Impropriety of Denying Conforming Land Use Without Express Prohibition in the Zoning PlanImprocedencia de denegar uso de suelo conforme sin prohibición expresa en el Plan Regulador

**I.- Background.** The representative of the appellant company filed before the Municipality of Desamparados a request for a land-use certificate (certificado de uso de suelo) to dedicate the property located in El Porvenir de Desamparados, Las Cascadas Development (Urbanización Las Cascadas), cadastral map SJ-486741-1998, to the activity of "rental of ice-producing machines." In Land-Use Certificate No. UPT-CUS-0912-2018, issued by the Urban Planning Department (Dirección de Urbanismo), it was indicated that the use is "NON-CONFORMING," according to Article 83 of the Territorial Zoning Plan (Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial), since the property is located in a High-Density Residential Zone. Having challenged said act, the Mayor confirmed it in Resolution No. MD-AM-121-18 of September 13, 2018, basing his position on the fact that the activity is not regulated since it is not found within the list of conforming, non-conforming, and conditional uses developed in Articles 82, 83, and 84 of the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador). Considering it a commercial activity, he supplemented the Regulatory Plan with the new INVU Regulation, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 54 of March 22, 2018, Scope 62, effective since July 31, 2018, whose Article 11 provides that the commercial uses permitted in a development are a small grocery store (pulpería), a grocery store (abastecedor), and supermarkets.

**II.- Grounds for Appeal.** The representative of the company alleges that since the activity of renting ice machines is not contemplated in Articles 82, 83, and 84 of the Regulatory Plan, whether as a permitted or non-permitted activity, it is not legally correct to conclude that it is contrary to the purpose of that type of zone and, given that this was not the reason for the rejection, the decision is contrary to the regulated nature of a land-use certificate. She adds that in this same property, this commercial exercise has been previously authorized, since she has two companies and now intends for one of them to carry out the same activity.

**III.- On the Merits.** Our legal system has entrusted local corporations with most matters relating to urban planning regulation, since they are responsible for the administration of local interests and services, as provided in Article 169 of the Political Constitution (see also the Municipal Code, Article 13 subsection o), the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones), and the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente)). Articles 15 and 19 of the Urban Planning Law recognize the authority each municipality has to plan urban development within the limits of its territory, in accordance with the regulations and regulatory plans it enacts to that effect, which entails a prior enabling control or “permit” and/or “license,” accompanied by oversight activity in the execution of the authorized activity, so that it is carried out in accordance with the granted license or permit and the environmental regulations governing the activity. Precisely, said regulations are of public order, thus imposing compliance on those governed, as they form part of the content of the property right, insofar as they establish the authorized or legitimate scope of its exercise, containing some of the limitations authorized by Article 45 of the Constitution, on the understanding that no dispossession of private property nor deprivation of the primary attribute of ownership occurs.

**IV.-** Regarding the specific case, the municipality interprets that the use of renting ice-producing machines that the appellant wishes to give to the property located in El Porvenir de Desamparados, Las Cascadas Development, cadastral map SJ-486741-1998, is not permitted by the Regulatory Plan of the Canton of Desamparados. This Court has reviewed the full text of said regulations and finds no provision that expressly prohibits that use in the canton. The municipality concluded that since it is located in a High-Density Residential Zone, and since the activity is not expressly authorized, a restriction does exist. The review of legality regarding the criterion outlined by the local authorities requires examination of the cited regulations, the transcription of which is useful for these purposes:

Article 81.—Purpose: The purpose of this zone is to maximize the use of existing infrastructure, in terms of networks and services, to favor densification. This zone is identified on the land-use zoning map in intense yellow. Article 82.—Conforming Uses: single-family and multi-family housing. Article 83.—Non-Conforming Uses: shopping centers, gyms, places of worship, restaurants, service workshops, industry, bars, party and dance halls, liquor stores, discotheques or similar, pool halls and billiard halls, electronic games or foosball tables, veterinary clinics, car washes, stationary cycling studios, pet sales. Article 84.—Conditional Uses: shelters, nursing homes, community homes, laundries and clothes drying, copy and plotting centers, bazaars, bookstores, daycare centers, small eateries without public entertainment (sodas sin espectáculo público), grocery stores (abastecedores), internet cafés, bakeries, greengrocers, pharmacies, tailoring, shoe repair, plant sales, community homes, ice cream parlors, EBAIS, medical centers or clinics.

Certainly, these articles provide that High-Density Residential Zones tend to be designated mainly for residential use, reinforced by those services that are useful for human conglomerates. However, no express prohibition is observed regarding the activity intended by the appellant, which leads us to conclude that the activity is simply not prohibited. It is important to note that the Mayor’s analysis inverted the logical examination required by urban planning matters, because when dealing with limitations on fundamental rights such as the right to private property and the exercise of commerce, the interpretation of zoning regulations must be restrictive, understood as in favor of human development and the right involved (pro hómine and pro libertatis principles). It is therefore clear that the way in which the local authorities interpreted and applied the current urban planning regulation, excluding an activity that has no prohibition whatsoever, illegally created a limitation on the use and disposition of private property that does not arise from the cited provisions, which is an incorrect legal exercise. Another error incurred by the local corporation was that, in the absence of a prohibition in the Regulatory Plan, they supplemented it with the most recent and current INVU Construction Regulation, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 54 of March 22, 2018, Scope 62, effective since July 31, 2018, whose Article 11 provides that the commercial uses permitted in a development are a small grocery store (pulpería), a grocery store (abastecedor), and supermarkets. It must be noted that these rules are construction regulations and not zoning regulations, issued by the governing body in the matter of residential developments —INVU—, which must be applied to new development projects so as to allow them to incorporate that class of grocery outlets useful and necessary for human consumption, previously not provided for in the repealed Regulation. The Mayor therefore errs in understanding that the INVU construction regulation supplements the cantonal zoning regulation, illegally imposing limitations on land use that do not emanate from the Regulatory Plan, which lack the capacity to modify or repeal it, disregarding the authorization that in residential zones is usually given regarding other possible uses, such as commercial uses, among others, which are typically par excellence. It is incorrect to understand that this INVU Regulation imposes new limitations on land use and, even less so, can it be applied to already existing developments, as has occurred in the present case. It must be emphasized that the limitations on land use in Desamparados are only those issued by the town council, which is the competent entity for that purpose, in accordance with its Territorial Zoning Plan, such that the INVU Construction Regulation supplements urban planning matters only regarding new residential developments and solely for construction purposes, it being impossible for it to displace, repeal, or supplement the local urban zoning regulations, which have a higher rank of material law due to their potency and resistance, as indicated by the Constitutional Chamber, even though they are not so in the formal sense since they have not undergone the legislative procedure. That Regulation is inapplicable when the issuance of a land-use certificate is requested, and, therefore, the actions taken created a limitation emanating from a regulation that is not a zoning regulation, which violates property and free commerce rights, which is illegitimate. As long as there is no zoning regulation that limits said activity within the Canton of Desamparados, it is not possible to prevent it. The application of the law carried out by the municipal authorities is incorrect and, therefore, it is appropriate to uphold the complaints claiming the absence of a limitation, such that the appeal filed must be granted, and Resolution No. MD-AM-121-18 of September 13, 2018, issued by the Mayor of Desamparados, which is under appeal, must be annulled. The same fate must befall Land-Use Certificate No. UPT-CUS-0912-2018, issued by the Urban Planning Department, as it maintains the same argumentative line as the Mayor’s act, so it is also annulled in this act. In its place, the grievances being well-founded, the Municipality of Desamparados must issue the conforming land use, so that the appellant may allocate the property to the required purpose.

The legality review of the criterion outlined by the local authorities requires an examination of the cited regulations, the transcription of which is useful for these purposes:

*Article 81.-Purpose: The purpose of this zone is to maximize the use of existing infrastructure, in terms of networks and services, to favor densification. This zone is identified on the land-use zoning map in intense yellow.* *Article 82.-Conforming Uses: single-family and multi-family housing.* *Article 83.-Non-Conforming Uses: shopping centers, gyms, places of worship, restaurants, service workshops, industry, bars, party and dance halls, liquor stores, discotheques or similar, pool halls and billiards, electronic games or foosball tables, veterinary clinics, car washes, stationary bicycle practice rooms, pet sales.* *Article 84.-Conditional Uses: shelters, nursing homes, community homes, laundries and clothes drying, copy and plotting centers, bazaars, bookstores, daycare centers, small eateries without public entertainment, grocery stores (abastecedores), internet cafés, bakeries, greengrocers, pharmacies, tailoring, shoe repair, plant sales, community homes, ice cream parlors, EBAIS, medical centers or clinics.* Certainly, these provisions establish that the High-Density Residential Zone is intended primarily for residential use, reinforced by those services that are useful for human conglomerates. However, no express prohibition of the activity sought by the appellant is observed, which leads us to conclude that the activity is simply not prohibited. It is important to note that the Mayor's analysis inverted the logical examination required by urban planning matters, since when dealing with limitations on fundamental rights such as the right to private property and the exercise of commerce, the interpretation of zoning regulations must be restrictive, meaning, in favor of human development and the right involved (pro homine and pro libertatis principles). Therefore, it is clear that the manner in which the local authorities interpreted and applied the current urban planning regulation, excluding an activity that finds no prohibition whatsoever, illegally created a limitation on the use and disposition of private property that does not derive from the cited regulations, which constitutes an incorrect legal exercise. Another error incurred by the local corporation was that, in the absence of a prohibition in the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador), they integrated it with the most recent and current INVU Construction Regulations, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 54 of March 22, 2018, Alcance 62, in effect since July 31, 2018, whose Article 11 provides that the commercial uses permitted in a subdivision (urbanización) are small grocery stores (pulperías), grocery stores (abastecedores), and supermarkets. It must be noted that these standards are construction regulations and not zoning regulations, emanating from the governing body on residential developments—INVU—which are to be applied to new subdivision projects in order to allow the incorporation of these types of grocery outlets useful and necessary for human consumption, not previously provided for in the repealed Regulation. Therefore, the Mayor erred in understanding that the INVU construction regulations integrate the cantonal zoning regulation, illegally imposing land-use limitations not emanating from the Regulatory Plan, which lack the capacity to modify or repeal it, disregarding the authorization that is usually given in residential zones for other possible uses, such as commercial uses par excellence, among others. It is incorrect to understand that this INVU Regulation imposes new limitations on land use and, even less so, can be applied to already existing subdivisions (urbanizaciones), as has occurred in the present case. It must be emphasized that land-use limitations in Desamparados are solely those issued by the municipality, which is the competent authority for this purpose, in accordance with its Land-Use Plan (Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial); thus, the INVU Construction Regulations integrate urban planning matters only with respect to new residential developments and solely for construction purposes, making it impossible for it to displace, repeal, or integrate the local urban zoning regulations, which have a superior rank of material law due to their potency and resistance, as indicated by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), even though they are not so in a formal sense because they have not undergone the legislative procedure. That Regulation is inapplicable when the issuance of a land-use certificate (certificado de uso de suelo) is requested, and, therefore, the actions taken created a limitation emanating from a regulation that is not a zoning regulation, which violates property rights and free commerce, which is illegitimate. As long as there is no zoning regulation that limits said activity within the canton of Desamparados, it is not possible to prevent it. The application of the law by the municipal authorities is incorrect and, therefore, it is appropriate to uphold the grievances claiming the absence of limitation, so that the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed must be granted, and the resolution under appeal, No. MD-AM-121-18 of September 13, 2018, issued by the Mayor of Desamparados, must be annulled. The same fate must befall the Land-Use Certificate (Certificado de Uso de Suelo) No.

UPT- CUS-0912-2018, issued by the Urban Planning Directorate, given that it maintains the same line of argument as the Mayor's act, and is therefore also annulled in this act. In its place, the grievances being accepted, the Municipality of Desamparados must issue the compliant land use, so that the appellant party may destine the property to the required end." Articles 15 and 19 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana) recognize the authority vested in each municipality to plan urban development within the limits of its territory, in accordance with the regulations and regulatory plans it issues for that purpose, which entails a prior enabling control or "permit" (permiso) and/or "license" (licencia), accompanied by the oversight activity in the execution of the authorized activity, to ensure it is carried out in accordance with the granted license or permit and the environmental regulations governing the activity. Precisely, such regulation is a matter of public policy, and therefore requires the submission of the governed parties, since it forms part of the content of the right to property, insofar as it establishes the authorized or legitimate scope of its exercise, by containing some of the limitations authorized by Article 45 of the Constitution, on the understanding that there is no dispossession of private property nor deprivation of the primary attribute of ownership.

**IV.-** With regard to the specific case, the municipality interprets that the use of renting ice-producing machines that the appellant wishes to give to the property located in El Porvenir de Desamparados, Urbanización Las Cascadas, cadastral map SJ-486741-1998, is not permitted by the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) of the Canton of Desamparados. This Tribunal has reviewed the full text of said regulation and finds no rule that expressly prohibits that use in the canton. The municipality concluded that since it is located in a High-Density Residential Zone, and the activity is not expressly authorized, a restriction does exist. The legality review of the criterion outlined by the local authorities requires the examination of the cited regulations, the transcription of which is useful for these purposes:

*Article 81.-Purpose: The purpose of this zone is to maximize the use of existing infrastructure, in terms of networks and services, to favor densification. This zone is identified on the land-use zoning map in intense yellow.* *Article 82.-Conforming Uses: single-family and multi-family housing.* *Article 83.-Non-Conforming Uses: shopping centers, gyms, places of worship, restaurants, service workshops, industry, bars, party and dance halls, liquor stores, discotheques or similar, pool halls and billiards, electronic games or foosball tables, veterinary clinics, car washes, stationary bicycle practice rooms, pet sales.* *Article 84.-Conditional Uses: shelters, nursing homes, community homes, laundries and clothes drying, copy and plotting centers, bazaars, bookstores, daycare centers, small eateries without public entertainment, grocery stores, internet cafés, bakeries, greengrocers, pharmacies, tailor shops, shoe repair, plant sales, community homes, ice cream parlors, EBAIS, medical centers or clinics.* Certainly, these provisions stipulate that the High-Density Residential Zone is intended primarily for residential use, reinforced by those services that are useful for human conglomerates. However, no express prohibition of the activity sought by the appellant is observed, which leads us to conclude that the activity is simply not prohibited. It is important to note that the Mayor's analysis reversed the logical examination required by urban planning matters, since when dealing with limitations on fundamental rights such as the right to private property and the exercise of commerce, the interpretation of zoning rules must be restrictive, meaning, in favor of human development and the right involved (pro homine and pro libertatis principles). Therefore, it is clear that the manner in which the local authorities interpreted and applied the current urban planning regulation, excluding an activity that finds no prohibition whatsoever, illegally created a limitation on the use and disposition of private property that does not derive from the cited rules, which is an incorrect legal exercise. Another error incurred by the local corporation was that, in the absence of a prohibition in the Regulatory Plan, they integrated it with the most recent and current Construction Regulations of INVU, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 54 of March 22, 2018, Scope 62, in force since July 31, 2018, whose Article 11 provides that the commercial uses permitted in a subdivision (urbanización) are a small grocery store (pulpería), grocery store (abastecedor), and supermarkets. It must be noted that these rules are construction regulations and not zoning regulations, issued by the governing body for residential developments -INVU-, which are to be applied to new subdivision projects in order to allow the incorporation of such classes of grocery-vending premises that are useful and necessary for human consumption, not previously provided for in the repealed Regulation. Therefore, the Mayor errs in understanding that the INVU construction regulations integrate cantonal zoning regulation, illegally imposing land-use limitations not emanating from the Regulatory Plan, which lack the capacity to modify or repeal it, disregarding the authorization that in residential zones is usually given regarding other possible uses, such as commercial uses par excellence, among others. It is incorrect to understand that this INVU Regulation imposes new limitations on land use and, even less so, that it can be applied to already existing subdivisions, as has occurred in the present case.

It must be emphasized that the limitations on land use in Desamparados are solely those issued by the municipality, which is the competent authority for this purpose, in accordance with its Land-Use Plan (Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial), such that the Construction Regulations (Reglamento de Construcciones) of the INVU only integrate urban planning matters with respect to new residential developments and solely for construction purposes, it being impossible for this regulation to displace, repeal, or integrate the local urban zoning regulations (normativa local urbanística de zonificación), which hold a higher rank of material law (ley material) due to their force and resistance, as indicated by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), even though they are not so in a formal sense because they have not undergone the legislative procedure. Said Regulation is inapplicable when the issuance of a land-use certificate (certificado de uso de suelo) is requested and, therefore, the actions taken created a limitation emanating from a norm that is not a zoning norm, which violates property rights and free trade, which is illegitimate. As long as no zoning regulation exists that limits said activity within the canton of Desamparados, it cannot be prevented. The application of the law by the municipal authorities is incorrect and, consequently, the proper course is to uphold the grievances claiming the absence of a limitation, such that the filed appeal (recurso de apelación) must be granted and the resolution under appeal, No. MD-AM-121-18 of September 13, 2018, issued by the Mayor of Desamparados, must be annulled. The same fate must befall the Land-Use Certificate (Certificado de Uso de Suelo) No. UPT-CUS-0912-2018, issued by the Urban Planning Directorate (Dirección de Urbanismo), given that it maintains the same line of argument as the Mayor’s act, for which reason it is also annulled in this act. In its place, the grievances being accepted, the Municipality of Desamparados shall issue the conforming land use, so that the appellant may dedicate the property to the required purpose."

"I.- Antecedentes. La representante de la sociedad recurrente presentó ante la Municipalidad de Desamparados, solicitud de certificado de uso de suelo para dedicar a la actividad de "alquiler de máquinas productoras de hielo", la finca ubicada en el Porvenir de Desamparados, Urbanización Las Cascadas, plano catastrado SJ-486741-1998. En Certificado de Uso de Suelo No. UPT- CUS-0912-2018, emitido por la Dirección de Urbanismo, se le indicó que el uso es "NO CONFORME", según el artículo 83 del Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial, pues la finca se encuentra en Zona Residencial de Alta Densidad. Habiendo impugnado dicho acto, el Alcalde lo confirmó, en la resolución No. MD-AM-121-18 del 13 de setiembre del 2018, sustentando su posición en que la actividad no está regulada al no encontrarse dentro del listado de usos conformes, no conformes y condicionales, desarrollados en los ordinales 82, 83 y 84 del Plan Regulador. Al estimarla como una actividad comercial, integró el Plan Regulador con el nuevo Reglamento del INVU, publicado en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta No. 54 del 22 de marzo del 2018, Alcance 62, vigentes desde el 31 de julio del 2018, cuyo artículo 11 dispone que los usos comerciales permitidos en una urbanización son pulpería, abastecedor y supermercados.

II.- Motivos de agravio. La representante de la sociedad alega que dado que la actividad de alquiler de máquinas de hielo no está contemplada en los artículos 82, 83 y 84 del Plan Regulador, ya fuere como una actividad permitida o no permitida, no es jurídicamente correcto concluir que es contraria al propósito para ese tipo de zona y, dado que ello no fue motivo del rechazo, lo resuelto es contrario a la naturaleza reglada de un certificado de uso de suelo. Agrega que en ese mismo inmueble ha sido autorizada previamente ese ejercicio comercial, pues tiene dos sociedades y ahora pretende que una de ellas ejerza la misma actividad.

III.- Sobre el fondo. Nuestro ordenamiento jurídico ha entregado a las corporaciones locales, la mayoría de los temas relativos a la regulación urbanística, pues son las encargadas de la administración de los intereses y servicios locales, conforme lo dispone el artículo 169 de la Constitución Política (ver además, Código Municipal, artículo 13 inciso o), la Ley de Planificación Urbana, Ley de Construcciones y la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente). Los artículos 15 y 19 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana reconocen la competencia que dispone cada municipalidad para planificar el desarrollo urbano dentro de los límites de su territorio, conforme a los reglamentos y planes reguladores que al efecto dicten, lo cual supone un control previo de habilitación o "permiso" y/o “licencia”, acompañado de la actividad de fiscalización en la ejecución de la actividad autorizada, a fin de que se realice conforme a la licencia o permiso concedido y a las regulaciones ambientales que rigen la actividad. Precisamente, dicha normativa es de orden público, por lo que impone el sometimiento de los administrados, pues integra el contenido del derecho de propiedad, en tanto establece el ámbito autorizado o legítimo de su ejercicio, al contener algunas de las limitaciones autorizadas por el artículo 45 constitucional, bajo el entendido de que no se produce un despojo de la propiedad privada ni la privación del atributo primario del dominio.

IV.- En lo que se refiere al caso concreto, la municipalidad interpreta que el uso de alquiler de máquinas productoras de hielo que quiere darle la apelante a la finca ubicada en el Porvenir de Desamparados, Urbanización Las Cascadas, plano catastrado SJ-486741-1998, no está permitida por el Plan Regulador del Cantón de Desamparados. Este Tribunal ha revisado el texto integral de dicha normativa, y no encuentra norma alguna que prohíba expresamente ese uso en el cantón. La municipalidad concluyó que al ubicarse en Zona Residencial de Alta Densidad, al no autorizarse expresamente la actividad, sí existe restricción. El examen de legalidad sobre el criterio esbozado por las autoridades locales, exige la revisión de la normativa de cita, que para los efectos es útil su transcripción:

Artículo 81.-Propósito: El propósito de esta zona es aprovechar al máximo la infraestructura existente, en términos de redes y servicios para favorecer la densificación. Esta zona se identifica en el mapa de zonificación de usos del suelo, en color amarillo intenso.

Artículo 82.-Usos Conformes: vivienda unifamiliar y multifamiliar.

Artículo 83.-Usos No Conformes: centros comerciales, gimnasios, locales de culto, restaurantes, talleres de servicios, industria, bares, salones de fiestas y de baile, licoreras, discotecas o similares, pooles y billares, juegos electrónicos o futbolines, clínicas veterinarias, lavados de autos, salas para práctica de bicicleta estacionaria, venta de mascotas.

Artículo 84.-Usos Condicionales: albergues, asilos, hogares comunitarios, lavanderías y secado de ropa, centros de copiado y ploteo, bazares, librerías, guarderías, sodas sin espectáculo público, abastecedores, cafés Internet, panaderías, verdulerías, farmacias, sastrería, reparación de calzado, venta de plantas, hogares comunitarios, heladerías, EBAIS, centros médicos o clínicas.

Ciertamente estos numerales disponen que la Zona Residencial de Alta Densidad tienden a que esa zona se disponga principalmente para uso habitacional, reforzado con aquellos servicios que son útiles para los conglomerados humanos. Sin embargo, no se aprecia una prohibición expresa a la actividad pretendida por la parte apelante, lo cual nos lleva a concluir que la actividad simplemente no se encuentra prohibida. Es importante acotar que el análisis del Alcalde invirtió el examen lógico que exige la materia urbanística, pues al tratarse de limitaciones sobre derechos fundamentales como son el derecho a la propiedad privada y el ejercicio al comercio, la interpretación de las normas de zonificación debe ser restrictiva, entiéndase por ello, a favor del desarrollo del hombre y del derecho involucrado (principios pro hómine y pro libertatis). Por ello es claro que la manera en que las autoridades locales interpretaron y aplicaron la regulación urbanística vigente, excluyendo una actividad que no encuentra prohibición alguna, lo que hizo fue crear de manera ilegal una limitación sobre el uso y disposición de la propiedad privada que no se desprende de las normas de cita, lo cual es un ejercicio jurídico incorrecto. Otro error en que incurrieron en la corporación local fue que ante la ausencia de prohibición en el Plan Regulador, integraron con el más reciente y vigente Reglamento de Construcciones del INVU, publicado en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta No. 54 del 22 de marzo del 2018, Alcance 62, vigente desde el 31 de julio del 2018, cuyo artículo 11 dispone que los usos comerciales permitidos en una urbanización son pulpería, abastecedor y supermercados. Debe advertirse que esas normas son regulaciones de construcción y no de zonificación, emanadas del ente rector en la materia de desarrollos residenciales -INVU-, que ha de aplicarse sobre nuevos proyectos de urbanizaciones a efecto de que se permita incorporarles esa clase de locales expendedores de abarrotes útiles y necesarios para el consumo humano, antes no previsto en el Reglamento derogado. Por ello yerra el Alcalde al entender que la reglamentación de construcciones del INVU es integradora de la regulación de zonificación cantonal, imponiendo ilegalmente limitaciones sobre el uso de suelo no emanadas del Plan Regulador, que carecen de la capacidad de modificarlo o derogarlo, desconociendo la autorización que en zonas residenciales suele darse respecto de otros posibles usos, como suelen ser por excelencia los comerciales, entre otros. Es incorrecto entender que ese Reglamento del INVU impone nuevas limitaciones sobre el uso de suelo y, menos aún se puede aplicar sobre urbanizaciones ya existentes, como ha ocurrido en el presente caso. Debe hacerse énfasis que las limitaciones al uso del suelo en Desamparados son únicamente las emanadas por el ayuntamiento, que es el competente al efecto, conforme a su Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial, de modo que el Reglamento de Construcciones del INVU integra la materia urbanística únicamente respecto de nuevos desarrollos residenciales y solo para efectos constructivos, siendo imposible que éste desplace, derogue o integre la normativa local urbanística de zonificación, que tiene rango superior de ley material por su potencia y resistencia, según lo ha indicado la Sala Constitucional, aún y cuando no lo es en sentido formal pues no ha cumplido por el procedimiento legislativo. Ese Reglamento es inaplicable cuando se solicite la expedición de un certificado de uso de suelo y, por ello, con lo actuado se creó una limitación emanada de una norma que no es de zonificación que conculca los derechos de propiedad y libre comercio, lo cual es ilegítimo. En el tanto no exista regulación de zonificación que limite dicha actividad dentro del cantón de Desamparados, no es posible impedirla. La aplicación del derecho que hicieron las autoridades municipales es incorrecta y, por ende, lo procedente es acoger los agravios que reclaman la ausencia de limitación, de modo que se debe declarar con lugar el recurso de apelación interpuesto y anular la resolución venida en alzada, No. MD-AM-121-18 del 13 de setiembre del 2018, dictada por el Alcalde de Desamparados. Misma suerte ha de llevar el Certificado de Uso de Suelo No. UPT- CUS-0912-2018, emitido por la Dirección de Urbanismo dado que mantiene la misma línea argumentativa del acto del Alcalde, por lo que también se anula en este acto. En su lugar, siendo los agravios de recibo, deberá expedir la Municipalidad de Desamparados el uso de suelo conforme, de manera que la parte recurrente pueda destinar el inmueble al fin requerido."