Published: June 18, 2026<\/p>\n\n
Luc\u00eda Goy Mastromiechele Aranza Montero Guizar<\/strong><\/p>\n\n Real Estate Legal Advisor at Gentile Law<\/p>\n\n Summary<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n As of April 3, 2025, any property owner was free to rent out their home for short-term tourism purposes, unless their homeowners\u2019 association (hereinafter, \u201cAssociation\u201d) had expressly prohibited it. Organic Law 1\/2025, dated January 2, on measures regarding the efficiency of the Public Justice Service (hereinafter \u201cLO 1\/2025\u201d), has radically altered this rule by amending Law 49\/1960, of July 21, on Condominium Ownership (hereinafter \u201cLPH\u201d): as of that date, short-term rentals are prohibited in all buildings under condominium ownership, unless the Association has expressly approved them. An owner who wishes to engage in this activity must obtain such approval before commencing the activity. <\/p>\n\n In this context, one of the questions most frequently raised in practice is whether a vacation rental is valid when the regional government expressly agrees not to prohibit it. Given that the law has been in effect for just over a year and its interpretation has not yet been fully established, the most prudent approach is to adhere to the literal wording of the law: the LPH requires express authorization, and any agreement that does not clearly and unequivocally include such authorization may not be sufficient to authorize the activity. <\/p>\n\n I. Vacation Rentals and Seasonal Leases: Two Distinct Systems<\/strong><\/p>\n\n Before analyzing the authorization system, it is important to clarify what type of activity we are discussing, because not all short-term rentals are subject to the same rules. Law 29\/1994, of November 24, on Urban Leases (hereinafter, \u201cLAU\u201d) distinguishes between two distinct scenarios. <\/p>\n\n A tourist accommodation (hereinafter \u201cVUT\u201d) is defined in Article 5(e) of the LAU:<\/p>\n\n the temporary transfer of the right to use an entire furnished and equipped dwelling that is ready for immediate occupancy, marketed or advertised through tourism channels or by any other means of marketing, carried out for profit, and subject to a specific regulatory framework derived from sector-specific tourism regulations.<\/em><\/p>\n\n When all these elements are present, the residence is excluded from the scope of the LAU and subject to regional tourism regulations. It is precisely this activity that, as of April 3, 2025, requires prior authorization from the Community. <\/p>\n\n Seasonal leases, on the other hand, fall under Article 3 of the LAU as leases for uses other than residential. Its defining characteristic is the temporary nature of the occupancy\u2014not its duration\u2014and it applies when not all the requirements of Article 5(e) of the LAU are met, particularly the requirement to comply with sector-specific tourism regulations. This type of lease does not require prior authorization from the Community: it is a right inherent in property ownership that the owner may freely exercise. However, a community wishing to prohibit it entirely must do so through a bylaw amendment adopted unanimously by all owners, in accordance with Article 17.6 of the LPH, with the corresponding registration to ensure its full enforceability against third parties. A three-fifths majority is not sufficient to impose an absolute ban on seasonal rentals. <\/p>\n\n II. What the Law Requires: Express and Prior Authorization <\/strong><\/p>\n\n Article 7.3 of the LPH, introduced by Organic Law 1\/2025, establishes that an owner who wishes to engage in the activity of VUT must first obtain the express approval of the Community, in accordance with the terms of Article 17.12 of the LPH. What the law requires is an enabling, affirmative, and express resolution: it is not sufficient that there be no prior prohibition, nor is it sufficient to have a resolution whose sole purpose is to confirm that there is no veto. This distinction is important: \u201cnot prohibiting\u201d does not necessarily equate to \u201cexpressly approving.\u201d An agreement that is limited to the former, without containing the approval required by law, could be considered insufficient to legally authorize the activity. <\/p>\n\n In the plenary rulings of October 3, 2024[1]<\/a>, the Civil Chamber held that a three-fifths majority was sufficient to impose a total ban on tourism activities, without requiring unanimity. Organic Law 1\/2025 expressly adopted this case law by incorporating the term \u201cprohibit\u201d into Article 17.12 of the LPH, thereby dispelling any interpretive doubts on the matter. This criterion was subsequently reaffirmed by the Court itself in a 2025 ruling[2]<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n III. Consequences of Noncompliance and Transitional Provisions <\/strong><\/p>\n\n An owner who engages in VUT activities without the express and prior approval of the Community is subject to legal consequences. Article 7.3 of the LPH authorizes the president, on his or her own initiative or at the request of any owner, to demand the immediate cessation of the activity under threat of legal action. If the violation persists, the Community may bring an action for cessation under Article 7 of the LPH: the judge may order permanent cessation, compensation for damages, and, depending on the severity, the revocation of the right to use the dwelling for up to three years. If the offender is not the owner, the termination of their rights and eviction may be ordered. In addition, when processing the short-term rental registration number, the registrar must verify that there are no impediments; otherwise, the registrar may suspend the registration number and block listings on platforms. <\/p>\n\n The reform does not affect those who were already engaged in the activity prior to April 3, 2025, and were subject to the sector-specific tourism regulations: the second additional provision of the LPH allows them to continue under the terms and deadlines of those regulations, without needing to obtain the new prior EU authorization. This protection requires, in any case, that both the commencement of the activity and the tourism license predate that date. When the license was issued after that date, the requirement for prior authorization applies in full, including for registration purposes. <\/p>\n\n IV. Conclusions and Recommendations <\/strong><\/p>\n\n Ultimately, the most prudent approach\u2014and the one that best aligns with the literal wording of the law\u2014is to always seek the Community\u2019s express authorization, adopted by a three-fifths majority, even when the bylaws already provide that the activity is not prohibited. A resolution that merely notes the absence of a prohibition, without including an explicit approval in the terms required by the LPH, may not be sufficient to legally authorize the activity. This caution is further justified by the fact that the law has only recently come into effect and case law on these interpretive nuances remains limited. Over time, judicial doctrine will become more established and provide greater certainty in practical application; until then, it is best to adhere strictly to what the law expressly provides and not equate provisions that the legislature has clearly distinguished. <\/p>\n\n If you need help or advice on the need to file the informative declaration on assets abroad, at Gentile Law we have a team of experts in the field ready to advise you.<\/p>\n\n Contact us:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n Luc\u00eda Goy Mastromiechele<\/strong><\/p>\n\n Founding Partner of GentileLawluciagoy@goygentile.com Miguel Espinosa Garc\u00eda<\/strong><\/p>\n\n Associate at Gentile Law<\/p>\n\n miguelespinosa@gentile.law<\/a><\/p>\n\n +34 604 510 566<\/em><\/p>\n\n This publication is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.<\/em><\/p>\n\n
\n\n