Facts
In 1989, the municipality of Pontresina granted [D.] the permit to build a three-family house ("Chesa [E.] ") on plot no. 2450. By decision of October 8, 1993, it also approved a modification request that provided for a sauna instead of a laundry room on the ground floor. It imposed the condition that the sauna must never be used and/or sold for residential purposes.
By purchase contract dated December 17, 1998, [A.] and [B.] acquired apartment no. 1 ("[F.] "). On December 22, 2011, they gifted the apartment to their son [C.] . In the course of the summer of 2013, the municipality found that the room approved as a sauna was being used for residential purposes.
By order of January 28, 2014, the municipality imposed a fine of CHF 4,000 on [A.] and [B.] for violation of building police law, with joint and several liability. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal filed against it.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court held that the municipality was entitled to note the use restriction in the land register, as it constituted a direct statutory property restriction. The appellants could not invoke the protection of legitimate expectations, as they should have noticed the discrepancy between the land register entry and the information…