The Supreme Court has put an end to one of the most heated debates in recent years on the subject of condominiums: can residents’ associations completely ban tourist flats within their buildings? The answer is a resounding yes. In its ruling 1025/2025 of 2 September, the Civil Chamber confirmed the validity of a neighbourhood agreement adopted in Segovia in January 2019 that expressly prohibited the tourist use of dwellings. Two co-owners appealed the decision, arguing that the law only allowed this type of rental to be “limited or conditioned,” but the Supreme Court rejected their arguments and upheld the ban.
The dispute arose when, six years ago, the community decided at an extraordinary meeting to close the door to holiday rentals. In the first instance, a court ruled in favour of the dissenting owners and declared the agreement null and void, but the Provincial Court overturned the ruling in 2020. Finally, the Supreme Court has ratified the broader interpretation of Article 17.12 of the Horizontal Property Law (LPH), in force at the time, considering that the verb “limit” includes both the imposition of conditions and an absolute ban, provided that the decision is adopted by the qualified majority of three-fifths required by the law.
This ruling is not an isolated event, but rather the culmination of a line of case law that was already pointing in that direction. In October 2024, the High Court handed down two plenary rulings (1232/2024 and 1233/2024) in which it upheld the same interpretation, clearing up the doubts that had divided judges and jurists for years about the scope of neighbourhood powers in the face of the rise of platforms such as Airbnb.
While the litigation was ongoing, the legislator decided to intervene. Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January came into force last April and has expressly incorporated into the LPH the possibility for communities to “approve, limit, condition or prohibit” tourist activity in their properties. It also establishes that any owner who wishes to use their property for this purpose must have the prior approval of the board, and allows neighbours to impose specific surcharges on those who use their flats as holiday accommodation. The reform also clarifies that the agreements do not have retroactive effect: those who were already legally engaged in the activity before the law came into force may continue to do so, unless they infringe other provisions.
Experts emphasise that, despite this new framework, not everything is permitted. For a ban to be valid, the agreement must be adopted by a three-fifths majority of owners and participation quotas, and be accurately reflected in the statutes. Generic clauses prohibiting “annoying or unhealthy activities” are not sufficient; the Supreme Court has insisted that the reference to tourist use must be explicit. In addition, the agreement must be recorded in a public deed and registered in the Land Registry in order to be effective against third parties.
The Supreme Court ruling and the legislative reform provide definitive support for communities seeking to protect neighbourhood coexistence from the effects of mass holiday rentals. Cities such as Palma, Barcelona and Malaga, where tourist pressure has driven up the residential market and generated conflicts of coexistence, now have stronger tools to curb the growth of these accommodations.
However, the battle does not end here. Owners who purchased their homes as an investment for the tourist market could go to court alleging violation of acquired rights, and it cannot be ruled out that some bans will end up being challenged on the grounds of abuse of rights or lack of proportionality. In addition, the new regulation will have to be coordinated with the various regional regulations on tourist accommodation, which in some cases impose additional requirements.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court closes a chapter of legal uncertainty and opens another of greater neighbourhood control. From now on, communities that meet the legal requirements have the final say in deciding whether or not to open their doors to tourism in their buildings.
