The real estate team of Rodrigo, Elías & Medrano Abogados shares its second newsletter, with the most important real estate regulations, resolutions and news of the month of April, as well as some opinions of interest.
On April 2, 2025, Law No. 32279, Law of Territorial Planning and Creation of the National System of Territorial Planning (“SINADOT”) was published.
The law creates the SINADOT seeking to establish a regulatory framework applicable at the three levels of government, to articulate and coordinate land use planning instruments. It seeks to maximize the productive use of the territory. These instruments include: (i) the National Land Management Policy, which will be approved by the Presidency of the Council of Ministers; (ii) land management plans, approved by the regional governments; (iii) land development and urban and rural development plans, approved by the local governments; (iv) instruments issued by the various sectors; and (v) land information systems.
On April 8, 2025, Law No. 32293 was published, which amends Law No. 24657 and incorporates population centers and human settlements for housing purposes into the process of formalization of communal lands.
The standard establishes that communal lands are not considered those that are occupied by population centers or human settlements for housing purposes as of December 31, 2015, unless the community has demanded the claim before such date or has the status of indigenous or native people. Likewise, it is foreseen that the authorities proceed to formalize these centers and settlements in order to award and register the individual ownership of the lots to their respective occupants.
The law extends the term of such informal possessions in order to facilitate their reorganization.
On April 10, 2025, Supreme Decree No. 005-2025-VIVIENDA was published, approving the new Social Interest Housing (“VIS”) Regulations.
As a consequence of a ruling of the Constitutional Court and its respective enforcement order, the Ministry of Housing, Construction and Sanitation (“MVCS”) approved the new VIS Regulations, seeking, among other points, to (i) specify the various modalities for the promotion of VIS in the country, (ii) encourage the participation of private investment in the execution of SIV projects, (iii) establish the types of land on which SIV projects may be developed, and (iv) authorize that SIV projects may be executed with non-conventional construction systems, provided that these are approved by the MVCS.
The regulation also deals with certain parameters, such as the roofed area of VIS and single-family housing, the minimum area of lots for urban developments, among others.
Bill No. 10852/2024-PE, Law that grants powers to the SBN to directly request uncultivated land owned by special energy and irrigation projects for housing or investment projects.
The bill has been referred to the Housing and Construction Commission and seeks to authorize the SBN to request the transfer of uncultivated land owned by energy or irrigation projects, to award them in favor of owners, associations or communities for housing purposes, as well as to grant investment easements.
On April 16, 2025, Resolution No. 00057-2025-SUNARP/SN of the National Superintendence of Public Registries was published.
The resolution provides for the publication of the regulatory project that amends Directive DI-02-2022-SDNR-DTR, “Directive that consolidates and systematizes Sunarp’s administrative measures against tax fraud (V.03)”.
The proposal has two specific purposes: (i) to maximize the scope of the “Registry Alert” service, extending its coverage to the Registries of Legal Entities, Mandates and Powers of Attorney, and Vehicle Property, and (ii) to systematize in a single regulation the common and special rules of the existing alert services, including the Registration Alert, the Publicity Alert, the Cloning Alert and the Vehicle Collateral Alert.
There is no doubt of the importance of INDECOPI’s Commission for the Elimination of Bureaucratic Barriers in the development of the Peruvian real estate market. Its resolutions, focused on eliminating requirements and undue charges in the procedures for granting licenses and municipal authorizations, have contributed to the simplification and predictability of the administrative activity in the construction and operation of the different types of real estate projects in the country.
Although the commission is an efficient entity, its procedural burden has been increasing, which makes it necessary to provide it with adequate public resources so as not to affect its functions. The simplifying and standardizing role that the entity has been playing must be maintained. We are confident that the authorities will take the appropriate measures to achieve this end.
URBAN LAND SECTION CONTRACTS
In this issue, we will deal with contracts on physical sections of urban land that have not been administratively independent. We seek to determine whether an owner may physically divide a property and assign the use or separate ownership of the resulting sections without the respective municipal authorization.
As developed in our previous bulletin (Real Estate Bulletin REM-03/25), properties located in non-urban or urban expansion areas may be subdivided or divided without prior authorization. In these cases, it is not necessary to have an administrative pronouncement or registry registration to consider these properties as subdivided. However, this rule would not necessarily apply to urban properties. Let us explain.
Part of the legal doctrine and, above all, the commercial practice, understands that it is not possible to transfer a section of a property when there is an urban habilitation project on it and the urban habilitation works are pending and, therefore, the corresponding municipal resolution of reception of works. Without completed urban habilitation, the property would be an integral part of its parent company and, as such, cannot be transferred separately from it. According to Article 887° of the Civil Code, singular rights cannot be granted over integral parts. A contract with this type of object would be null and void, unless there is a municipal license to the contrary.
The same rule would apply to materially divide urban properties already zoned. Without the respective municipal subdivision resolution, the property would not exist as a separate section. This position is supported by Article 89° of the Organic Law of Municipalities, Law No. 27972, which establishes that any urbanization project, transfer or assignment of use, for any purpose, of urban and suburban land, must necessarily be submitted for municipal approval. Likewise, in Article 957° of the Civil Code, which establishes that property ownership is subject to zoning, to the processes of habilitation and subdivision and to the requirements and limitations set forth in the respective provisions.
According to Articles 140, 219 and 221 of the Civil Code, the agreement is null and void for, among other reasons, having an unlawful purpose or because its object is legally impossible. The grounds refer to when what is desired by the parties does not have legal support, either because it is in contravention of the rules (unlawful purpose) or because it simply does not meet the requirements set forth therein to receive legal protection (legally impossible object).
Thus, it could be argued that the division of a property without municipal authorization or in contravention of the urban planning parameters constitutes a null and void operation due to a legally impossible object, since it is an agreement that ignores legal requirements. Note that it is not possible to negotiate on integral parts or in contravention of the applicable urban regulation.
Another position holds that neither the urban habilitation nor the municipal subdivision determine the legal existence of a property, since such procedures are only intended to convert a property from rustic to urban, or to verify that it complies with the urban and building parameters. In other words, the procedure is not designed to bring a property into existence, but to change its urban quality. The urban planning parameters constitute limitations to erect and operate buildings. Along these lines, it is held that a property has legal existence when it is fully individualized and can have a use separate from the rest of the property. None of this requires municipal control.
Along these lines, the businesses that comply with the applicable parameters are valid, despite the fact that the division is pending administrative approval. The approval is not constitutive of the right, since there is no rule that provides for it, so the business is not pathological because it lacks it. This interpretation is consistent with the fact that nullity requires a legal mandate declaring it, since it is a civil sanction governed by the principle of legality. In the case of the division of land, the administrative approval has not been foreseen as a requirement for the execution of the business, so its omission will not generate any nullity.
