Squatting and buyer risk: what changed in 2025?

Squatting means occupying another person's property without the owner's consent. Where it is someone's permanent home, the offence is allanamiento de morada; where the property is empty, it is usurpación. Both are criminal offences, carrying imprisonment, fines, and obligations to vacate and compensate the owner. On paper, the law protects the owner. In practice, outcomes depend on court workloads and the specific circumstances as well as the statutory wording.

The 2025 reform: faster proceedings, with caveats

Ley Orgánica 1/2025 has applied since 3 April 2025, allowing allanamiento de morada and usurpación cases to proceed through juicio rápido, the expedited criminal process. The theoretical benchmark is around 15 days to a hearing. Media headlines presented this as a revolution: owners could finally recover a flat within a fortnight. The reality is more modest. Courts remain overloaded, and actual timescales often differ far less dramatically from the previous position than '15 days' implies. Expedited proceedings remove some formal stages but do not remove the case backlog that limits judicial capacity.

There is another caveat rarely featured in headlines. Under the Fiscalía General del Estado's own interpretation, non-violent usurpación—the most common form of squatting—often continues to be treated as a less serious offence outside the fast-track mechanism. The scenario an investor is most likely to encounter—an empty flat occupied without forced entry or violence—is therefore the one least affected. In practice, the reform has a narrower reach than its title suggests. See Infobae for details.

Why a discount does not remove the problem

Flats occupied by squatters at sale trade at substantial discounts, in some cases up to 60% below market value. This can tempt an investor seeking a cheap entry. But costs extend beyond the contract price. Banks are reluctant to finance occupied assets, so purchases are almost always funded entirely with equity, tying up the full capital without leverage. The buyer must then conduct and fund eviction, alongside potential damage from unauthorised occupation: stripped plumbing, worn electrical installations and damaged finishes. Final economics often disappoint the headline discount, particularly once the cost of time needed to return the asset to use is included.

Does this fit the DNPI model?

A rapid renovation and resale model cannot operate while someone occupies the flat without entitlement. Time is the strategy's principal resource, and eviction consumes it unpredictably. No one can guarantee that a case will qualify for expedited proceedings or be heard in weeks rather than months. An occupied property is therefore generally unsuitable for DNPI unless vacant possession and handover are secured as a transaction condition before signing or at completion. This is a separate due diligence item alongside debts and encumbrances; see the due diligence checklist.