Restricted Zone Properties

I have heard that Mexico is making, or thinking of making some changes to the ownership rules on coastal and border zone property for foreign purchasers. Does anyone have any information on this?

Bob

I don't think anything except talk has occurred yet.

The restricted zone is, I think, one hundred Km or 62 mi from any frontier. I heard about this proposal too, but if I remember correctly, it would not change much about actual ownership. Simplifying the process, maybe? Lizzy

I had always thought that you couldn't own land within 90 miles of the coast. You can only lease it. Some places in the US are the same, like Irvine CA

The Mexican Constitution forbids foreign ownership of residential property within 100 kilometers (about 60 miles) of a land border and within 50 kilometers (about 30 miles) of the ocean.

bobnliz wrote:The restricted zone is, I think, one hundred Km or 62 mi from any frontier. I heard about this proposal too, but if I remember correctly, it would not change much about actual ownership. Simplifying the process, maybe? Lizzy

The proposal is to do away with all restrictions. The current law is an artifact of history which enabled the Gubmint to nationalize border property for "national defense."

And the Mexican is Here>>>>> http://www.bajainsider.com/baja-real-estate/owning-coastal-property.htm

This is the proposal >>>>

http://69.73.170.179/ph5/read.php?17,10342,10915

Read about the THE PUNTA BANDA HOME NIGHTMARE , this is an older article however it is interesting because because of this little known law


a little known law was passed that exempted property from the Federal Zone if the land was on an angle - or cliff - more than about 30 degrees. The reasoning was that you could not reasonably be expected to utilize land on a steep cliff. This ruling had no effect whatsoever on people whose land was on a normal flat beach. In fact, many homes in Baja are split on both normal land and Federal Zone land.

http://www.baja.net/articles/puntabanda.html

Maybe Spencer can shed some more light on the new proposal

Solovino wrote:

David wrote:

bobnliz wrote:The restricted zone is, I think, one hundred Km or 62 mi from any frontier. I heard about this proposal too, but if I remember correctly, it would not change much about actual ownership. Simplifying the process, maybe? Lizzy

The proposal is to do away with all restrictions. The current law is an artifact of history which enabled the Gubmint to nationalize border property for "national defense."

Explain that one dude.

Where have they nationalized any property for national defense? Besides, Mexicans own title with no restrictions. Eminent domain exists here. They don't really have to ask if they really want it regardless of nationality. They just don't want gringos crying to their government about it and risking more invasions.

Eminent domain: United States, or expropriation Canadian common law system is the inherent power of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent.

Would a Mexican citizen with "clear title" outside of the "Restricted zone" (lets say in Chapala) receive due monetary compensation?

miendo wrote:I had always thought that you couldn't own land within 90 miles of the coast. You can only lease it. Some places in the US are the same, like Irvine CA

I think it is either 20 or 30 miles, not 90. You can own it, sort of. It has to be in a bank trust, and you pay a fee for that trust each year to the bank. Unlike, here, where you can own property outright in your name. If you buy along the coast, whatever the miles are, the bank needs to release the trust to allow you to sell and there is an additional fee for that. I think I am close to correct. Zoey

Solovino wrote:

cane wrote:

Eminent domain: United States, or expropriation Canadian common law system is the inherent power of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent.

Would a Mexican citizen with "clear title" outside of the "Restricted zone" (lets say in Chapala) receive due monetary compensation?

That is what the law says. And for Mexican citizens, there is no restricted zone.

I know that there is land in Canada that Canadians can not own.

I also know that there is land in Mexico that Mexicans can not own, even in the State of Jalisco, that is more than 50Km from the coast.

Now tell them what you want them to know.

Solovino wrote:

cane wrote:

I know that there is land in Canada that Canadians can not own.

I also know that there is land in Mexico that Mexicans can not own, even in the State of Jalisco, that is more than 50Km from the coast.

Now tell them what you want them to know.

Mexicans can't own land that already belongs to others. That includes land that already belongs to the government. So what is your point?

The point is that Americans are being told that they can BUY/OWN land (and water) in Canada and Mexico, that belongs to the STATE/PEOPLE, not to the "Government".

Is there such a thing as Patrimony in the USA?

Mexico and Direct Foreign Ownership of Coastal Property

However, getting back to property ownership matters, a new and far more comprehensive initiative was introduced in the senate on March 9, 2010, cosponsored this time by eight senators (six from the PAN; one PRI; and one Convergence). Three of the Panistas are from Baja California, with the other three representing Sonora, Sinaloa, and Veracruz; the Priista is from Nuevo León; and the Convergencia member hails from Oaxaca.

And this bill, that seeks to end the constitutional prohibition on direct foreign ownership of property within the restricted zones, cuts straight to the chase, saying in its preamble: "The proposal is to eliminate the restricted zone and make it possible for foreigners and foreign companies to acquire direct control over lands and waters without more restrictions than those indicated in the legislation that may become applicable, and in compliance with the terms of the respective contracts. …"

http://www.mexidata.info/id2615.html

And if this new amendment does happen ... there's still Ejidos to deal with

Thanks for the information Sparks. I have preened out the small talk and spats and now moved it back to the Legal section where it belongs.

Bob

Well, it should be interesting to see how this works out. Personally, I have mixed feelings about taking away the restrictions. People can make such a mess of things and I'd hate to see the deterioration of the coast become any worse. So often the "construction booms" create such huge eyesores. Soon there may not be anything left of the coast. L

Got to agree with Bobnlz, witness what has happened to some of the coastal cities in Texas. Also can't see the banks duing away with the trust, it's become such a cash cow.

Removing the "restrictions" won't change anything. Pls note that today both coasts are lined with hotels and condos.

Not all of it; not yet, anyway. Lizzy

Correct of course, but it's not the ownership restrictions that are standing in the way, they never have.

Even with todays limits on foreign ownership, by way of contrato de fideicomiso, land sales on Isla Mujeres, QR, have already eaten up 90% of the shoreline and now the island is infilling with condo developements...

Sure is different from 10 years ago.... Sad, very sad!!