The permit application has an annex the applicant does not fill in. Form F_A_01 says so directly, under the title: the anexă tehnică is drawn up by the designer of the documentation. It is where the project turns into numbers, and one of those numbers is got wrong systematically.
What gets filled in, and when
The annex is not completed in full every time. The form splits it explicitly: points 2 to 9 are for clădiri and for interventions on existing buildings, while points 10 to 13 are for amenajări and lucrări inginerești. For an amenajare that also includes buildings, the first block is completed too.
So a file for a fence or a utility connection does not carry the same fields as one for a house, even though both start from the same form.
Point 3, three columns and four rows
The area table has three columns: suprafață construită, suprafață desfășurată, suprafață utilă. Down the side it has existing buildings, with two sub-rows, demolished and retained, then proposed buildings, then the total.
The total row is not left open. The form prints its formula in brackets: retained plus proposed.
Why existing buildings stay out of the total
It is the easiest row in the annex to get wrong, because instinct says a total adds up the column. It does not. Existing buildings appear in the table to show where you are starting from, and out of them some are demolished and some are kept. After the works, what stands on the plot is what you retained plus what you built. That is exactly what the total row asks for.
Add the existing buildings into the total and you count the retained part twice, plus once more for the part you are about to demolish. The result matches neither the site plan nor the urbanism indicators, and the disagreement shows up late, at checking.
A file with no demolitions has an empty demolished sub-row and a total that happens to equal the plain sum. That is why the mistake never shows on houses built on clear land and appears only on interventions.
What else sits in the same annex
Point 2 holds the site data, including the minimum setbacks from the alignment and from the three boundaries, plus the POT and CUT, each with a row for existing and a row for proposed. Point 4 is the building sheet, one for each property.
Point 6 gathers utilities, garages and parking, and exterior works: driveways including ground-level parking, footpaths, other ground-level platforms, bicycle parking, green areas, and trees, counted in three states, felled, retained and planted.
Point 9 is the communication into the register, with the NIS assigned or confirmed and the investment code, a subject covered in the Registrul național al construcțiilor.
Where a badly filled annex shows
These numbers do not stay in the annex. They are compared against the site plan, covered in the site plan, and against the regime in the urbanism certificate. Who checks the project, and how far that check goes, depends on the consequence class.
The new forms, and how they differ from what circulates on town-hall websites, are in the Cod applies, the norms are missing. The list of pieces required in your case comes through the urbanism certificate, described on the page about the urbanism certificate.
One row you can check in ten seconds
Before the file leaves, look at the total row in point 3 and check a single operation: retained plus proposed. If what you see there is the sum of every row above it, the annex is saying something different from the project.
This article is analysis, not legal advice. The forms cited are from Ordinul 975/2026, published in Monitorul Oficial no. 711 bis of 26 August 2026. Romanian legal terms are kept in the original, because the Romanian text is the one that governs.