Structural Modifications

Maintaining an inventory of previous structural modifications to private property, modifications to the facade of buildings and especially to common property which may be in private use is important for several reasons: such modifications may create precedent for what others can do; they might also alter the fair distribution of participation quotas (if not ownership coefficients).

ENCLOSURES

~

ENCLOSURES ~

PRIVATE USE OF COMMON AREAS

~

PRIVATE USE OF COMMON AREAS ~

Approximately 100 areas of common land can be identified which are in private use; some are geolocated on the linked map. A majority of these areas appear to have evolved during the course of time, without being repossessed into common use. Some may have been seized without consent of co-owners (but complete records of the community have been impossible to obtain).

An inventory of modifications at Costa Natura, plotted on Google Maps

JOINING OF PROPERTY UNITS

~

JOINING OF PROPERTY UNITS ~

SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY UNITS

~

SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY UNITS ~

OBSTRUCTIONS OF ACCESS ON COMMON LAND

~

OBSTRUCTIONS OF ACCESS ON COMMON LAND ~

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

〰️

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 〰️

  • This excellent article (with references to relevant jurisprudence) summarises the approach taken by Spanish courts. There is always a subjective factor - but as a general principle - If any owner wishes to do something which alters or affects common property (such as the external facade of buildings): if something comparably similar has been done previously without being opposed, then other owners have automatic rights to do the same.

    Major construction works including complete enclosures of terraces have occurred previously without being opposed. Therefore, new complete enclosures of terraces cannot be universally prevented; they may be possible to prevent if they impair the general character of the architecture or impair the views from other residential units, for example.

  • Multiple abuses of rights appear to have been perpetrated by Community Leaders acting in the name of the Community of Owners, in collaboration with their Secretary-Administrators and Lawyers. These Include: false statements of law (by lawyers, administrators and Presidents); autocratic decisions by Presidents; selective permissions to owners (permitting something to one owner while prohibiting it to another).

    Many abuses of rights have also been perpetrated by the Board of Owners as a whole, usually in consequence of naively following instructions from the President on how to vote. A recent example of this is item 17 of the so-called “EGM” in September 2022: the item was misrepresented to owners in addition to being denied by the meeting (in contravention of legal principles). Lawyers at the meeting appear to have collaborated with Community Leaders and the Board of Owners in abusing the law.

    Furthermore, lawyers and Community Leaders have initiated legal actions against owners which have no chance of success. This may be for the purpose of justifying their existence and generating unnecessary legal costs.

  • Decisions by the Board of Owners may be challenged in court for a period of 12 months from receiving a copy of the minutes in a manner which provides confirmation of receipt (LHP Article 18.3). Many Malaga lawyers quote this time limit as 3 months, due to an imbecilic confusion written into LHP.

    Actions against owners who have modified the common elements without legal basis and without permission from the Board of Owners may be challenged by the Board of Owners for a period of 5 years (Article 1964 of the Spanish Civil Code).

  • Apartment 141 has a very ugly complete enclosure of a terrace on the first floor of block 18. This is not in keeping with the architectural character of Costa Natura. Terrace not be so ugly. It may be worthwhile for owners to explore any ways to fix this error (whether by mutual agreements or by legal means).

  • A small number of property units have been combined or enlarged, by various means. Some of these changes are obviously beneficial, creating apartments which have more capacity for family groups. However, one past-President appears to have joined 4 units together, which may not have been beneficial for the community. Since that past-President appears to have acted without consulting the Board of Owners in a number of ways, the structural changes made by him do not appear useful as legal precedents.