly reflected in regional regulations.
A gasified kitchen is a zone of special risk; Moscow regulations expressly prohibit an opening without a door between a room and a gasified kitchen.
Dismantling or reducing ventilation boxes is one of the most dangerous and conflict-prone variants of Remodeling.
Unauthorized Remodeling is not just a fine, but also the risk of an order to restore the premises and, in an extreme case, sale of the premises at public auction.
A Remodeling that has already been carried out can sometimes be preserved through court, but only if no one else’s rights are violated and there is no threat to life or health.
After April 1, 2024, Remodeling is deemed completed only after the relevant information is entered into the EGRN.
The technical plan is a mandatory element of completing Remodeling, not a formality.
For a property transaction, the actual layout must be checked against the EGRN data; Rosreestr expressly recommends verifying the layout when buying housing.
An open-plan layout in a new building does not cancel the legal regime of Remodeling.
If the property is called an “apartment,” its status in the EGRN and the status of the building must first be checked, because the term itself does not create a special housing-law regime.

Problem areas

Combining a kitchen and a room in a gasified apartment outside Moscow: based on the official federal sources cited in the article, a literal nationwide prohibition in the form of the Moscow regional rule cannot be confirmed; this requires checking the regional act and applicable safety standards.
Annexing a loggia, relocating radiators onto a balcony, and installing heated floors connected to building-wide systems: for Moscow the enforcement position is strict, but a universal federal formula for all regions must be checked separately.
Apartments in unsafe buildings: Moscow practice expressly excludes Remodeling, but for other regions an analysis is needed of the specific building’s special regime and local procedure.
Panel buildings, older housing stock, and atypical structural schemes: the decisive factor here is not the building’s label, but its actual load-bearing scheme and the technical admissibility of the works.
“Apartments”: without an EGRN extract and a clear understanding of whether the property is a premise in an apartment building, giving a universal legal answer would be incorrect.

Lawful apartment Remodeling in 2026 is possible under Russian law, but only on two conditions: the owner must correctly classify the planned works and rely on current legal rules rather than everyday assumptions about “one’s own space within the walls.” The closer the works come to load-bearing structures, common property, gas, ventilation, wet zones, the facade, and changes to EGRN data, the less room there is for simplification and the greater the importance of a professional project and precise legal review.