How to Ban Short-Term Rentals in Your Community: 3/5 Majority under the HPA 2025

Banning short-term holiday rentals in a residential community is now a decision any general meeting can take, thanks to the entry into force of Organic Law 1/2025. Since 3 April 2025, Article 17.12 of the Horizontal Property Act (HPA) allows communities to limit, condition or prohibit tourist rental activity by a reinforced majority. As a result, homeowners’ associations have moved from having no legal recourse to having a clear, enforceable instrument. This article explains step by step how to ban short-term rentals in your community: the exact majority required, what the resolution must state, what happens to properties already operating, and how to protect the bylaw amendment against legal challenge. All information has been verified against the consolidated HPA text (Official State Gazette, updated 24 July 2025), Organic Law 1/2025 and the most recent Supreme Court case law.

Banning holiday rentals: the legal basis

Before the reform, Article 17.12 HPA only permitted limiting or conditioning tourist activity. There was no express authorisation to ban it outright. Organic Law 1/2025 filled that gap. The general meeting may now choose between all three options using the same majority. The current text of Art. 17.12 states that an express resolution approving, limiting, conditioning or prohibiting the activity referred to in paragraph (e) of Article 5 of the Urban Leases Act 1994 requires the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the total number of owners, who must also represent three-fifths of the total ownership shares. This majority is required even if the resolution does not amend the constitutive title or the bylaws. The same article also allows the community to establish special charges or an increase in the share of common expenses for the specific unit carrying out the activity. This increase cannot exceed 20% of the regular service charge for that unit and requires the same 3/5 + 3/5 reinforced majority. The measure has no retroactive effect.

Supreme Court backing: the doctrine was already established

It is worth noting that the legislative reform was not an innovation but the codification of an already settled doctrine. Supreme Court judgments 1232/2024 and 1233/2024 of 3 October 2024 had already endorsed outright prohibition by a 3/5 majority before Organic Law 1/2025 came into force. Subsequently, STS 264/2025 of 18 February 2025 reinforced the role of land registry entry in ensuring the resolution’s enforceability against future purchasers.

Difference between limiting, conditioning and prohibiting

The three options are distinct and have different practical implications. It is important to choose carefully before bringing the item to a vote.

• Limiting: for example, capping the total number of tourist units in the building or the number of overnight stays per year.
• Conditioning: for example, requiring specific check-in and check-out times, banning groups of more than four people, or imposing a noise protocol.
• Prohibiting: an outright ban on any future tourist rental activity in the building.

The choice depends on internal consensus and the specific circumstances of the building. In many communities, an outright prohibition is simpler to communicate and enforce than a list of complex conditions.

The required majority: 3/5 + 3/5 explained

The majority is twofold. You need three-fifths of the total number of owners and three-fifths of the total ownership shares. Neither alone is sufficient. It is therefore advisable to run the calculation before the meeting, simulating the majority under various attendance scenarios. If expected in-person attendance is unlikely to reach the threshold, the community must activate the procedure for absent owners under Art. 17.8 HPA. This article allows the votes of absent owners — properly notified of the resolution adopted — to be counted as favourable if they do not express their disagreement within thirty calendar days.

Who may vote and who may not

Owners in arrears who have not challenged the debt or lodged a judicial deposit are deprived of their right to vote under Art. 15.2 HPA. Contrary to a common assumption, neither they nor their ownership shares are included in the majority calculation: they are excluded from both numerator and denominator. This is the interpretation consistently followed by legal scholarship, land registry practice and settled case law. The 3/5 + 3/5 calculation is therefore made on the total number of owners and shares with voting rights, not the absolute total of the community. Where a unit is subject to a life interest, the bare owner votes unless otherwise stated under Art. 15.1 HPA. In jointly-owned units, co-owners must designate a single representative.

How to draft the agenda item

The agenda item must be worded precisely. An ambiguous formulation may give rise to challenges on formal grounds under Art. 18.1 HPA.

Model wording: "Approval, as the case may be, of the prohibition of short-term tourist rental activity as referred to in paragraph (e) of Article 5 of the Urban Leases Act 1994, in any of the units of the building, pursuant to Article 17.12 HPA. Consequential amendment of the community bylaws to incorporate the said prohibition."

It is also advisable to include a second optional item to set special charges if the community decides to permit tourist rentals under specific conditions, within the 20% cap on the regular service charge for the affected unit.

Documentation to accompany the notice of meeting

The notice must be accompanied by:

• The exact text of the proposed resolution, worded exactly as it will be voted on.
• An explanatory memorandum setting out the legal and practical grounds.
• The exact text of the bylaw amendment, where applicable.
• A list of owners in arrears deprived of their right to vote.
• Information on the calculation procedure and the required majorities.

This documentation protects the community if the resolution is later challenged on the grounds of insufficient prior information.

What happens to short-term rentals already in operation

Article 17.12 provides that the resolution shall have no retroactive effect. This point is critical and the main source of confusion in the sector. A prohibition approved today cannot force out a tourist rental that was already lawfully operating before the resolution.

Transitional Protection: the Second Additional Provision of the HPA consolidates this protection. It provides that an owner whose unit was already carrying out tourist rental activity under the applicable regional tourism regulations before the entry into force of Organic Law 1/2025 (3 April 2025) may continue to do so under the conditions and timescales of the previous regime. The community cannot use the new Art. 17.12 to force a cessation.

However, the prohibition does affect:

• Any unit in the building that wishes to commence tourist rental activity after the date of the resolution.
• Changes of ownership where the new owner wishes to commence the activity without having previously registered under the regional tourism regime.
• Units whose licence is revoked or lapses and which subsequently seek to resume the activity under the new framework.

Article 7.3: prior approval for new tourist rentals

Organic Law 1/2025 also introduced Art. 7.3 HPA. This article requires any owner wishing to commence tourist rental activity to obtain the express prior approval of the community under the terms of Art. 17.12. Consequently, even without a general ban, a new tourist rental now requires the meeting’s approval by the 3/5 + 3/5 majority. This fundamentally changes the dynamic. Previously, tourist rental activity could be commenced simply by complying with the regional administrative requirements. Now the community has a decisive role from the outset. Article 7.3 also empowers the community president — on their own initiative or at the request of any owner or occupier — to demand the immediate cessation of unauthorised activity, under warning of legal proceedings.

Amending the bylaws: how to formalise the prohibition

Although the HPA allows the resolution to be adopted without amending the bylaws, best practice recommends incorporating the prohibition into the constitutive title. This ensures enforceability against future purchasers and allows registration at the Land Registry. STS 264/2025 confirms this approach: without land registry entry, a new purchaser might not be bound by the prohibition.

Steps to register the amendment

1. Adoption of the resolution at the meeting with 3/5 + 3/5 majority, counting absent owners under Art. 17.8.
2. Closing of the minutes at the end of the meeting or, at the latest, within the following ten calendar days, signed by the president and secretary under Art. 19.3.
3. Notification to owners following the procedure in Art. 9.
4. Waiting period of three months for challenges under Art. 18.3 (one year if the act is deemed contrary to law or the bylaws).
5. Execution of a public deed before a notary.
6. Registration at the Land Registry.

The full process takes between four and six months if there are no challenges. If your community is debating the decision now, it is worth setting a realistic target date for having the prohibition registered and enforceable before the peak tourist season.

Common mistakes that undermine the prohibition

The most frequent challenges are based not on substance but on formal defects. It is therefore important to avoid the mistakes most commonly raised by lawyers acting for affected owners:

• Generic agenda item. Phrases such as "decision on tourist rentals" or "any other business" do not permit a binding vote on the prohibition. The content of the resolution must be spelled out.
• Incorrect calculation for owners in arrears. Owners deprived of their vote are not counted in either the numerator or the denominator. Including them in the denominator may result in the majority appearing not to have been reached when it actually was.
• Counting by headcount only. Without adding ownership shares, the resolution is invalid even if passed unanimously by number of persons.
• Failing to notify absent owners. Without proper notification, the Art. 17.8 counting procedure cannot be activated and the reinforced majority cannot be completed.
• Applying the resolution retroactively. Any attempt to remove a pre-existing tourist rental registered under the previous regional regime is void.
• Not closing the minutes on time. The minutes must be closed at the end of the meeting or within the following ten calendar days. Until the minutes are closed, the resolutions are not enforceable.

What to do if a tourist rental ignores the prohibition

If a unit begins to operate as a tourist rental after the prohibition without express approval, the community has two routes. First, the cessation action under Arts. 7.2 and 7.3 HPA. The president may demand the immediate cessation of the activity, under warning of legal proceedings. If the infringement continues, the meeting may authorise legal action. Second, recourse to the regional administrative sanctions regime. Each autonomous community has its own specific administrative penalties. For example, the recent Decree 27/2026 of the Community of Madrid, in force since 26 April 2026, strengthens the sanctions regime and requires a CIVUT certificate issued by a qualified technician. Since 1 July 2025, EU Regulation 2024/1028 on the Single Digital Window for short-term rentals adds a further layer, requiring centralised registration and data sharing between platforms and authorities. A tourist rental operating without community authorisation is therefore now exposed to three levels of control: community, regional/municipal, and European.

In all cases, the property manager should document: the prohibition resolution with signed and notified minutes; the Land Registry entry if the bylaws were amended; evidence of the ongoing tourist rental activity; and a formal demand addressed to the infringer.

Frequently asked questions

Can the community remove a tourist rental that was already operating before Organic Law 1/2025?

No, unless that tourist rental loses its licence or changes ownership and the new owner has not previously registered under the regional tourism regime. The Second Additional Provision protects activity commenced under the previous regime. The prohibition only affects future activity.

Is a resolution passed unanimously by those present valid if it does not reach 3/5 of the total?

No. The majority is calculated on the total number of owners and shares with voting rights, not on those present at the meeting. The Art. 17.8 counting procedure for absent owners must be activated if the majority cannot be reached with those present.

How long does it take for the prohibition to become effective?

The resolution is enforceable from the closing of the minutes, unless a court grants an interim injunction. However, enforceability against third parties and future purchasers requires land registry entry, which may take four to six months.

Can an individual owner challenge the prohibition?

Only if they have standing under Art. 18.2: they voted against and recorded their dissent, were absent from the meeting, or were wrongly deprived of their vote. They must also be up to date with all community charges or have lodged a judicial deposit.

Does the prohibition affect long-term residential lettings?

No. Art. 17.12 HPA applies exclusively to the tourist activity regulated by Art. 5(e) of the Urban Leases Act. Standard residential tenancies and temporary lettings for employment or study purposes are governed by a different regime and are unaffected.

What can we do if the community cannot reach the 3/5 + 3/5 majority?

There are three options: repeat the meeting following an information campaign aimed at all owners; opt for limitation or conditioning rather than an outright ban, which sometimes attracts more support; or wait for natural turnover of ownership and try again at the following year’s meeting.

Conclusion: a robust legal tool, properly applied

Organic Law 1/2025 has given residential communities a legally sound instrument for banning short-term tourist rentals, backed by prior Supreme Court case law and reinforced by the new European Single Digital Window framework. The instrument, however, demands rigour in the notice of meeting, the majority calculation, the wording of the resolution and the bylaw amendment. The property manager’s role is therefore decisive. A properly prepared resolution will withstand challenge; a poorly drafted one will not. If your firm manages several communities with this debate open, a management platform such as FixrOS allows you to simulate majority calculations, generate meeting notice templates and notify resolutions via traceable channels. We also recommend reading the complete guide to the Horizontal Property Act and the article on legally compliant meeting minutes.

Verified sources: Act 49/1960 HPA (Official State Gazette, 24 July 2025 consolidation) · Organic Law 1/2025 · Act 29/1994 on Urban Leases · Supreme Court judgments STS 1232/2024, 1233/2024 and 264/2025 · EU Regulation 2024/1028 · Decree 27/2026 (Community of Madrid)