Article 27 Changes Proposed Allowing Foreigners to Own Land in the 50 km Zone

APRIL 24, 2013
The Camara de Diputados has passed changes to Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution affecting fideicomisos, but only parts of the text have been released.

This Constitutional amendment still needs approval from the Senate and a majority of the country’s 32 state legislatures to become law. Summaries of the the law are saying that foreign ownership of land in the 50 km zone for “commercial purposes” is prohibited. … No renting-out your place without a corporation or fideicomiso designed specifically for rentals(?):

One quoted section identifies 4 key points:
Que el uso de las tierras sea destinado para vivienda única y exclusivamente. Que el uso de las tierras no tenga uso comercial, industrial, agrícola o cualquier otro que implique explotación económica directa o indirecta que derive de un uso a la vivienda o casa habitación. El extranjero deberá convenir con la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, en los términos de la fracción primera, párrafo noveno, del artículo 27 constitucional. En caso de que las tierras sean destinadas a un uso distinto al de vivienda, la ley establecerá los procedimientos para que el extranjero pierda los bienes adquiridos en beneficio de la nación.

~ These lands are intended exclusively and only for (private) housing.

~ These lands are not to be used for commercial, industrial, agricultural or any usage that directly or indirectly economically exploits these lands, as they are being used for living and (private) housing.

~ The foreign owner must agree(?) with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, under the terms of the First Part (fracción), Ninth paragraph of Article 27 of the Constitution.

~ In the case where the lands are intended for uses other than housing, the law shall establish procedures such that the foreigner loses their previously acquired benefits (loses rights the property?) to benefit the nation of Mexico. ”

These translations seem to prohibit foreigners from buying properties and renting them, within 50 km of the coasts and land borders. The text seems pretty clear that these properties are to be used only for private housing. (?)

Still looking for a copy of the actual text of the bill,

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
Feel free to copy while giving proper attribution: YucaLandia/Surviving Yucatan.
© Steven M. Fry

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Article 27 Changes Proposed Allowing Foreigners to Own Land in the 50 km Zone

  1. Jacobo says:


    I think you will find what you are looking for below. I don’t have time to translate verbatum but the basics have been covered in the press.

    As the changes to Article 27 move through the python, it will interesting to see how the immigration side of the equation will be affected. Will the foreigner have to have Permenente status or will just Temporal work to purchase property in the former restricted zone? I would certainly not purchase property in the restricted zone until the changes take place. And, as such, property sales in the restricted zone might just come to a full stop.

    As in the case with automobile ownership and immigration changes, things could get very interesting.

    Link below is from Parlementary Gazeta Parlamentaria that covers discussion and history of bill (dictamen).

    Click to access 20130418-X.pdf

    Link below shows the actual voting results and one can clearly see that the only real opposition is from the PRD.

    Link below allows one to follow daily workings in Mexican Congress.

    As you can see, Mexico has a very sophisticated online access to their Congress.

  2. Chad says:

    This is great news! I would love knowing we only have to pay for one year of a fide since we are newbies here. However, what will the cost be to transfer it over to ownership? That price tag may be a shocker. I have a feeling it won’t be cheap to release this. I’m just guessing, though. Like I said, I’m a newbie.

  3. Great reporting Steve, as always. Here is an article I posted today about this, basically confirming most of what people have already been posting around the internet:

    • yucalandia says:

      Hi Solomon,
      I like your additional facts: Where Senate approval in the coming fall, followed by State votes, could mean no final approval for another…. year or more depending on State electoral processes? (items not in our wheelhouse – above my pay-grade)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.