After decades of experience in urban planning instruments, the Federal Constitution of 1988 bet on the master plan to be the basic instrument of urban development and expansion policy. It is based on meeting the fundamental requirements of ordering the city contained in this master plan that the social function of urban property, the basic principle of the Right to the City, is fulfilled. To the extent that it is approved by law, the planning instrument becomes part of the legal system and, by constitutional provision, it is a validity parameter for the existence of other urban laws that deal with the ordering of the territory of cities. There is a need to understand the master plan as an instrument, law and urban normative microsystem, as suggested by the legislation of the State of Parana. Through the exploratory methodology, by deductive and inductive methods applied to the bibliographic review of the theme and the judicial decision issued by the Supreme Federal Court, in the Extraordinary Appeal 607.940 / DF, with general repercussion, the present work aims to point out possibilities of coordination between the urban laws and the master plan, from the examination of the constitutionality of the norms, either before the promulgation of these norms, or, once enacted, the ways to exclude them from the legal system, if they are in disagreement with the master plan, in order to guarantee the effectiveness of the Right to the City. The approach also highlights the control of constitutionality through the Constitutions of the Member States, since the master plans and their related legislation are a species of municipal laws.
