The recent Supreme Court Judgment 3808/2025 dated September 2nd, 2025 (the “Judgment”), represents a landmark ruling in the regulation of tourist rental dwellings within homeowners’ associations in Spain. After years of controversy and diverse judicial and academic interpretations, the Supreme Court has clarified the scope of homeowners’ associations’ agreements to limit, regulate, or even prohibit tourist rentals, establishing a legal doctrine on the meaning of Article 17.12 of the Horizontal Property Act (Ley de Propiedad Horizontal, or “LPH”), according to its wording at the time of the events. This Judgment is particularly relevant for both homeowners’ associations and individuals who use their properties as tourist rentals, due to its impact on neighbourly coexistence and the applicable legal framework.
Origin of the dispute and judicial proceedings
The case originated from a legal challenge brought by the owners of a property located in Segovia, contesting a resolution adopted by their homeowners’ association in January 2019. This resolution, approved by three-fifths of the neighbours and of the ownership quotas, explicitly prohibited the operation of tourist rentals in the building. The plaintiffs argued that, according to the literal wording of Article 17.12 of the LPH – as temporarily amended by Royal Decree-Law 21/2018 – the association could only limit or regulate tourist rentals, but not ban them outright, and therefore the agreement should be declared null and void. The dispute moved through three judicial levels: the Court of First Instance upheld the claim and nullified the agreement; the Provincial Court overturned that decision; and ultimately, the case reached the Supreme Court by way of an appeal.
Legal basis
The core issue of the Judgment lies in the interpretation of Article 17.12 of the LPH, as amended by Royal Decree-Law 21/2018 and later reinstated by Royal Decree-Law 7/2019. The appeal to the Supreme Court argued that the three-fifths qualified majority only allowed communities to limit or regulate such activities, not to prohibit them. However, the Supreme Court rejected this restrictive interpretation, recalling its previous case law – judgments 1232/2024 and 1233/2024, dated October 3rd – which held that the term “limit” also encompasses the ability to prohibit the activity. It concluded that, according to grammatical, semantic, literal, and teleological criteria, the term “limit,” as used in the LPH, does not exclude the possibility that the homeowners’ association, through a qualified majority, may decide to prohibit the tourist rental of dwellings, provided that the formal requirements for the majority are met and no retroactive effects are applied.
This doctrine, adopted by the legislator in the amendment of Article 17.12 of the LPH through Law 1/2025, enables the homeowners’ association to adopt agreements to prohibit, limit, or regulate tourist rentals by a qualified majority of three-fifths, without requiring unanimity. Requiring unanimous consent would render any effective restriction unfeasible, as a single opposing owner could block the collective will of the association.
Practical implications
The Judgment consolidates the ability of homeowners’ associations, by agreement adopted with a three-fifths majority of total owners and ownership shares, to prohibit – in addition to limiting or regulating – the operation of tourist rentals within the building. Such agreements are valid and enforceable as long as they are not applied retroactively and respect the vested rights of those who were already operating such rentals in compliance with existing sectoral regulations. Therefore, those who intend to use their property for tourist rentals must first obtain the express consent of the association, unless the activity was already being carried out legally prior to the enforcement of the prohibition.
In turn, the ruling strengthens the role of the Homeowners’ General Assembly as the decision-making body governing neighbourly life, particularly in regard to activities that may generate conflicts, especially those involving intensive use of common areas, safety issues, or disturbances to the peace and quiet of neighbours.
Connection to the housing crisis
In the current Spanish context, marked by a severe housing access crisis in many cities and tourist areas, the proliferation of tourist-rental dwellings has had a significant impact on reducing the availability of residential housing and driving up rental and sale prices. Various studies and public institutions agree that the conversion of long-term residences into short-term rentals has placed pressure on the housing market, making it more difficult for large segments of the local population to secure permanent housing.
Against this backdrop, the recent Supreme Court Judgment takes on particular importance by consolidating the possibility for homeowners’ associations to not only limit or regulate but also prohibit this activity through a qualified majority. This authority, endorsed by the LPH and reinforced by the legislative reform of RDL 7/2019, becomes a key legal mechanism for rebalancing the residential use of properties and promoting long-term rentals over tourist rentals, especially in rent-controlled areas. The Court’s case law not only acknowledges the legitimate right of property owners to economically exploit their assets, but also underscores the need to protect the constitutional right to decent housing, preserve community harmony, and address the growing social and municipal demand for effective tools to counter the adverse effects of “touristification”. Consequently, this interpretation provides homeowners’ associations with an effective legal instrument to mitigate the social impact of tourist rentals while reinforcing their role as guardians of the social function of housing and protectors of the urban and residential environment.
Key consequences and recommendations
Several practical consequences arise from this judicial doctrine:
- All homeowners’ associations may include in their meeting agendas proposals to prohibit tourist rentals by a three-fifths qualified majority, with prospective effect.
- Owners intending to use their property as a tourist rental must first obtain the express authorisation of the association, unless otherwise protected under legally established vested rights.
- Agreements adopted cannot retroactively affect those who were already legally engaged in tourist rental activity, whose rights are protected under the Second Additional Provision of the LPH.
- In cases where tourist rentals are carried out without such authorisation, the association is entitled to demand its immediate cessation and initiate the appropriate legal proceedings to protect collective interests.
As a result, it is recommended that property owners planning to engage in tourist rentals always check the legal status within their homeowners’ association and obtain the necessary authorisation; whereas homeowners’ associations should regulate the applicable regime in detail through the bylaws or resolutions adopted in general assemblies, in line with the requirements of the LPH and current case law.
Conclusion
Supreme Court Judgment 3808/2025 establishes the definitive interpretation of the authority of homeowners’ associations to adopt agreements, by a three-fifths majority, prohibiting tourist rental activity. This provides a safeguard for neighbourly coexistence and greater legal certainty for both property owners and tourism operators.
It is advisable for interested associations and owners with concerns on this matter to consult with specialized legal counsel to assess the specific situation of their property and the available legal options, in light of evolving legislation and case law.
Shameem Hanif Truszkowska
Vilá Abogados
For more information, please contact va@vila.es
10th of October 2025