The Provincial Court of Madrid has determined that tourist apartments cannot be considered a nuisance activity<\/strong> in general terms, thus rejecting the possibility of residents demanding that their owners stop this practice. This ruling strengthens the position of those who defend the right to rent out their homes for short stays, provided that specific regulations are not violated<\/strong>.<\/p><\/div><\/div> Although the judges rule out the possibility that tourist rentals<\/strong> cause serious inconvenience in a generalised way, they remind that communities of owners can prohibit this activity in their statutes if they have the support of a majority of three-fifths. <\/span>From 3 April<\/span><\/strong>, any owner who wants to use their home for holiday rentals must obtain prior permission from the residents’ association.<\/span><\/p>\n However, tourist apartments already in operation before a prohibition is established in the statutes or before the date above cannot be forced to cease their activity, thus limiting the legal options of neighbours who seek to challenge their existence.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div> The case tried by the Provincial Court of Madrid was based on a complaint by a community of owners against two tourist apartments, alleging that their tenants generated constant noise, movement of people and suitcases, accumulation of rubbish, breakdowns in the lifts and increased electricity consumption.<\/span><\/p>\n To assess whether holiday rentals can be considered a nuisance activity, the court relied on the jurisprudence of other provincial courts, such as those of Murcia, Malaga, Palma de Mallorca, Castilla y Le\u00f3n and Valencia. In these, it is established that an activity is only considered a nuisance if it generates disturbances that exceed the usual levels of coexistence and hinders the proper use of shared spaces<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n In addition, the judges recall that the <\/span>Horizontal Property Law<\/span><\/strong>, in <\/span>article<\/span> 7, prohibits unhealthy, dangerous, harmful or illicit activities. However, they require clear and conclusive evidence to demonstrate these disturbances.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div> In its ruling, the court ruled out that the existence of these two tourist apartments significantly affected the coexistence of neighbours. It argued that the evidence presented, such as faults in the elevators or the occasional accumulation of waste in common areas, was insufficient to conclude that these problems were a direct consequence of the holiday rental tenants.<\/p>\n Consequently, the Provincial Court determined that the presence of these apartments does not interfere with the other owners’ right to enjoy the building’s common elements or alter the balance of the community.<\/p>\n (El Economista, 10-02-2025)<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>Communities can ban them, but with conditions<\/strong><\/h3><\/h2><\/div>
A key flaw: without conclusive evidence, there is no nuisance activity<\/strong><\/h3><\/h2><\/div>
The reported problems are not only attributed to holiday rentals<\/strong><\/h3><\/h2><\/div>