Three layers, and what the neighbours decide of them
The neighbours decide whether tourist letting is allowed in the building; the Land Registry, against whom that agreement still works later; the municipality and Canary Law 6/2025 as amended by Law 7/2026, whether the use is permitted at all. The preamble to Law 6/2025 says so itself: it does not alter the horizontal property regime, because the region has no competence for it. At the neighbour level article 17.12 names four options in one breath — approve, limit, condition, forbid — "suponga o no modificación del título constitutivo o de los estatutos". Whether prohibition was included was disputed; the Plenary settled it on 3 October 2024 through the ordinary meaning of the verb "limitar". The same majority carries a surcharge on the holiday flat's share of common costs, up to twenty per cent.
Who is not caught, and how that is proved
Non-retroactivity appears in two places: the closing sentence of article 17.12 itself and the second additional provision. Under it, an owner may carry on who was exercising the activity before the reform took effect and had previously come under the sectoral tourism rules. What matters is therefore not whether someone was letting before, but whether they were doing it on the register — in the Canaries, the entry in the tourism register. An owner who let only in fact, unregistered, is not covered on the wording; that is how the lawyer María Carmen Barrón López read the rule on 27 March 2025 in the specialist portal Idibe.
The Land Registry: what it does and what it does not
The story running through the islands since August points the other way from what one would assume: according to Moncloa of 23 August 2026 and Digital Faro Canarias of the day before, dozens of owners are filing objections at the San Bartolomé land registries precisely to stop their flats being linked to tourist use. Neither report names anyone, gives a figure, or cites a court decision.
What registration actually achieves belongs to the neighbour layer: under article 5 a private statute does not prejudice third parties "si no ha sido inscrito en el Registro de la Propiedad". So what gets registered is the community's ban, not the landlord's use. Conversely, no registration permits a use that the municipality and the sectoral rules do not permit.
Step by step: what an owner can do, what the neighbours can do
For the owner who wants to let, in this order. First, check whether article 7.3 applies at all: if the letting was running before 3 April 2025 and was registered, no agreement is needed. Second, if it does: ask the president in writing to put the item on the agenda; under article 16.1 a meeting must be called when a quarter of the owners, or owners holding 25 per cent of the quotas, request it. Third, lodge an address in Spain with the secretary (article 9.1.h). Fourth, settle arrears before the meeting starts — an owner not "al corriente" may speak under article 15.2 but not vote. Fifth, watch the deadline: article 18.3 gives three months, one year for agreements contrary to law; under article 18.2 the challenger must have paid or made a judicial deposit.
For the neighbours, likewise in order. First, count correctly: three fifths of all owners and three fifths of all quotas, not of those present. Second, convene properly: by the president, failing that by those requesting the meeting, with agenda, place, day and time for first and, where applicable, second call (article 16.2); the annual meeting needs six days' notice. Third, word the agenda item literally, because the reach of the agreement is measured by it. Fourth, the absentees: under article 17.8 owners duly summoned count as votes in favour unless they object within thirty calendar days of being sent the minutes — only then is the result fixed. Fifth, execute the agreement before a notary and register it, or it will not bind a later buyer.
The argument, and what nobody counts
On the neighbours' side stands what Antena 3 quoted from that manager on 6 July 2026: what worries residents most is "no saber quién entra y sale del edificio" — a figure from his own portfolio, not a survey. On the landlords' side stands the objection that a majority is retrospectively removing a use the flat was bought with; the firm Navarro Selfa called that hard to square with principles of equity in its case note of 9 October 2024. How many communities in the Canaries have actually voted a ban is not recorded anywhere.