Built without consent? Your fix-it options, explained

Our retrospective consent support starts with exactly this question — which pathway, in what order, and what it will realistically cost. Send us what you know about the work and we'll map it.

First: don't panic, and don't hide it

Two instincts cause most of the damage in this space:

1. Doing nothing. Unconsented work doesn't expire. It surfaces at the worst possible times — a sale, a refinance, an insurance claim, a neighbour dispute — and it surfaces harder the longer it sits.
2. Concealing it. When you sell, you warrant what you know about the property. Lawyers and buyers check council records (LIM reports show consents on file), and work that exists physically but not on the council file gets found. A discovered-and-disclosed problem is a negotiation; a discovered-and-concealed one is a legal claim.

The realistic mindset: this is a paperwork problem with established solutions, not a catastrophe. But it doesn't fix itself, and time rarely improves the options.

The two pathways — and which one is yours

Retrospective resource consent — the planning fix

This applies when the work breached district plan rules — things like boundary setbacks, site coverage, height in relation to boundary, or a use that needed planning permission (a minor dwelling, a home business with customers, a second kitchen making it a two-unit site). You apply for resource consent for the work as it exists. Council assesses the effects exactly as if it weren't built yet — the fact it's already standing doesn't guarantee approval, but a well-evidenced application for work that has been sitting harmlessly for years has a real chance, because the actual effects are observable rather than predicted.

Certificate of Acceptance — the building fix

This applies to building work that needed a building consent under the Building Act but didn't get one. A CoA is council verifying, as far as it reasonably can, that the work complies with the Building Code. Council can inspect what's visible, but it can't see inside walls — so a CoA is often qualified ("we are satisfied as to the parts we could inspect"). It's not as clean as a building consent with a code compliance certificate, and council can decline if it can't be satisfied the work complies.

Often you need both

A garage built over the setback and without building consent needs a retrospective resource consent (planning breach) and a CoA (building breach). The order matters: sort the planning side first, because a CoA for work that also breaches the district plan is asking council to certify a building that may need to move.

The decision tree

The logic in words:

1. Did the work need a resource consent? (District plan breach — setbacks, coverage, use, overlays.)
   • Yes → retrospective resource consent needed.
2. Did the work need a building consent? (Structural work, plumbing, most garages/sleep-outs; some work is exempt.)
   • Yes → Certificate of Acceptance needed.
3. Both? → RC first, then CoA.
4. Selling soon? → Decide between fixing now, or disclosing and pricing accordingly — see below.
5. Neither consent needed? → Get that confirmed in writing (a professional's view or council confirmation), because "I reckoned it was exempt" doesn't survive a LIM request.

The process, cost and time — realistic expectations

Retrospective resource consent: same machinery as any consent — application, AEE, possible s92, decision. Costs and timelines look like a standard consent: indicative consultant fees in the low-to-mid thousands plus council fees, and processing times that run 20–35 working days at CCC for non-notified applications. The awkward truth: you carry more risk than a normal applicant, because the asset already exists. If consent is declined, options narrow to altering or removing the work.

Certificate of Acceptance: application to the building consent authority with plans, photos, and often reports (a builder's or engineer's assessment of what can be inspected). Council fees plus your report costs; timeframes are measured in weeks to a few months depending on complexity.

The honest variable is evidence. Work with original plans, photos of construction and a cooperative original builder is far cheaper to certify than a mystery conversion from 1994.

Also budget for the second-order effects: while work sits unconsented, insurance cover over it can be uncertain, and lenders can refuse to count it toward a property's value. A CoA or retrospective consent isn't just paperwork for the council file — it's what makes the square metres legally and financially real.

Selling a house with unconsented work

Three realistic options, in order of how sales usually handle it:

1. Fix before you list. Consent/CoA in hand = clean LIM, full buyer pool, full price. Best when time allows — start months before listing, not weeks.
2. Disclose and price it in. Declare the unconsented work, provide any reports, and let the price reflect the buyer's risk and fix-it cost. Common and workable, especially for minor work — but expect the buyer's lawyer and lender to have opinions, and some banks won't lend on unconsented dwellings.
3. Offer to fix as a condition. Sale proceeds conditional on you obtaining the consent/CoA. Keeps buyers at the table but puts you on a deadline with council — the riskiest seat to be in.

What's not an option: staying quiet. The sale and purchase warranties and the LIM process are designed to find this. Commercial owners face the same mechanics on leased and tenanted buildings — with the added wrinkle that unconsented change of use can also void insurance conditions.

Common Christchurch scenarios

• The garage/sleep-out conversion — classic dual-pathway job: building consent missing (CoA), and often a setback or coverage breach (retrospective RC).
• The deck that grew — under the height/fall thresholds it's exempt building work; attached, raised or over a certain size it wasn't. The line is finer than people assume.
• The minor dwelling that isn't recorded — second units and granny flats trigger planning rules regardless of the new 70 m² building-consent exemption; the exemption removed building consent, not resource-consent triggers like setbacks, overlays and flood areas.
• The 1970s-90s "she'll be right" addition — often no records at all. Fixable, but expect to pay for evidence: measured drawings, builder's reports, maybe engineering input.
• The retail/office change of use — previous tenant's fit-out changed the activity class without a consent; discovered at lease renewal or sale.

If any of these is sitting in your house (or the house you're due to sell), the cheapest next step is a straight answer on which pathway applies. Homeowners bring us the council letter or the LIM report; we decode it and scope the fix.

Frequently asked questions

Related reading

• What a resource consent costs and how long it takes — budget and timeline for the retrospective pathway
• Section 92 request guide — when council asks for more information mid-fix
• Resource consent support — retrospective consents and CoA coordination
• Browse all guides — the full library of straight-answer resources