Series: Condominium Property in Costa Rica · Part 4 of 5

Living in a Condominium: Use of the Unit and the Common Areas, Limits, and Sanctions

What each owner may do in their unit and in the common areas, what the bylaws may prohibit, and how a condominium sanctions owners who break the rules.

By Dowglas Dayán Murillo Murillo October 19, 2026 45 min read Law reviewed as of October 19, 2026

Contents

The rules that govern living together, and where they come from
Using the unit according to its designated purpose
Work inside the unit, facades, and shared walls
Reasonable use, restricted use, and leasing of the common areas
The rules of coexistence that bylaws usually contain
What the community may regulate about rentals through digital platforms
Internal sanctions under Article 23
The court-imposed fine under Article 15
Leaks and other damage between units
How disputes over living together are resolved
How to apply these rules in the day-to-day life of the condominium

Translated from the Spanish original. If there is any discrepancy between the two versions, the Spanish text prevails. Read the original in Spanish.

It is Saturday, a little past midnight. In an apartment building in San José, the music on the fifth floor can be heard on the fourth as if it were playing in the living room. In a horizontal condominium (a development of houses rather than a tower) in Heredia, the owner of one house has put up a gate that closes off the strip of common garden in front of their terrace, and is already planting there. In a beach condominium in Guanacaste, several units are rented by the night to tourists who change every weekend, and the people who live there year-round complain about the noise, the trash, and a pool that is always full of strangers. In all three cases someone feels that a neighbor is abusing their rights, and the neighbor feels they are simply doing as they please with what is theirs.

Both are partly right. Someone who buys in a condominium is a true owner, but of a property that shares walls, roofs, pipes, gardens, and rules with other people. This study explains what each owner may do in their unit (finca filial) and in the common areas (áreas comunes), what the condominium bylaws may regulate or prohibit, how a rule-breaker is sanctioned, who pays when the problem is damage (the leak coming down from the apartment above), and how these disputes are resolved today. It is the fourth of five studies on condominium property in Costa Rica; when a topic is covered in depth in another, we say so and link to it.

The rules that govern living together, and where they come from

To understand why one neighbor can require another to turn down the music or take down a gate, we have to start with the kind of property involved. In a condominium, each owner “shall be the exclusive owner of their floor, premises, office, parking space, house, or lot and shall be a co-owner of the property devoted to common use” (Article 265 of the Civil Code, as amended by Article 40 of Law 7933, the Condominium Property Regulatory Law, Ley Reguladora de la Propiedad en Condominio). The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has described this arrangement as imperfect or limited ownership, whose limits are set by law (Constitutional Chamber, decision 2336-2002). Every limit explained here flows from that dual status: exclusive owner of what is one’s own, co-owner of what is shared. What counts as the unit and what counts as common property is explained in the study Owning a Condominium Unit.

The law, the Executive Regulations, and the condominium bylaws

The rules of coexistence come from three sources that do not carry the same weight. The first is Law 7933, in its current version of March 16, 2026: it sets out the basic rights and prohibitions (Articles 15 to 23), the majorities needed for decisions (Article 27), and the minimum content of the internal bylaws (Article 33).

The second is Executive Decree 45214-MIVAH-MEIC-TUR, the Executive Regulations to the Condominium Property Regulatory Law, in force since January 19, 2026, which repealed Executive Decree 32303 of 2005 (Article 103 of Decree 45214). It is mostly technical (site plans, roads, parking, utilities), and its chapter on how the condominium operates (Articles 86 to 94) deals with transfers of units, the fee, representation, financial reporting, replacement of the administrator, notice of meetings, minutes, voting, and virtual assemblies. It does not regulate pets, noise between neighbors, cameras, rentals, or a procedure for imposing sanctions, although it contains useful technical rules that we cite where relevant.

The third source, and the one applied most often, is the condominium bylaws (Reglamento de Condominio y Administración) that each condominium includes in its deed of establishment (escritura constitutiva) (Article 4 of Law 7933), which the decree defines as the instrument that “complements and specifies” the law according to the features of each condominium (Article 3.43 of Decree 45214). The law requires the bylaws to regulate the use of the common property and its limitations, the rights and obligations of each owner, the system of sanctions, the mechanisms for resolving disputes, and changes to facades (Article 33, subsections d, e, and g, of Law 7933). Here we will call them simply “the condominium bylaws.”

The bylaws bind those who buy later: “Whoever acquires rights in a condominium shall be subject to the existing bylaws” (Article 34 of Law 7933), and the decree presumes that the buyer knows and accepts them (Article 86 of Decree 45214). They also bind those who occupy a unit without owning it (Article 22 of Law 7933), the subject of the study Renting in a Condominium.

What the condominium bylaws cannot do

The power of the bylaws has a precise edge. They may create “additional rights and obligations,” but these “may not violate said legal provisions or any other applicable regulations,” and they may not distort “the possibility of independent use and enjoyment of each private unit by its owner” (Article 18 of Decree 45214). There are two limits here. The first is one of hierarchy: no internal rule prevails over the law, whether condominium law or any other. The second is one of substance: the bylaws may set rules for how a unit is used, but they may not empty out the right to use it independently. Any internal prohibition has to be read in light of these two limits.

The new Executive Regulations and existing condominiums

Decree 45214 still refers to the repealed decree for projects that had already been filed in the plan-review system, the Construction Project Administrator (Administrador de Proyectos de Construcción, APC) (Transitional Provision I), and for “the required modifications” in existing condominiums (Transitional Provision II). In our view, those transitional provisions refer to physical and permitting changes, not to day-to-day operation; for enclosures or alterations of common areas in older condominiums, one will have to check which technical regulation governs.

Using the unit according to its designated purpose

If the bylaws cannot empty out each owner’s right, what are the limits the law itself imposes? They are in Article 15 of Law 7933, the most important rule of coexistence in the regime. Owners “shall use their property in accordance with its designated purpose under the deed of establishment”; they “may not devote it to uses contrary to the law, morals, or good customs, nor make it serve any purpose other than the one expressly agreed”; and they “may not carry out any act or incur any omission that disturbs the peace of the other owners or compromises the soundness, safety, health, or comfort of the condominium.”

What it means to use the unit according to its purpose

The deed of establishment sets both the general purpose of the condominium and the particular purpose of each unit (Article 2, subsection b, of Law 7933), and that purpose is a condition of ownership. Arturo Pacheco Murillo, in the 2006 book by the Chair of Property Law (Cátedra de Derechos Reales) at the University of Costa Rica, illustrated this with a classic example: inside their apartment the owner may do almost anything they like, but they may not turn a space designed as a home into a warehouse, a variety store, or a daycare center (p. 135). Although the edition dates from 2006, the essays in the book were written around 2000 and 2001; on this point, today’s law confirms the idea unchanged, because Article 15 keeps its 1999 wording.

The practical line lies between a use that accompanies the home and a use that replaces it. In our view, someone who works from home on a computer does not change the residential purpose; someone who opens a practice with daily clients, or a workshop, does. Luis Carlos Delgado, in the same book, used the case of a home turned into business premises to argue that whoever creates a nuisance for the community should bear its cost (pp. 50-51). The intuition still holds, but the law channels it through specific routes: the court-imposed fine of Article 15 and the internal sanctions of Article 23.

The peace, safety, and health of others

The second part of Article 15 protects neighbors even when no one has changed the purpose of anything. It prohibits acts, such as the party that never ends, and omissions, such as failing to repair a leak that dampens the neighbor’s wall. These are open-ended concepts, which is why the bylaws must make them concrete if they are to serve as grounds for sanctions. The reference to “morals or good customs,” in our view, does not authorize the community to police anyone’s private life: it refers to uses that spill over onto others and that the legal system condemns.

Changing the purpose of a unit or of the condominium

The purpose can be changed, but not by the decision of a single owner. Changing the specific purpose of a unit requires the votes of at least two-thirds of the total value of the condominium, and changing the general purpose requires the unanimous vote of all owners (Article 27, subsection b, item 1, and subsection a, item 1, of Law 7933). How meetings are called and votes are taken is explained in the study Who Decides in a Condominium.

The resolution alone is not enough, because the purpose also depends on the land use permitted by zoning and planning rules (Articles 5 and, for condo-hotels, 61 of Decree 45214). There is also a procedural lesson. The First Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala Primera) set aside in its entirety an arbitral award that had annulled, among other things, the resolution changing the purpose of a unit, in part because the award affected the unit’s owner without her having been joined in the proceedings (First Chamber, ruling 867-2025). On the merits, that is, how far the assembly may go in changing purposes, we found no verified case law after the 2022 amendment of Article 27.

Work inside the unit, facades, and shared walls

Using a unit according to its purpose is one thing; physically transforming it is another. Here the boundary is not the activity but the structure itself: which parts belong only to the owner, and which, even though they sit inside the unit or right against it, concern everyone.

What the owner may do behind their own door

The general rule is freedom. “Each owner may carry out work and repairs inside their unit,” and may install, at their own expense, services for their exclusive use, “provided that they do not harm or hinder the others” (Articles 16 and 15 of Law 7933). Replacing the floor, remodeling the kitchen, or moving lightweight partitions are the owner’s decisions, subject to whatever municipal permits apply.

The limits are in the same Article 16. The owner “shall be prohibited from any innovation or modification that affects the structure, the load-bearing walls, or other essential elements of the condominium,” and, with respect to the general services and installations, must refrain “from any act, even inside their property, that prevents or impairs their operation or use.” This matters a great deal in buildings, because pipes and ducts that belong to everyone run through the apartments: the water, wastewater, stormwater, electrical, and telecommunications systems “shall be considered common areas” and must be accessible for inspection from the common areas (Articles 83 and 84 of Decree 45214). Someone who boxes in a duct inside a kitchen cabinet without leaving access, or reroutes a drainpipe to gain space, is touching something that is not theirs alone.

The same is true of the walls between units, which are common property like the foundations and the roofs (Article 10, subsection b, of Law 7933) and must be fire-resistant (Article 26 of Decree 45214). In our view, breaking through them to join spaces, or replacing them with a material that does not meet that requirement, amounts to modifying an essential element. And building additional floors or basements requires two-thirds of the value (Article 27, subsection b, item 2): the owner of the top floor may not roof over a terrace on the common rooftop just because “it’s right above me.”

Facades

The law requires the condominium bylaws to regulate “the possibility, joint or individual, of changing the external form of the facades, or decorating the exterior walls, doors, or windows in forms or colors different from those of the development as a whole” (Article 33, subsection g, of Law 7933). Each set of bylaws decides whether an owner may, alone, change the color of their door or enclose a balcony, or whether they need the approval of the Owners’ Assembly (Asamblea de Condóminos).

Pacheco maintained that major or structural exterior alterations required the unanimous approval of the owners (p. 136). That no longer holds as such: structural work is forbidden to the individual owner (Article 16), building additional floors requires two-thirds, and facades depend on the bylaws. Where the bylaws are silent, in our view the facade is not up for grabs: it is part of the load-bearing walls and of the appearance of the development as a whole, which the law treats as common (Article 10), and any change to it must go through the assembly.

The First Chamber decided a case that brings together almost all of these problems. In a horizontal condominium in Heredia, the owners of two units changed the facade, put up a heavy structure, opened a gate onto the common garden with a bench and plantings, and removed a common lamp, all without the assembly’s approval. The Chamber ordered them to bring the facade back into line with the design of the development, remove the structures and the gate, and reinstall the lamp within twelve months, unless the assembly later approved the work (First Chamber, ruling 1572-2022). It applied Articles 14, 16, 27, and 33 of Law 7933 and rounded out the remedy with the Civil Code. It is the highest-ranking precedent we know of on construction work.

Floor slabs, floors, and party walls

Who pays when the slab between two apartments, or the wall shared by two houses, needs repair? The law answers: “The owners of the affected units shall bear the cost of the maintenance work required by the floor slabs, floors, walls, or other party divisions,” and “Each owner shall pay for the maintenance work needed by the floors or paving of their unit” (Article 18 of Law 7933). This does not contradict Article 10: that article says who owns the wall, and Article 18 says who pays to maintain it. That rule will be the basis for resolving leaks.

Reasonable use, restricted use, and leasing of the common areas

From the unit we move to what lies outside it. If the owner enjoys freedom with limits inside their unit, the reverse is true in the common areas: no one is the exclusive owner, and everyone has the right to use them, within certain rules.

Everyone’s right to use what is shared

Each owner holds a right in the common property proportional to the area of their unit, but “no owner may be limited in the reasonable use and enjoyment of the common property, nor may any owner claim a greater right to enjoy that property because their percentage in it exceeds that of other owners” (Article 9 of Law 7933). The owner of the largest house has no greater right to the pool than the owner of the smallest apartment, and the owners on the first and top floors do not, for that reason, have more rights than the rest (Article 17).

The word that governs everything is “reasonable.” The law does not define it, but Article 8 gives the guideline: each owner makes use of the common property “in accordance with its designated purpose.” In our view, a use is reasonable when it respects the purpose of the property, does not exclude others, and does not wear it out more than normal. Someone who brings forty guests to the pool every weekend in a fifteen-house condominium in San Carlos is appropriating it for a few hours. That is why bylaws may set hours, guest limits, or reservation systems, as long as they apply to everyone.

Limited common areas and assigned spaces

The law allows for limited common areas (restricted use), reserved for certain units only (Article 9 of Law 7933): common property whose “use is limited to one or several unit owners or a group of unit owners” (Article 3.5 of Decree 45214). Parking spaces and storage rooms assigned to particular units are usually of this kind. They remain common: whoever uses them is not their owner, even though no one else may use them.

Decree 45214 set stricter rules than its predecessor. Spaces may be assigned to particular units only when they are excess common area (área común en demasía), that is, area beyond the minimum required by regulations (Articles 3.7 and 62). It prohibits, without exception, placing “walls, fences, or hedges that segregate a portion of the common area for the exclusive use of any owner” (Article 65). And to convert common areas into private ones, it requires that they be excess areas, that the assembly approve it, and that the modification be processed through the APC and with the municipality (Article 66).

This change leaves behind a practice that the 2006 book recommended: Roxana Sánchez Boza proposed granting the use of parking spaces or hallways to certain units, revocable only by unanimous vote (pp. 207-208). Assigning use is still valid, but today only over excess areas and never by closing them off. The neighbor in Heredia who gated off the garden in front of their terrace did exactly what Article 65 prohibits. If the condominium predates 2026, recall Transitional Provision II: for physical modifications, the previous decree, which was more flexible on this point, may still apply.

Work on common areas and leasing of common areas

Any work on the common areas of an existing condominium must be approved by the assembly; only urgent work for safety or health reasons, or work required by a regulation or a court, may be carried out by the condominium administrator without a prior resolution, with approved plans and with an accounting afterward (Article 64 of Decree 45214).

Common areas can also produce income. The law allows them to be leased “with the prior resolution of the Owners’ Assembly,” by two-thirds of the value, and the proceeds go into common revenue (Articles 11 and 27, subsection b, item 4, of Law 7933): a rooftop rented out for an antenna, for example, or a common commercial space leased to a third party. Booking the clubhouse for an owner’s party is not a lease but a use governed by the bylaws. And easements for public utilities do not require an assembly resolution if the bylaws give the administrator sufficient powers (Article 70 of Decree 45214).

The following table brings together the majorities the law requires for decisions about the use of units and of common property.

Decision	Majority	Provision of Law 7933
Change the general purpose of the condominium	Unanimity of all owners	Art. 27 a) 1
Reduce or eliminate green areas or parks	Unanimity	Art. 27 b) 3
Change the specific purpose of a unit	Two-thirds of the total value	Art. 27 b) 1
Build additional floors or basements, or excavate	Two-thirds of the total value	Art. 27 b) 2
Acquire common property, change its purpose, or decide how it is used	Two-thirds of the total value	Art. 27 b) 3
Lease common property	Two-thirds of the total value	Arts. 11 and 27 b) 4
Useful improvements to common property	Two-thirds of the value	Art. 14 b)
Necessary improvements to common property	Majority of the value	Art. 14 a)
Amend the condominium bylaws	Two-thirds of the total value, subject to the debate opened by Art. 34	Arts. 27 b) 7 and 34
Any other resolution	Majority of the value	Art. 27 c)

In the cases under subsection b, if one owner holds at least 50% of the value, half of the remaining votes present at the assembly are also required. There is one caveat on amending the bylaws: Article 34 still says “unanimous vote,” while Article 27, as amended in 2022, lowered it to two-thirds. In our view the 2022 provision prevails, although no court has resolved the conflict; the analysis is in the study Who Decides in a Condominium.

The rules of coexistence that bylaws usually contain

With that framework in place, we can turn to the rules that generate the most disputes. None is regulated in detail by the law or the decree: their source is the condominium bylaws (Article 33, subsection d, of Law 7933), and their limit is Article 18 of the decree. One court added a guideline: the bylaws may grade offenses and sanctions “provided that they respect the rules of harmfulness, reasonableness, proportionality, and legality in sanctioning matters” (Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 343-2023). A good rule protects a real interest of the community, is proportionate, and is clearly written.

Pets

Neither the law nor the decree mentions pets; everything depends on the bylaws, which also bind tenants. In a vertical condominium (an apartment building) in San José, a tenant kept a dog of a breed the bylaws prohibited and argued that it was an emotional support animal; the administration ordered her to remove it within 72 hours. The Constitutional Chamber dismissed her amparo petition (a constitutional rights complaint): her lease required her to comply with the bylaws, which she knew, and she did not provide a disability certification from the National Council of Persons with Disabilities (CONAPDIS) or proof of the dog’s training (Constitutional Chamber, decision 11979-2025, applying the precedent of decision 12619-2022, also about a prohibited breed).

Those decisions have to be read carefully. The Chamber did not say that banning breeds or pets is valid in itself: it said that in those cases no fundamental rights were violated and that the claim belonged before the ordinary courts. In our view, rules that govern keeping animals (leashes in common areas, picking up waste, noise control, restrictions on breeds that regulations consider dangerous, a ban on breeding operations) are reasonable and rest on the peace and health that Article 15 protects. An absolute ban on keeping any animal at all inside the unit is more doubtful, because it reaches into domestic life within the private unit and may clash with Article 18 of the decree. If the ban was already in the bylaws when the person bought, the binding effect of Article 34 weighs in the community’s favor; if it is introduced later by amendment, it is more exposed to challenge.

Noise and quiet hours

There is no rule on noise between neighbors either. The decree only requires sound insulation for elevators and similar equipment, with a cross-reference to the Regulations for the Control of Environmental Noise, Decree 44486-S (Article 82 of Decree 45214). The basis for limiting noise made by people is the prohibition on disturbing the peace of others (Article 15 of Law 7933). In our view, the rule that works sets specific hours and conduct (quiet hours, hours for construction and moving, sound systems in common areas); one that merely prohibits “excessive noise” is of little use for imposing sanctions, for the reason the court gave in the case below.

Parking

The decree sets technical rules: in residential condominiums with more than thirty units, an extra ten percent of spaces must be added to the minimum for visitors, located in common area and reserved exclusively for visitors (Article 29 of Decree 45214), and spaces may be assigned to particular units only if they are in excess common area (Article 62). In our view, the assembly may not convert visitor parking into resident parking.

Rules for everyday use are indeed a matter for the bylaws, but they have to be well written. In a horizontal condominium in Desamparados, the bylaws prohibited parking on the internal street “for a prolonged time,” without saying for how long. The court upheld the denial of the Article 15 fine that the condominium had asked the judge to impose on an owner: to know what conduct was prohibited, one needed to know the maximum time tolerated, which could not be left to the subjective judgment of whoever imposes the sanction, and analogy has no place in sanctioning matters (Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 343-2023). “Thirty minutes maximum” can be enforced; “a prolonged time” cannot.

Security, access, and visitors

The decree allows a guardhouse or, in its place, “some other automated or remote system for access control and surveillance” (Articles 72 and 73 of Decree 45214). These are powers of the condominium, and the bylaws may regulate visitor registration, entry of service providers, and move-ins and move-outs.

The limit lies in access to one’s own unit. The Constitutional Chamber has tolerated measures that merely inconvenience, such as cutting off owners who are behind on their fees from the gate-opening service, when they can still get in and receive visitors by their own means (Constitutional Chamber, decision 5413-2011). But it found it abusive for an industrial condominium to prevent the vehicles of a warehouse owner and her tenants from passing through the common areas, because that made it impossible to reach the warehouse and amounted to taking the law into one’s own hands (Constitutional Chamber, decision 13256-2004). Cutting off services to owners in arrears is analyzed in the study Condominium Fees.

Surveillance cameras and personal data

The decree mentions “electronic surveillance systems” in its preamble, but it only allows an automated or remote system to be used in place of the guardhouse (Article 73); it says nothing about where cameras may point or what to do with the recordings. Cameras are governed by Law 8968, the Law on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Their Personal Data (Ley de Protección de la Persona frente al Tratamiento de sus Datos Personales), and by constitutional case law on privacy. That law applies to the databases of public or private bodies, except those kept “for exclusively internal, personal, or domestic purposes” that are not commercialized (Article 2). Personal data is “any data relating to an identified or identifiable natural person” (Article 3, subsection b), and a recognizable image of someone qualifies.

Whoever collects data must give notice of the database, its purposes, its recipients, and the party responsible for it, must as a rule obtain the person’s express consent (Article 5), and may keep the data only as long as it serves its purpose (Article 6). That consent requirement is hard to meet with every visitor, and we found no verified authority on how it applies to video surveillance in a condominium; that is one more reason for the system to be set out in the bylaws or in an assembly resolution, and to be clearly posted.

The Constitutional Chamber has established two ideas. The first is that cameras violate privacy when they intrude into people’s most intimate space, such as their home; in that decision it cites a precedent in which a condominium’s cameras, approved by the assembly, aimed at common areas, and with recordings kept for one month, did not violate anyone’s rights (Constitutional Chamber, decision 42198-2025; to the same effect, decision 27626-2021). The second is procedural: when a complaint was filed that a neighbor had installed, without an assembly resolution, a camera recording the common entrance and carport of a four-apartment vertical condominium, the Chamber dismissed the amparo petition, held that the recording had not been proven, and referred the matter to the ordinary courts, because reviewing whether the bylaws were breached is not its role (Constitutional Chamber, decision 25204-2023).

On that basis, and as the firm’s own view, a condominium camera system should meet at least the following conditions:

be approved by the assembly: in our view a majority of the value is enough (Article 27, subsection c, of Law 7933), unless the system changes the way the common areas are used, in which case two-thirds is required (Article 27, subsection b, item 3);
be posted and disclosed to residents and visitors, identifying who is responsible for the recordings (Article 5 of Law 8968);
point only at common areas, without capturing the interior of the units;
have written rules on who may view the images, for what purpose, and how long they are kept.

In our view, the domestic exception in Article 2 of Law 8968 does not cover the condominium, which is an organized community and not a household. It could cover a camera that a neighbor installs in their own unit, but that camera may not intrude into someone else’s home, and if it is installed in a common area or records one, the bylaws or the assembly decide. We found no verified case law applying Law 8968 to a condominium.

Electric vehicle chargers

The decree provides that “Condominiums may include charging stations for electric vehicles,” in accordance with Law 9518, the Law on Incentives and Promotion of Electric Transportation, and its regulations (Article 31 of Decree 45214). This is an option for the condominium, not a right of each owner to install a charger wherever they wish.

In our view, everything depends on the infrastructure it uses. A charger in the owner’s own parking space, connected to the owner’s meter and not touching any common installations, is a service for exclusive use that the law permits if it does not harm others (Article 15 of Law 7933). If cabling must be run through common areas or the main electrical panel must be altered, it is no longer an individual decision: the decree requires separate panels for the common areas and for each unit (Article 85), the owner may not impair the general installations (Article 16 of the law), and work on common areas requires the assembly’s approval (Article 64 of the decree).

What the community may regulate about rentals through digital platforms

Of all the rules of use, the one that has most changed life in many condominiums concerns rentals by the night or by the week through digital platforms. Here we look at it from the community’s side; the rights and duties of the owner who rents out a unit and of those who rent it are covered in the study Renting in a Condominium.

What Law 9742 says about condominiums

Law 9742, the Framework Law for the Regularization of Non-Traditional Lodging and Its Intermediation through Digital Platforms (Ley marco para la regularización del hospedaje no tradicional y su intermediación a través de plataformas digitales), governs the rental of homes and similar structures “for periods of no more than one year and no less than twenty-four hours” (Article 3, subsection c). It does not regulate condominiums, but it mentions them three times, always in the same sense: the guest’s right to enter and remain in the services open to the public is stated together with “the establishment’s own provisions or the condominium bylaws themselves, as applicable” (Article 5, subsection d); the guest must respect “condominium bylaws, where applicable” (Article 6, subsection a); and the provider of the service must allow its guests access with no restrictions other than those arising from the law, from the rules governing the activity, and, “where relevant, from the condominium bylaws, as applicable” (Article 8, subsection f).

The same law also recognizes the provider’s right to carry on the activity “with no limitations other than those provided for in the legal system” (Article 7, subsection a) and allows this “commercial activity” to operate in areas zoned as residential if it does not disturb its surroundings (Article 16).

Law 9742, therefore, does not displace the condominium bylaws: it presupposes them and defers to them. Delgado warned in 2006 that “seasonal co-owners” (comuneros de temporada) tend to be less committed to the community (pp. 51-52). The observation still holds, and today there is a tool to address it: the bylaws, to which the lodging law itself subjects the guest.

What the bylaws may do

In our view, the bylaws may regulate non-traditional lodging broadly, on the basis of Articles 15, 22, and 33, subsection d, of Law 7933 and of the cross-reference in Law 9742: registration of guests with the administration, a maximum number of occupants per unit, rules for using the common areas, delivery of the bylaws to each guest, a contact person, and the owner’s liability for damage caused by their guests. That last point has a legal basis: when the owner does not occupy the unit, those who use it are answerable for violations, “without prejudice to the joint and several civil liability of the owner” (Article 22 of Law 7933). The law speaks of civil liability; whether the owner must also pay the fines for their guests’ violations is more doubtful, as explained in the study Renting in a Condominium.

Prohibiting short-term rentals

The hard question is whether the bylaws may prohibit them. There is no express rule and no case law on the merits. In our view, a ban is defensible when the purpose of the units under the deed is residential, because habitual lodging for profit is commercial and touristic in nature, which is something different, and the law forbids making the unit serve “any purpose other than the one expressly agreed” (Article 15). In a condominium with a tourist or mixed purpose it would have far less support, and in a condo-hotel the question does not even arise, because lodging is its purpose: at least seventy percent of the time each year (Article 3.16 of Decree 45214).

Timing matters. If the ban was already in the bylaws when the owner bought, it binds them (Article 34). Introducing it later requires amending the bylaws or the deed of establishment. In our view two-thirds of the total value is enough (Article 27, subsection b, item 7), although Article 34 still speaks of unanimity and no court has resolved the conflict (it is analyzed in the study Who Decides in a Condominium); for that reason, whenever possible, it is better to secure everyone’s vote. If the ban amounts to changing the purpose of specific units, the majority is the same (Article 27, subsection b, item 1), but their owners must be parties to any proceeding over the resolution (First Chamber, ruling 867-2025); and if what changes is the general purpose of the condominium, for example from tourist to residential only, unanimity is required (Article 27, subsection a, item 1). The resolution may be challenged within the three months provided in Article 26, and the judge will measure it against Article 18 of the decree. An amendment that overnight prohibits what several owners were lawfully doing, with no transition period, is more vulnerable than one that regulates and phases in.

What the courts have not resolved

In a residential condominium with a hotel operating inside it, the bylaws prohibited short-term rentals, and a virtual assembly voted to authorize them. Two unit owners challenged the resolution through arbitration, as the bylaws provided, and the First Chamber upheld the arbitrators’ jurisdiction (First Chamber, ruling 546-2024). The award annulled the resolution, but the First Chamber later set aside the entire award, in part because it affected third parties who had acquired rights on the strength of those resolutions without being heard (ruling 867-2025). No one has finally decided whether the assembly may authorize or prohibit tourist rentals; what is said here is, therefore, the firm’s own view.

Internal sanctions under Article 23

Rules are worth little if breaking them has no consequences. The law provides two kinds: internal sanctions, imposed by the community, and the court-imposed fine of Article 15. We begin with the internal ones, which are the most widely used and the source of the most mistakes.

Article 23 of Law 7933 provides that, if an owner violates the prohibitions and limitations of the law, the bylaws, or assembly resolutions, “the following sanctions shall be imposed, which the condominium bylaws shall develop and specify, after due process has been followed, by the Owners’ Assembly: a) Written warning. b) Sanction or fine. c) Obligation of the unit owner to vacate.” It adds that the bylaws “shall set out the specific system of fines” and that claims for them are processed through summary proceedings (proceso sumario).

Who imposes sanctions, and under what rules

The provision assigns the power to sanction to the assembly, not to the condominium administrator (administrador) or the board of directors (junta directiva). When the administrator of a condominium in Guanacaste sued a former president of the board to make him stop sending emails attacking the board, the court upheld the ruling that the claim was legally untenable (improponible) for lack of standing: it is for the assembly to determine the sanction, and a judge can then review what was decided (Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Guanacaste, decision 318-2025). Another court clarified that the administrator may issue reprimands or fines if the assembly has so provided (decision 343-2023). The power to sanction, then, comes from the assembly and the bylaws, and the administrator exercises it only by express delegation.

In addition, the bylaws must contain a system of sanctions, which the law requires twice (Articles 23 and 33, subsection e). In our view, if the bylaws neither describe the offenses nor set the fines, the assembly cannot make them up case by case: it may issue a written warning, but not a fine.

The model bylaws included as an appendix to the 2006 book are a counterexample: there the administrator imposed the sanctions, including the obligation to vacate, and could place the offender’s unit under lease or in trust (pp. 233-234 and 237-238). That does not fit Article 23, and we found no legal basis for forcibly leasing a unit or placing it in trust. Henry Campos Vargas, in the same book, recommended an investigating body that would safeguard the right of defense (p. 82). The idea still stands, because neither the law nor the decree regulates the procedure: a committee that investigates and makes a recommendation, and an assembly that decides, is a sound design.

Due process before imposing a sanction

The phrase “after due process (debido proceso) has been followed” is being applied by the courts. In a residential condominium in San José, the administration was charging the owner of a unit, on her account statement, with fines for conduct by her tenant (trash, loose pets, improper parking), without identifying the offense, the rule broken, or the evidence. The court upheld the order to revoke the fines and refund what had been paid: Article 23 requires a written warning first and then a fine, the burden of proof lies with the condominium, and “at least a brief, summary investigation with notice of the charges” was needed before punishing anyone. It also weighed the fact that the owner was being sanctioned for acts of her tenant in which she had no part (Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 513-2025).

That decision confirms, with a nuance, another of Campos’s ideas: that an occupant’s liability for sanctions is personal (p. 88). The law makes the occupant answerable for their own violations and leaves the owner with joint and several civil liability (Article 22 of Law 7933). Whether that joint and several liability extends to fines, which are sanctions and not compensation, is doubtful, as explained in the study Renting in a Condominium; and if the condominium seeks to charge the owner a fine for what their tenant did, it must at the very least give the owner notice of the charges.

Drawing on those decisions, and as the firm’s own view, a minimum sanctioning procedure should follow these steps:

A written statement of charges to the person responsible (and to the owner, if the condominium intends to hold the owner answerable for an occupant), describing the facts, the date, and the bylaw provision violated.
Access to the condominium’s evidence: photographs, the security log, statements.
A reasonable period to respond and offer evidence in defense.
A hearing, oral or written, before the investigating body or the assembly.
A reasoned decision by the assembly, recorded in the minutes with the facts found and the sanction imposed.
Notice of the decision to the sanctioned person, who may challenge it within the three months provided in Article 26.

Describing the offense precisely and not punishing twice

The Desamparados parking decision contributed two rules. We have already seen the first, specificity: the sanctioned conduct must be described precisely, with no punishment by analogy. The second is the prohibition on punishing twice. The owner had already been reprimanded by the administrator for several of the acts the condominium later brought before the judge, and the court refused to add a fine for conduct already sanctioned with a reprimand (decision 343-2023). The decision resolved that specific case, a court-imposed fine sought after an internal sanction, and did not lay down a general theory about the two routes. In our view, the same logic applies within the condominium: if the community has already responded to an act with a warning, it cannot return to that same act to impose a fine. It may, however, fine conduct that repeats or continues after the warning, if the bylaws so provide; that is precisely the ladder Article 23 sets out, a written warning first and a fine afterward.

The obligation to vacate and its limits

The most serious sanction in Article 23 is the “obligation of the unit owner to vacate.” It is directed at the owner, and it should not be confused with the eviction proceedings (desahucio) against a non-owner occupant that the administration may bring with a power of attorney from the owner (Article 22 of Law 7933), which are covered in the study Renting in a Condominium.

Its scope is narrow. This sanction punishes violations of prohibitions and limitations, which are obligations not to do something, like those in Article 15, and for that reason it is not available for arrears in fees, which is an obligation to pay money with its own collection route under Article 20. A court so held when faced with an assembly resolution ordering a delinquent owner to vacate, because analogy is prohibited in sanctioning matters and a resolution cannot go beyond the law (Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, decision 49-2026). We found no case in which a court has ordered an owner to vacate for violations of the rules of coexistence.

On top of this there is constitutional uncertainty. According to the National System of Legislation in Force (Sistema Nacional de Legislación Vigente, SINALEVI), an action of unconstitutionality against Article 23 was filed in 2024 (case file 24-016310-0007-CO), and as of October 19, 2026, no ruling on it has been recorded. We do not know which aspects are being challenged or how it will be decided. In the meantime, in our view, an order to vacate should be a last resort: serious and repeated violations, prior warnings and fines that had no effect, a flawless procedure, and enforcement by a judge, never by force on the part of the administration.

Collecting internal fines

If the sanctioned person does not pay, the fine is claimed “through the summary proceedings provided for in the Civil Procedure Code” (Article 23 of Law 7933). Today that means the summary proceedings of Article 103 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), Law 9342, which cover disputes over the administration of horizontal property and those provided for in special laws (Article 103.1, subsections 9 and 14). There the person fined may argue whether due process was followed and whether the offense was properly described.

Another question is whether the fine is covered by the security interest the law grants the condominium over the unit. The wording of Article 20 reaches it: its first paragraph encumbers the unit for “the monetary obligations the owner may come to have with the condominium,” and a final fine is one; the second paragraph names “the fines” alongside the fees. In our view, however, the phrase “they generate” ties those fines to the fees, that is, to late-payment charges, and not to sanctions for breaking the rules of coexistence, which Article 23 directs to be claimed through summary proceedings; for that reason we do not recommend including them in the certification issued by the certified public accountant (contador público autorizado, CPA). It is a debatable reading, with no case law resolving it, and it is developed in the study Condominium Fees.

The court-imposed fine under Article 15

Alongside the sanctions the community imposes, the law provides for one imposed by a judge: “At the request of the condominium administrator or of an owner, the judicial authority shall impose on anyone who violates the provisions of this article a fine equal to one base salary, as defined in Law No. 7337 of May 5, 1993. The sums shall be used for improvements to the condominium; all without prejudice to any compensation that may be due under law” (Article 15 of Law 7933). It is processed through summary proceedings.

The condominium administrator may request it, but so may any owner, without an assembly resolution: it is a tool for the affected neighbor when the community does not act. When the administrator requests it, the prudent course is to have a resolution backing the request, because the Guanacaste court, in the email case cited above, understood that the sanction is determined by the assembly (decision 318-2025); that case was a suit to stop certain conduct, not a request for this fine, but its reasoning can be raised against both. The fine applies to anyone who violates Article 15, that is, anyone who uses the unit contrary to its purpose or for unlawful ends, disturbs the peace of others, or compromises the soundness, safety, health, or comfort of the condominium. Its amount is set by law and the judge does not adjust it: one base salary (salario base, a statutory reference unit), defined by Law 7337, which is updated every year based on the salary of a position in the national budget’s schedule of positions, and whose current figure the Judiciary (Poder Judicial) announces each year. The money collected goes neither to the State nor to the person who requested the fine, but to improvements to the condominium, as decision 343-2023 noted.

The fine does not prevent a claim for damages, and in our view it may be requested together with an order to stop the conduct. Combining it with internal sanctions is more delicate. The two have different sources and the law does not expressly prohibit their concurrence, but the only verified decision on the point, by a court of appeals sitting as a single judge, rejected the Article 15 fine requested for acts the administrator had already reprimanded, because the same thing may not be punished twice (decision 343-2023). For that reason we do not recommend requesting it for the same acts already sanctioned within the condominium; in our view it may be requested for new acts or for conduct that persists after the internal sanction. We know of no judgment that has imposed it.

The table compares the two routes.

	Court-imposed fine under Art. 15	Internal sanctions under Art. 23
Who imposes it	A judge	The Owners’ Assembly
Who requests it	The condominium administrator or any owner	The community, according to its bylaws
Conduct covered	That described in Art. 15	The prohibitions and limitations of the law, the bylaws, and assembly resolutions
Amount	One base salary, set by law	Whatever the bylaws’ system of fines sets
Where the money goes	Improvements to the condominium	Wherever the bylaws provide
Judicial route	Summary proceedings (Art. 103 of the Civil Procedure Code)	Summary proceedings to collect it; challenge under Art. 26

Leaks and other damage between units

Sanctions punish conduct; they do not repair damage. When water from the shower in the apartment above shows up on the ceiling of the one below, the affected person wants the leak fixed and the damage paid for. Law 7933 has no special rule beyond Articles 16 and 18, and we found no verified case law on leaks between units. What follows is the firm’s own view, built on that law, Decree 45214, and the liability rules of the Civil Code.

Who is liable, depending on where the damage comes from

The decisive question is where the water is coming from. The general rule is in Article 1045 of the Civil Code: “Anyone who, through intent, fault, negligence, or imprudence, causes harm to another is obliged to repair it, together with the resulting losses.” Applied to a condominium, it yields three scenarios.

If the leak starts in an installation belonging to a unit (a toilet seal, the waterproofing of a remodeled bathroom), its owner is liable, since it was theirs to maintain. If the cause is poor work by a contractor, the contractor is liable for their own negligence (Article 1045), and the owner who hired them is jointly and severally liable with them if the owner did not choose a qualified person or did not supervise the work with due diligence, because whoever commissions work has those two duties (Article 1048 of the Civil Code, second paragraph). If the unit is rented, the occupant is answerable for their own acts, without prejudice to the owner’s liability (Article 22 of Law 7933).

A word of caution about what is “one’s own”: the decree says that piping systems “shall be considered common areas” (Article 84 of Decree 45214). In our view, that rule refers to the building’s general networks; the branch lines and fixtures that serve only one unit are accessories of that unit (Article 8 of Law 7933), and their upkeep falls to its owner. When it is unclear where the common part ends, the bylaws or the condominium’s plans usually provide the answer.

If the leak starts in a common installation (a drainpipe, a main line, the waterproofing of the rooftop), the condominium is liable. Pipes are common areas (Articles 83 and 84 of Decree 45214), maintenance of the utility infrastructure “shall be borne by the condominium and its administration” (Article 80), and the condominium administrator is responsible for maintaining what is common (Article 30 of Law 7933). The repair and the compensation are a common expense, without prejudice to the condominium’s right to seek reimbursement from whoever caused the damage.

If the problem lies in the floor slab or the wall shared by two units, Article 18 applies: its upkeep is borne by the owners of the affected units. In our view, that rule allocates the cost of maintaining the shared element, but it does not rule out Article 1045: if the deterioration was caused by the negligence of one of the two, that owner must bear it.

What to do when the stain appears on the ceiling

What determines the outcome is proof of where the leak comes from. That is why we recommend the following steps:

Document the damage with dated photographs and videos, and keep the receipts for any repairs.
Notify the neighbor and the administration in writing, and ask for access to inspect.
Ask a professional (an engineer, an architect, or a plumbing technician) to determine in writing where the leak originates.
If the source is a common installation, demand that the administration, which is responsible for maintaining what is common, carry out the repair (Article 30 of Law 7933); if the repair requires work on common areas and is urgent for health or safety reasons, the condominium administrator may carry it out without waiting for the assembly (Article 64 of Decree 45214).
If the source is the neighboring unit, propose a written agreement to its owner stating who will make the repair, by when, and how much will be paid.
If no agreement is reached, go to a conciliation center or, as a last resort, to court.

It helps a great deal if the bylaws regulate the administration’s access to units to inspect common installations. Sánchez Boza already included such a clause in her model (pp. 201-202); today’s law still does not address the point, so the idea remains useful.

Going to court

If the dispute reaches a judge, the route depends on what is being sought. A damages claim by one neighbor against another has no special procedure and, in our view, goes through ordinary proceedings (proceso ordinario), which apply to claims for which no procedure is expressly provided (Article 101 of the Civil Procedure Code). If the issue is that the administration will not repair a common installation, the dispute concerns the administration of horizontal property and goes through summary proceedings (Article 103.1, subsection 9). And if new construction or the poor condition of a structure threatens the unit, the code provides summary proceedings to halt new construction and to order demolition, with an on-site inspection and immediate measures (Articles 107 and 108).

How disputes over living together are resolved

What remains is how these rights are enforced when there is no agreement. The law requires the bylaws to provide “mechanisms for the resolution of disputes” (Article 33, subsection e, of Law 7933). Sánchez Boza noted in 2006 that the bylaws she reviewed contained no alternative dispute resolution clauses (p. 189), and she concluded that the success of a condominium depends above all on the attitude of its residents, because “for now we can consider ourselves quite immature in the condominium model” (p. 218). The diagnosis remains largely valid; the tools, on the other hand, are clear.

Conciliation and mediation before suing

Law 7727, the Law on Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Promotion of Social Peace (Ley sobre Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social), recognizes the right to resort to dialogue, negotiation, mediation, and conciliation to settle property-related disputes over rights the parties are free to dispose of (Article 2). Agreements may be reached at any time, even while a lawsuit is pending (Article 3), and the parties freely choose who will mediate (Article 5). Out-of-court agreements have “the authority and effect of res judicata” and are immediately enforceable (Article 9), provided they meet the formal requirements of Article 12.

A dispute over noise or a leak lends itself to this: mediation makes it possible to agree on a schedule, a deadline for repairs, or a split of costs with a flexibility that a judge does not have. In her model, Sánchez Boza proposed mandatory prior mediation, with an obligation to accept whatever the mediators proposed up to a certain amount (p. 208). That clause is doubtful today: mediation is voluntary, and a binding decision by a third party looks more like arbitration. In our view, the bylaws may require an attempt at conciliation before suing, but they may not impose the outcome.

Arbitration, if the bylaws provide for it

In arbitration, a third party decides the dispute with the effect of a judgment. Its rules are no longer in Law 7727, whose arbitration chapter was repealed by Law 10535, the Law to Harmonize Costa Rican Arbitration Rules (Ley para armonizar la normativa del Arbitraje Costarricense), of 2024. The First Chamber has accepted that, if the bylaws so provide, challenges to resolutions may go to arbitration instead of the summary proceedings of Article 26, depending on how the clause is worded (ruling 546-2024). Its costs, however, can be out of proportion in a dispute between neighbors.

Summary proceedings

Without an agreement or an arbitration clause, disputes over living together go before a civil judge, almost always through summary proceedings. Articles 15, 23, and 26 of Law 7933 refer to the “summary procedure” of the 1989 Civil Procedure Code, now repealed; the reference is understood to be to the summary proceedings of the current code, which cover “Disputes over the administration of co-ownership, horizontal property, and shared ownership” and those provided for in special laws (Article 103.1, subsections 9 and 14, of the Civil Procedure Code). The courts handle them as “summary condominium dispute” proceedings (sumario de controversia en condominio).

They move faster than ordinary proceedings: the defendant has five days to answer (Article 103.2); everything is resolved at a single hearing, at which the judge first attempts conciliation and then receives the evidence and issues judgment (Article 103.3); and if the judgment dismisses the claim, the plaintiff may ask within ten days for the case to be converted into ordinary proceedings (Article 103.4). Against an assembly resolution, such as an amendment banning pets, provisional suspension may also be requested (Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Code). The deadline to challenge is three months from the date the resolution becomes final (Article 26 of Law 7933); that deadline and the requirements for suspension are explained in the study Who Decides in a Condominium.

Why an amparo petition is usually not the way

Many people think first of the Constitutional Chamber, and the decisions cited show why it is almost never the right path. Faced with a neighbor’s camera pointed at the common entrance, the Chamber said that reviewing whether the bylaws were breached is not part of its work (decision 25204-2023). When a unit owner challenged a fine the assembly had imposed for improvements inside their unit, it summarily rejected the amparo petition, because disputes over the bylaws, the assembly, and the administration are not directly related to a fundamental right (Constitutional Chamber, decision 10766-2026). And it treated the case of the dog of a prohibited breed as a matter of ordinary legality (decision 11979-2025). Amparo is reserved for exceptional situations, such as being prevented from reaching one’s own unit (decision 13256-2004); for everything else, an amparo petition that will be rejected only wastes months.

How to apply these rules in the day-to-day life of the condominium

Everything explained here comes down to a few ideas. The owner of a unit must use it according to its purpose, without disturbing others (Article 15); may carry out work inside it without touching the structure or the common installations (Article 16); and shares with the neighbor the cost of maintaining what they have in common (Article 18). In the common areas, everyone has the same right to reasonable use (Article 9), no one may close them off for themselves (Article 65 of the decree), and work, changes of purpose, and leases are decided by the assembly with the majorities of Article 27. The bylaws may regulate almost everything else, from pets to platform rentals, provided they do not contradict the law or empty out the independent use of each unit.

For those who administer the condominium or sit on its board, the task that prevents the most disputes is reviewing the bylaws: they should describe offenses precisely, set a graduated system of fines, establish a procedure with notice of charges and a hearing, and provide for an attempt at conciliation before going to court. The power to sanction belongs to the assembly, arrears do not justify ordering an owner to vacate, and fines imposed without due process end up being refunded.

For someone suffering from a neighbor’s conduct, the recommended order is to document it, notify the administration in writing, ask the assembly to act under the bylaws, attempt conciliation and, if nothing works, go to court: to summary proceedings for the Article 15 fine, and to whichever route applies for compensation for the damage. For someone who receives a sanction, the first step is to check whether the offense was described in the bylaws, whether they had a chance to defend themselves, and whether the assembly made the decision; they have three months to challenge it.

In a condominium, life together is governed by rules that everyone accepted when they bought, and knowing them before a dispute arises prevents most lawsuits. If you have a specific situation in your condominium and would like a detailed assessment, you can book a consultation with the firm.

Main statutes and sources

Law 7933, Condominium Property Regulatory Law (Ley Reguladora de la Propiedad en Condominio), current version of March 16, 2026 (SINALEVI).
Executive Decree 45214-MIVAH-MEIC-TUR, Executive Regulations to the Condominium Property Regulatory Law (Reglamento a la Ley Reguladora de la Propiedad en Condominio) (La Gaceta 198, Supplement 136, October 22, 2025; in force since January 19, 2026).
Law 9342, Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), current version of March 25, 2026 (SINALEVI).
Civil Code (Código Civil), Law 30, current version of November 16, 2025 (SINALEVI).
Law 9742, Framework Law for the Regularization of Non-Traditional Lodging and Its Intermediation through Digital Platforms (Ley marco para la regularización del hospedaje no tradicional y su intermediación a través de plataformas digitales), current version of October 29, 2019; in force since June 1, 2020 (SINALEVI).
Law 8968, Law on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Their Personal Data (Ley de Protección de la Persona frente al Tratamiento de sus Datos Personales), of July 7, 2011 (SINALEVI).
Law 7727, Law on Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Promotion of Social Peace (Ley sobre Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social), of December 9, 1997, current version of September 18, 2024 (SINALEVI).
Law 7337, of May 5, 1993 (definition of the base salary, salario base).
Law 9518, Law on Incentives and Promotion of Electric Transportation (Ley de Incentivos y Promoción para el Transporte Eléctrico), of January 25, 2018 (cited in Article 31 of Decree 45214).
Executive Decree 44486-S, Regulations for the Control of Environmental Noise (Reglamento para el control del ruido ambiental) (cited in Article 82 of Decree 45214).
Law 10535, Law to Harmonize Costa Rican Arbitration Rules (Ley para armonizar la normativa del Arbitraje Costarricense), of September 18, 2024 (repealing the arbitration chapter of Law 7727).
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 2336-2002, March 6, 2002.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 13256-2004, November 23, 2004.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 5413-2011, April 29, 2011.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 27626-2021, December 9, 2021.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 12619-2022.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 25204-2023, October 6, 2023.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 11979-2025, April 25, 2025.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 42198-2025, December 19, 2025.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision 10766-2026, March 24, 2026.
First Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala Primera), ruling 1572-2022, July 7, 2022.
First Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala Primera), ruling 546-2024, May 24, 2024.
First Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala Primera), ruling 867-2025, May 22, 2025.
Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, Second Section, decision 343-2023, June 20, 2023.
Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, First Section, decision 513-2025, October 1, 2025.
Second Civil Court of Appeals of San José, First Section, decision 49-2026, January 28, 2026.
Civil and Labor Court of Appeals of Guanacaste, decision 318-2025, November 11, 2025.
Montejo Morales, Andrés, et al., Ley Reguladora de la Propiedad en Condominio y la Propiedad Horizontal en Costa Rica. Experiencias y problemas concretos [The Condominium Property Regulatory Law and Horizontal Property in Costa Rica: Experiences and Concrete Problems], Institute of Legal Research (Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas), University of Costa Rica, 2006.

This study is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case. To discuss your situation, book a consultation.

All studies Share