We’re Back! Embracing New Beginnings and Relocations to Spain

Hello everyone!

After some time away from the keyboard, I am thrilled to announce that Maria’s Blog is back with renewed energy and a fresh focus that I’m sure you will love. During my break, I spent a lot of time thinking about the topics that truly resonate with you, my dear readers, and how I can provide value to those seeking new adventures in Spanish lands.

Today, more than ever, I understand that moving to a new country can be both exciting and overwhelming. That’s why I’ve decided to dedicate a significant portion of our content to everything you need to know about relocating to Spain. From legal procedures to cultural integration tips, I want this blog to be your trusted guide and companion on this journey to your new home.

In the coming weeks, we will share a series of detailed posts covering every aspect of relocation to Spain:

• Preparation for the move: What to expect and how to plan effectively.

• Legal aspects: Understanding visas, residency requirements, and more.

• Finding a home: Tips for house hunting and settling in.

• Cultural integration: How to embrace the Spanish lifestyle and customs.

Stay tuned as we embark on this exciting journey together. Whether you’re considering a move or are already in the midst of relocating, there’s something here for everyone. Let’s make your dream of living in Spain a reality!

Thank you for sticking with us, and welcome back to the adventure!

Hi Maria,

Is it correct to say that you would never act as legal conveyancer for any home that does not have an LFO?

The reason I query this is that it would appear that some three decades on there appear to be properties that are occupied but have still not received the required legal licences! An absolute disgrace....

I refer to the recent article in Spanish Property Insight which exposes the continuing risks and vulnerabilities for those who have been left in legal limbo through no fault of their own.

https://www.spanishpropertyinsight.com/2025/04/10/murcias-lfo-urban-mess/

Best regards.

Hi Anne,

Apologies for this delay... really busy these days.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment — you've really touched on a long-standing issue that continues to affect far too many people in Spain.

You're absolutely right: it's shocking that, even decades later, there are still properties being lived in that never received a proper Licence of First Occupation (LFO). And what’s worse, many buyers were completely unaware at the time of purchase, trusting that the legal paperwork was in place — only to find themselves trapped in legal uncertainty through no fault of their own.

To answer your question directly: at our firm, we do not act as legal conveyancers for properties that lack an LFO, unless the relevant region has officially replaced the LFO requirement with a "Declaración Responsable" (responsible declaration), and we’ve carefully verified that all planning and urban compliance conditions have been met. Even then, each case must be studied carefully to determine what is possible and who may be held accountable.

In recent years, regions such as Andalusia and Valencia have allowed this declaration to replace the LFO in certain cases, as part of efforts to simplify procedures. But these alternatives only apply where the property is fully legal in planning terms. Many properties without an LFO are not in that position.

One important development that often goes overlooked is that Spanish Supreme Court jurisprudence has, in fact, extended the protection of Law 57/1968 to cover situations where buyers were never given an LFO or where the developer failed to complete the necessary legalisation of the property. This means that banks and insurers may be held liable for failing to safeguard buyers’ deposits in developments that were never legally completed, even many years later.

So although the legal landscape is complex, there are paths available — whether through regularisation or, in some cases, claims for compensation or deposit recovery under Law 57/1968. The key is to understand the legal status of the property and the responsibilities of the parties involved.

If anyone reading this is unsure about their property's situation, we’d be happy to carry out a legal check and explain what can be done.

Warm wishes,
María

Thank you Maria.

Educative as ever....

If I understand this correctly does this mean that because SC jurisprudence has been established as you describe, that all judges have to recognise this as final doctrine, and the Banks thereafter would not be able to further appeal against their legal obligations in this regard?

Would this then provide sufficient legal evidence to allow the property to  be deemed " legal" in terms of its habitability in the eyes of the law, or are the regional authorities suggesting that these properties should never have been allowed to be built in the first place, as this went against regional directives to disallow build in certain areas from the outset? All unbeknown to the innocent purchaser?

Does this make the Banks accountable for financing local developers from the outset, if they had full knowledge of regional directives that stipulated building in certain local areas was not allowed?

Were local authorities and the Banks  in effect ignoring regional directives at that time, and in that process leaving innocent purchasers as scapegoats? 
 

Where exactly does this then leave the purchaser ( now subsequent owner still left in legal limbo)  in the eyes of the law when Banks and local authorities were in effect ignoring regional directives? Would they be jointly and severally legally responsible ( so that one doesn't play one off against the other!!)

Or perhaps I have misunderstood?

Kind regards.

This message was last edited by ads on 4/16/2025.

Thanks for your message — very well put, as always.

In the case of owners living in properties without a first occupation licence, although Supreme Court case law is, in theory, on their side and applies law 57/68 to these cases, the fact that many may have been living there for years without taking action can work against them. Courts sometimes apply what's known here as “retraso desleal” (unfair delay) — meaning that by not acting, the buyer may be seen as having tolerated or accepted the situation.

On the other hand, there may be ways to legalise the property depending on the current regional rules. Regions like Andalucía and Valencia have introduced procedures to regularise certain properties, even if they were originally built on non-urban land.

So it really depends on what the owners have done during all these years — whether they’ve tried to get the licence, filed complaints, or pushed for solutions… or whether they’ve just stayed in the house quietly. The more active they’ve been, the stronger their legal position may be.

Happy to share more if it helps — this is a topic I’ve followed closely over the years.

Warm regards,
Maria

Thank you for that transparency Maria. Much appreciated.

The unfortunate reality is that it has taken all too many decades before this case law became established ( as ever dependent upon those who pioneered for consumer rights, such as yourselves) and during that time the Banks sought out legal loopholes and for decades used every means at their disposal to counter such rightful legal challenges, with little consideration to act in good faith or follow their own standards of good conduct that they espoused ironically in their marketing promotions with regard to Bank Guarantees....even undermining the Spanish legal system in that process at one point via their proliferation of thousands of appeals, in full knowledge that this would overstretch the limited court resources at that time, etc. 

All of which is now history of course, but this uncomfortable reality should never be used to deny those who were understandably waiting for such rightful judgements to be finally achieved, before they even dared to proceed with more rightful legal challenges. And who can blame them given the many legal insecurities that developed during that process. It almost became a challenge of monumental inequality where the financial power of the Banks was perceived as the Goliath and the purchaser as the constant underdog fighting for their rights....

Having witnessed this remarkably successful but excessively lengthy courageous legal fight against the Banks however, it would appear inconceivable that this now could not act as meaningful background evidence to substantiate why a delay of this magnitude has occurred. Are we now saying that judges and the SC would not be prepared to consider such influential background factors when determining continuing consumer rights to reach such a logical legal compromise?

One question then becomes why have certain regions that have already demonstrated willingness to regularise certain properties ( even if built on non-urban land) not established a legal precedence? Is this not perceived in the eyes of the law to have been seen to be acting in good faith? Or is such " moral"  judgement not perceived as sufficiently relevant in the eyes of the law?
 

Is there not therefore the possibility to fight for full recognition in all other regions to reflect the precedence you have identified in Andalusia and Valencia?. This in turn would  prevent a repeat of overwhelming pressures being placed upon the legal system as a whole ( as previously occured with the BG scenario when appeals overwhelmed the system.)

Is this precedence argument and background moral reasoning for delay on the part of the purchasers, therefore not a logical legal compromise worth pursuing?

Your continuing transparency in this regard would no doubt assist those who through no fault of their own require a solution to this concerning scenario.

Kindest regards.

I fully agree: the struggle was almost titanic, and the fact that it was successful does not negate the state's moral obligation to support those who suffered during the process. A law without humanity is just a tool of the powerful.

And what's more, the Banks appear to have demonstrated purposeful attempts to delay rightful justice when they submitted cassation appeals which they subsequently withdrew at the last minute prior to admittance after a years delay, in full knowledge that such abusive behaviour not only lacked intellectual legal arguments to substantiate their appeals, but had malintent to delay supportive SC doctrine that could have acted as effective timely case law to benefit so many other claimants. Unforgiveable abuse of the system with further knowledge that there was a loophole in the system which lacked the ability to make them accountable for such behaviour.

So back to the present, could this additional detail also act in some way to counter claims of unfair delay and acceptance on the part of purchasers, when in reality the Banks behaviour left purchasers with little alternative but to wait for decades until such time as supportive case law became effective to substantiate their claims that the Banks failed to safeguard protection of Ley 57/68 to cover situations where buyers were never given an LFO?

Going forward could this act as a realistic legal counter argument to solve this problem once and for all?

A significant issue currently under debate is the responsibility of guaranteeing or depositary banks when, as is often the case, third parties such as lawyers or real estate agents intervene on behalf of buyers making the payments into the developer´s banks. The question at hand is whether these banks are liable for controlling the amounts when the payments or deposits are not made directly by the buyers, but instead, are facilitated by these intermediaries.

This is a crucial matter.

We’re currently presenting cassation appeals to have this doctrine reviewed. The responsibility of the guarantors is clearer, as they had access to the off-plan sale contracts, granting them absolute control over the guaranteed payments. However, the responsibility of the depositary banks, especially in cases where no guarantors were involved and the law attributed the responsibility to them, remains more ambiguous and creates a lot of uncertainty.

In our opinion, the Supreme Court has consistently over-protected banks by imposing on them obligations that were neither specified in Law 57/68 nor in the contracts themselves. These obligations are contrary to the protective and anti-formalistic interpretation that the law’s Exposition of Motives established in 1968, as well as the more modern national and European contract law principles.

In regards to the application of Law 57/68 in cases of urban planning illegality. In these instances, the claim should be made as soon as the illegality becomes apparent. The use of a property without a license and failing to take legal action could lead to the application of the doctrine of bad faith delay. Essentially, if a buyer is aware of the legal issues and does not act to challenge the situation, their rights may be compromised.

At Costaluz Lawyers, we track the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the Provincial Courts on these matters daily. If you have any questions or need further clarification, we are here to assist. Don’t hesitate to reach out to us for guidance on how these legal developments could impact you. We are still fighting this battle to bring clarity and protect the rights of buyers. 

Thank you Maria.

This is so complex and appears to depend upon sequence of events ( when urban planning illegalities became apparent) and knowledge of protective law and who is expected to have sufficient prior legal knowledge to act in any timely fashion. For the SC or judges to suggest that purchasers should have such knowledge and experience would appear highly questionable, when the majority of purchasers use conveyancers to manage their legal affairs with all due diligence.

Playing devils advocate some questions spring to mind relating to sequence of events and who becomes ultimately legally responsible when urban planning illegalities continue to be facilitated within the Spanish conveyancing system.....

Within the conveyancing process, whose responsibility is it to identify, in any timely fashion, any urban planning illegality which could compromise the purchaser? Is this part of a conveyancers' due diligence? At what point in reality did these urban illegalities become apparent to conveyancers?

Likewise should any Bank that finances any Spanish development be responsible from the outset as part of their own due diligence to check that the development in question complies with Govt and regional planning directives? Has this due diligence on the part of the Banks now been brought into question?

Likewise should local authorities also have due diligence requirements to check that Govt directives re urban planning are being complied with?

But in that process, what are the sequence of events and legal mechanisms in place to protect and safeguard the purchaser FROM THE OUTSET  if local authorities, developers and banks and conveyancers CONTINUED TO FACILITATE URBAN PLANNING ILLEGALITIES   ( I.e. they continued to ignore regional directives to control urban planning)?

Who then becomes ultimately responsible if the conveyancing process continues to be facilitated in an illegal fashion, with the purchaser left unaware that they will not be provided with an LFO until it is too late in the day?

How can any purchaser be held responsible or deemed to be acting in bad faith in these circumstances when it would appear that those who continued to facilitate urban planning illegalities appeared themselves to be acting in bad faith if they had knowledge of regional directives intended to control urban planning and did nothing to halt the conveyancing or financing process at the point they became aware of such illegality? Or even after the event by continuing to allow Spanish conveyance whether this be sale or purchase of a property without an LFO?

Is this why Andalusia and Valencia have taken a stance to regularise these properties? But ironically doesn'tt this in itself undermine the control of urban planning in Spain, so long as regional directives are allowed to be ignored or overwritten in this manner? But sadly the innocent purchaser is scapegoated in the interim and now is deemed to be behaving with bad intent! How can that possibly be seen to be legally levied on any innocent party?

But then at what point in this conveyancing cycle does ley57/68 continue to protect the purchaser from such urban planning illegalities if this law was being constantly challenged ( for decades) by the Banks who were in receipt of purchasers deposited monies, or financed the purchase which left the purchaser without habitation rights?

Catch 22 scenario.
 

So the question arises again.....

At what point in reality within the conveyancing cycle did these urban illegalities actually become apparent to ALL  those who have responsibility to control and safeguard against such illegal activities? The local authorities , the conveyancer, the developer, the depositing or finanacing Bank, all surely have played their part in this sorry saga. Who has ultimate responsibility to notify of changes in planning directives and thereafter what procedures are in place to to inform all those who facilitate subsequent conveyancing and financing in this regard? So many ongoing questions Maria.

 It would appear that without effective legal and regulatory controls in place from the outset, all purchasers will sadly remain at great risk of Government and regional planning directives being ignored by all those who continue to facilitate a conveyancing  process that fails to recognise such planning directives and scapegoats innocent purchasers in that process.

The solution appears to cover a far wider perspective than just compensating those innocent purchasers who have been scapegoated in this urban planning nightmare, Maria. Would you agree?

Thank you again for your patience to consider all of the above.