TEE Warns: risks to property transfers without topographic diagrams

As noted, the public consultation has revealed significant concerns from technical and scientific bodies, which warn that the proposed regulation could undermine legal certainty in transactions, weaken digitalization efforts, and ultimately generate more problems than it aims to address.

The President of the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE), Giorgos Stasinos, emphasized that abolishing the requirement for digital topographic diagrams—referenced to the National Geodetic Reference System—would represent a major setback to the country’s effort to establish a comprehensive and reliable digital spatial framework. Without robust geospatial data, he noted, sustainable development becomes increasingly challenging, while the provision risks creating “blind spots” in the accurate mapping of urban space.

While acknowledging the need to streamline procedures in support of citizens and economic activity, he cautioned that removing the requirement for digital topographic documentation in property transfers would introduce legal uncertainty and mark a clear step backward. Although certain transactions are already permitted without a new topographic diagram—under strict conditions and with engineer liability—the generalized removal of engineering oversight could lead to transfers based on incomplete or ambiguous data regarding property boundaries, surface area, and configuration.

The TEE stresses that modern topographic diagrams are not merely administrative documents but critical technical and legal instruments that safeguard accuracy and transparency in real estate transactions. Referenced to the national coordinate system (EGSA ’87) and aligned with approved urban plans, implementation acts, and cadastral records, they constitute essential technical evidence.

Under current standards, such diagrams ensure high-precision mapping of property boundaries and characteristics and are accompanied by an engineer’s formal certification covering key parameters, including surface area, building rights, and adjacency to neighboring properties.

According to the Committee, reducing bureaucracy cannot come at the expense of institutional safeguards. The proposed measure is therefore viewed as a regression from a framework designed to address long-standing structural issues, such as boundary inaccuracies, discrepancies in surface measurements, and recurring legal disputes.

At the same time, critical questions remain unresolved: how will properties be accurately identified without up-to-date topographic documentation, how will alignment with cadastral data be ensured, and how will future disputes and corrective procedures be prevented? In practice, the absence of such documentation risks deferring problems, ultimately increasing costs for both citizens and the State.

Finally, it is highlighted that buyers could face substantial risks, including incorrect financial liabilities, building restrictions due to unresolved planning issues, access limitations, inconsistencies with cadastral records, or undisclosed encumbrances. Consequently, removing the obligation to submit topographic diagrams neither guarantees the smooth registration of notarial deeds nor the security of transactions, and may instead result in delays, higher costs, and increased legal uncertainty.