Renovating in a community of owners: notice and approval
By Ross Alinari · Last checked · Editorial policy · How we check facts
Owning an apartment does not make every element accessible from it private. A proposed renovation may touch shared structure, the exterior or installations serving other homes. The Ley de Propiedad Horizontal, or LPH, establishes limits on private alterations and rules for community decisions. Municipal permission and community requirements address different matters. Before finalising a layout, identify the physical elements affected and obtain the community information needed to understand the proposal.
Start with the private-work limits
Article 7.1 permits modifications to a unit’s architectural elements, installations and services within stated limits: they must not impair or alter building safety, the general structure or external configuration, or prejudice another owner’s rights. It requires prior notice of those works to the community representative. It also states that an owner may not unilaterally alter the rest of the property.
Describe the work clearly enough for those limits to be assessed. Replacing finishes in the same position is a different proposal from cutting an opening, altering a balcony enclosure or moving drainage into a shared zone. A photograph of the room may not reveal the affected common elements. Ask for drawings or technical explanation where necessary, and keep a copy of the notice and attachments. Do not treat a verbal statement that the work is inside the apartment as a sufficient assessment of its effect on the rest of the building.
Identify shared elements before specifying products
The LPH’s owner obligations include respecting general installations and common elements, maintaining private parts appropriately and permitting the access and interventions required in the circumstances described by article 9. Those obligations explain why the route of a pipe or the position of equipment can matter beyond the owner’s preferred layout.
Make a list of proposed changes affecting the facade, shared risers, roof, structural elements or other potentially common parts. Ask the administrator for the relevant building and community documents and obtain a technical assessment where the element’s function is unclear. Keep decisions about ownership and authorisation separate from construction convenience. A shorter service route may be attractive to a contractor while still requiring a community question to be resolved. Identifying that issue early lets the designer compare viable options before the owner orders equipment or accepts a layout whose installation depends on an unresolved change.
Source: LPH arts. 7 and 9.1(a)–(d).
Distinguish notice from an approving resolution
Prior notice under article 7 and a community resolution under the applicable decision rules are different records. Article 17 contains several voting rules for different types of decision; there is no single majority that can safely be applied to every renovation request. The correct rule depends on the substance of the proposal and the relevant legal provisions.
Provide a concise description for the community to consider, supported by the drawings or technical information needed to understand the effect on common property. Ask the administrator or adviser to identify the applicable decision route and keep the resulting record. An acknowledgement that an email was received is not the same as a resolution authorising an alteration. Equally, not every ordinary internal refurbishment should be described as requiring the same approval as a structural or common-element intervention. Accurate classification avoids both unsupported permission claims and unnecessary confusion about straightforward works.
Keep required building works distinct from preferences
Article 10 addresses works and actions that are compulsory in the circumstances it specifies, including matters of conservation and the applicable basic requirements. These provisions should not be confused with an individual owner’s preferred improvement or with every discretionary community project. The nature and legal basis of the work need to be identified before discussing how a decision is made.
If a defect is discovered during a private renovation, record its location and apparent extent and notify the appropriate person through the agreed channel. Obtain a technical assessment rather than attributing responsibility from a photograph. Separate the immediate need to protect the property from the later decision about permanent repair and allocation of costs. This guide does not prescribe a universal response time or promise a particular community outcome. It gives an owner a way to organise evidence and questions so the relevant people can address the actual condition and applicable obligations.
Consider the intended rental use separately
For the tourist activity specified in article 7.3, the law requires prior express community approval in the terms of article 17.12. That provision uses a three-fifths majority of all owners and participation quotas for the stated decisions. The additional provision addresses qualifying activity already exercised before the relevant change took effect. The existing-use conditions must be checked rather than assuming every earlier listing establishes an exception.
An owner renovating for future tourist use should therefore resolve the activity question separately from permission for physical works. Approval of a bathroom refurbishment does not itself approve the rental activity, and tourist registration does not decide whether a facade alteration is permitted. Put the intended use into the design brief early, retain the relevant community record and check municipal and regional requirements independently. A later change in the business plan may require a different assessment even where the building work itself has already been completed.
Source: LPH arts. 7.3 and 17.12; additional provision 2.
Coordinate work while you are away
The owner’s obligations under the LPH continue to matter when communication is handled remotely. Give the person coordinating the renovation the relevant community documents and an agreed contact route, while retaining control over decisions that change the scope. Avoid multiple informal instructions reaching the contractor and administrator through different people.
Before work begins, record the accepted scope, notices, relevant resolutions and any practical access arrangements. Keep site protection and use of shared areas in the construction discussion, with any applicable community conditions identified. If the design changes, ask whether the existing notice or resolution still covers it. At completion, retain evidence of the agreed works and any issues reported in shared areas. A clear record is useful for future maintenance and for explaining the renovation to a later owner. It is also more reliable than a general statement that the community knew about the work, which does not establish what information it received or what it decided.
Worked example
A Calpe apartment owner plans a kitchen refurbishment and a new extractor outlet through the facade. The scope separates the internal replacement work from the external opening. The technical and community position of the outlet is checked before equipment is ordered, and any required resolution is retained separately from the works notice. The example is hypothetical and does not assert that a particular facade alteration is permitted.