The ban on tourist accommodation in condominiums continues to generate conflicts between owners, especially in urban areas where this type of activity has become a relevant source of income. In a recent case in Spain, a resident decided to go to court after the community of owners approved a ban on tourist apartments in the building. The court ended up validating the collective decision, understanding that the deliberation respected the applicable legal rules.
At issue was a building where, in an assembly, the amendment of the statutes was approved to prevent the tourist use of the units. The decision was taken with a qualified majority and, according to the news, it ended up being registered in the Property Register.
The assembly’s decision and the resident’s reaction
According to Noticias Trabajo, the agreement was approved with more than 73% of the votes and met the so-called double majority required: at least three-fifths of the total number of owners and their respective shares. Even so, one of the owners challenged the decision in court, arguing that it was an absolute prohibition and, therefore, invalid.
The resident claimed that the law would only allow “limiting” or “conditioning” tourist activity, but not prohibiting it completely. The community responded by supporting the legality of the agreement and gathered documentation to prove participation and the validity of the representations at the assembly.
Court confirms validity of ban
The Provincial Audiencia of Huesca, according to the sentence cited by the same publication (dated September 2, 2025), revoked the first instance decision and validated the deliberation adopted in the assembly.
The court relied on the doctrine of the Supreme Court, which has understood that it is possible for communities to prohibit tourist exploitation when the qualified majority provided for in the Horizontal Property Law is reached.
Furthermore, Spanish law itself, in its article 17.12, expressly provides that the community can approve, limit, condition or prohibit this type of activity with a three-fifths majority and determines that the agreement does not have retroactive effects, a rule that in practice points to “forward” application.
Regarding registration: the Horizontal Property Law establishes that statutes do not harm third parties if they are not registered, which explains why registration in the Property Register is often used to reinforce the enforceability of the approved regime.
A relevant precedent for other condominiums
This type of dispute arises in a context of greater pressure on residential buildings, with recurring complaints linked to guest turnover and the impact on coexistence. In the reported case, the court valued the required majority verification and supporting documentation, rejecting arguments of invalidity based on failures of participation and representations.
Even so, it is important to note a procedural detail: it states that the decision was not final and that it allowed an appeal to the Supreme Court.
And what implications could it have in Portugal?
In Portugal, the discussion is similar, but the framework is different and is now more “black and white” in the Local Accommodation Legal Regime (RJAL).
According to the consolidated text of Decree-Law No. 128/2014, the operation of local accommodation in an autonomous unit does not, in itself, constitute “use other than the purpose” (the diploma itself expressly refers to art. 1422.º, no. 2, al. c), of the Civil Code), unless there is a prohibition in the constitutive title, in a condominium regulation that forms an integral part of it, or through subsequent deliberation.
And here is the key rule: the same law provides that the subsequent deliberation to prohibit local accommodation, via the creation/amendment of the condominium regulations, must be approved by a majority representing two thirds of the building’s permilage and only takes effect for the future, applying only to registration requests submitted after that deliberation.
In other words, as in the Spanish case, the trend is clear: when the qualified majority and the legal form are met, the collective decision gains strength but, as a rule, with non-retroactive effects.
Also read:
