Real Estate Investment Newsletter - August 2026

On August 7, 2026, a clarification to the binding precedent establishing the inadmissibility of subdivisions of rural properties located in non-cadastral areas where they conceal urban developments was published in the Official Gazette El Peruano. The Registry Court has now established that this precedent also applies to subdivisions of communal properties.

The existence of a concealed urban development must be determined based on a joint assessment of the communal agreement, the technical documentation submitted, and the report issued by the graphic database area. Accordingly, where these elements evidence the creation of multiple lots, streets, passageways, or circulation routes characteristic of an urban development, the subdivision cannot be processed under the rules applicable to rural or communal properties. Instead, the property must undergo the urban development approval procedure before the competent district municipality. Without such approval, the subdivision will not proceed.

The precedent was approved at the 323rd Plenary Session of the Registry Court held on July 20, 2026, and its criteria were reflected in Resolution No. 3498-2026-SUNARP-TR dated July 31, 2026. In that case, the Court reviewed an application for the subdivision of land belonging to a peasant community and identified a large-scale subdivision displaying characteristics of an urban development project. The proposed acts involved the creation of lots and streets characteristic of an urban development.

Based on the foregoing, the Registry Court concluded that, where a subdivision conceals an urban development, the authority to approve it lies exclusively with the municipalities. Neither the property owners nor cadastral verifiers may unilaterally approve such subdivisions. However, the Court also clarified that not every division of communal land is urban in nature. Each case must therefore be assessed comprehensively, taking into account the communal agreement, the technical documentation submitted, and the physical configuration of the territory.

In this section of our newsletter, we analyze acts of mere tolerance in connection with the exercise of property rights. In relationships between neighbors, it is common for a property owner to allow certain conduct on their property as a matter of courtesy, coexistence, or good neighborly relations. This may occur when the owner allows occasional passage across the property, permits water to be taken from a source, or allows any other limited use without consideration or any intention of permanence.

The law refers to these situations as acts of mere tolerance. These are acts that the owner freely permits, but whose continuation depends exclusively on the owner’s will. They are unilateral acts that may be fully revoked. Accordingly, the person benefiting from such acts does not acquire any right over the property of another and cannot demand that the situation be maintained indefinitely.

The reason is straightforward: tolerance does not entail a waiver of the right of ownership or the right to possession. The owner retains all of their legal powers and may terminate the tolerated act whenever they deem appropriate, without having to obtain the consent of a third party. Due to its precarious nature, the permitted use has no independent legal standing and does not constitute the exercise of a right that is subject to legal protection.

The distinction between acts of tolerance and acts constituting the taking of possession is particularly relevant in relation to legal institutions such as adverse possession, real estate transactions, or the acquisition of easements. Tolerated acts do not evidence ownership or the exercise of a real right, but merely the owner’s decision to temporarily allow certain conduct. Therefore, even if such acts are repeated over long periods, they do not, by themselves, create rights in favor of the person carrying them out.

Recognition of this legal concept also serves a practical purpose. If the law were to attribute legal consequences to every act of tolerance, property owners would avoid any gesture of cooperation or courtesy for fear of losing rights over their properties. Protecting acts of mere tolerance, by contrast, allows good neighborly relations to be preserved without affecting the substance of the right of ownership. Naturally, their scope and the protection afforded to them will depend on their compatibility with mandatory rules or public policy. It is not possible to argue that a transfer of possession constitutes an act of mere tolerance in order to facilitate the extrajudicial recovery of properties. An act with such implications could ultimately be disregarded by our legal system.

In short, tolerance is a manifestation of coexistence, not a source of rights. Allowing something does not amount to assigning, transferring, recognizing, or creating a right or possession in favor of third parties; it simply means accepting a situation that, by its very nature, may cease at any time at the owner’s decision.