Real Estate Investment Newsletter - July 2026

Registral Tribunal Reaffirms the Non-Prescriptibility of Communal Lands in Notarial Proceedings

On July 4, 2026, a new mandatory precedent issued by the Registral Tribunal was published in the Official Gazette El Peruano. The precedent establishes that notarial declarations of acquisitive prescription over land registered in the name of peasant communities may neither be recorded nor registered. This criterion is based on Article 89 of the Peruvian Constitution, which provides for the non-prescriptibility of certain types of property, and applies exclusively to notarial acquisitive prescription proceedings.

The precedent was approved during the extraordinary session of the 320th Plenary of the Registral Tribunal, held on June 22, 2026, adopting the reasoning set forth in Resolution No. 4339-2025-SUNARP-TR, dated October 3, 2025. That resolution upheld the rejection of an application seeking to register a notarial declaration of acquisitive prescription over land registered in the name of a peasant community, even though the proceeding had previously been the subject of a provisional registration.

The resolution established that the non-prescriptible nature of communal land remains in force even where it is alleged that the community has ceased carrying out its institutional activities, as such circumstance does not extinguish its legal personality or affect its property rights. Likewise, acquisitive prescription was denied even where it was argued that the communal land had become urbanized or was no longer under the community's physical occupation.

The Registral Tribunal also clarified that the non-prescriptible nature of communal land applies even where acquisitive prescription has been declared by a notary. In this regard, it held that registrars, in exercising their qualification function, must verify whether the notarial declaration is consistent with the information contained in the Registry, including the non-prescriptible status of communal lands.

Draft Amendments to the National Building Regulations and the VIS Regulation Published

On July 16 and 19, 2026, draft amendments to RNE Standard A.130 of the National Building Regulations (RNE) and the Regulations of the Social Housing Law (VIS), respectively, were published.

With respect to the VIS Regulation, the proposal introduces new requirements for social housing projects, including a minimum built-up area of 40 m² for multifamily housing units and 35 m² for single-family homes. It also restricts the transfer and lease of acquired housing units for a period of five years and requires that they be occupied by their beneficiaries. In addition, the proposal clarifies parking requirements, introduces the obligation to expressly identify a project as a VIS project in municipal application files, and strengthens the supervisory powers of the Ministry of Housing, Construction and Sanitation.

Without prejudice to the possible approval of the proposed regulation, Metropolitan Ordinance No. 2361-MML in Lima and Provincial Ordinance No. 007-2025/MPC in Callao remain in force, granting urban planning incentives for the development of VIS projects, particularly with respect to building heights and density limits.

The draft amendment to RNE Standard A.130, in turn, seeks to consolidate all building safety provisions into a single text, with particular emphasis on fire safety. The standard would apply to new buildings and, in certain cases, to renovations, expansions, or changes of use of existing buildings. For the latter, the proposal provides three compliance alternatives: complying with the new standard, adopting the standards applicable to existing buildings under NFPA 101, or implementing a fire protection strategy based on a risk assessment approved by the competent authority.

The deadline for submitting comments on the draft amendments to the VIS Regulation is August 4, 2026, while comments on the draft amendments to RNE Standard A.130 may be submitted until September 3, 2026.

CONTRACTING WITH PEASANT COMMUNITIES

In this edition of our newsletter, we address one of the most common questions arising in the implementation of investment projects on communal lands: identifying the appropriate authority to enter into agreements on behalf of a peasant community. The answer depends on the nature of the rights to be acquired, the activity to be carried out, and the powers granted to each governing body of the community under the applicable legal framework and the community's bylaws.

As a starting point, it is important to remember that communal land is owned by the community itself. Accordingly, where a project involves the acquisition, lease, encumbrance, or other rights over communal land, the participation and approval of the General Assembly is essential. In these cases, the Board of Directors acts as the body responsible for implementing the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, but it cannot replace the Assembly or exercise powers that the law or the bylaws reserve exclusively to it.

The situation is different for transactions that do not involve the disposition or encumbrance of communal land. In such cases, the Board of Directors may serve as the appropriate contracting party, provided that it has the legal or statutory authority to do so. As the body responsible for the ordinary administration of the community's affairs, it may execute binding agreements within the scope of its powers.

Communal enterprises also constitute a widely used vehicle for carrying out economic activities, providing services, and implementing productive projects. In many cases, they may become the principal contractual counterpart for these purposes. However, their involvement does not eliminate the need to obtain approval from the General Assembly whenever the project entails the disposition, transfer, or encumbrance of communal land.

Another alternative is to enter into agreements directly with community members who occupy so-called family plots. These are portions of communal land allocated to specific community members for their direct use and enjoyment. However, since such allocation does not necessarily entail a transfer of ownership, any agreement must not purport to transfer property rights that the occupant does not possess.

A key characteristic of family plots is that they must be directly worked by the beneficiary community member. Abandonment or loss of direct use may entitle the community to recover possession of the plot. Consequently, any agreement must be structured in a manner that does not result in the community member losing possession.

In practice, many of the issues that arise in projects developed on communal lands stem not from a lack of consensus, but from identifying the wrong contracting party. An agreement executed by a person or body lacking the necessary authority may be ineffective or void and may subsequently be challenged by the community itself. Therefore, before commencing any negotiation, it is essential to understand the community's governance structure, review its current bylaws, and verify the respective powers of the General Assembly, the Board of Directors, the communal enterprise, and the community members holding family plots.

Ultimately, not all agreements within a peasant community require the participation of the same actors. Determining who must intervene in each case is essential to ensuring the validity of the agreement, the proper management of legal risks, and the successful implementation of any project on communal land.