Protected Natural Areas in Quintana Roo: What You Can and Cannot Do

Legal Framework of Protected Natural Areas in Quintana Roo: Operational Restrictions and Permitted Uses

Quintana Roo concentrates some of the most extensive and ecologically sensitive protected surfaces in the country. For those structuring real estate, tourism, or infrastructure projects in the state, the Protected Natural Areas (PNA) regime is not an ancillary element of feasibility analysis: it is, frequently, the determining factor. An inaccurate reading of the regulatory framework can generate absolute nullities, objective environmental liability, and total loss of investment.

Classification and Applicable Normative Hierarchy

PNAs are governed, in the first instance, by the General Law on Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (LGEEPA), published in the Federal Official Gazette on January 28, 1988 and with substantial reform of May 8, 2023, particularly in its articles 44 to 77 bis. The LGEEPA establishes federal categories: biosphere reserves, national parks, natural monuments, areas for the protection of natural resources, areas for the protection of flora and fauna, and sanctuaries.

At the state level, the Law on Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection of the State of Quintana Roo (LEEPA-QR), in force with reforms published in the State Official Gazette in December 2022, creates an additional layer of PNAs under state and municipal jurisdiction. Its article 68 empowers the State Executive to decree areas of local jurisdiction, with their own management programs, independent of federal ones.

The central operational instrument is the Management Program of each PNA, provided for in article 65 of the LGEEPA. Without a published management program, the general restrictions of the category persist but no specific zoning exists, which creates considerable legal uncertainty for the investor.

Zoning: The Core of Land Use Analysis

Article 47 bis of the LGEEPA establishes mandatory internal zoning for biosphere reserves and national parks. Core zones permit only preservation activities, non-manipulative scientific research, and environmental education. Buffer zones permit compatible productive activities and low-impact tourism, provided that the applicable management program expressly authorizes them.

For the developer, the first due diligence step is to determine in which zone of which PNA the property is located, verifying both the constitutive decree and the current management program. The National Commission of Protected Natural Areas (CONANP), a deconcentrated body of the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), maintains the official registry and issues environmental impact authorizations at the federal level in accordance with article 28 of the LGEEPA and the Regulation of the LGEEPA on Environmental Impact Assessment, reformed in 2014.

Permitted and Prohibited Works: Operational Criteria

Works expressly prohibited with general effect within federal PNAs include, among others:

• Discharge or disposal of solid, liquid, or gaseous waste that alters ecosystems (article 50, subsection I, LGEEPA).
• Forest use that involves land use change on forest land, without the authorization provided for in the General Law on Sustainable Forest Development (LGDFS) in force (DOF June 5, 2018, with subsequent reforms, which repealed the law published on February 25, 2003), articles 93 to 97, which regulate land use change on forest land under the currently applicable law.
• Modification of watercourses, water bodies, and water flows in core zones (article 50, subsection IV, LGEEPA).
• Construction or urbanization outside the areas that management programs expressly designate for that purpose (article 47 bis 1, LGEEPA).

Activities conditionally permitted in buffer zones include low-impact nature tourism infrastructure, interpretive trails, research facilities, and in some areas, eco-tourism lodging. All require an Environmental Impact Statement (MIA) in regional or particular modality according to article 30 of the LGEEPA, and in many cases also authorization for forest land use change before the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources or, in the case of state jurisdiction, before the Secretariat of Ecology and Environment of Quintana Roo (SEMA).

The General Law on Wildlife (LGVS), with reform of 2021, adds autonomous restrictions when the property harbors critical habitat of species at risk, regardless of the PNA category.

Relevant Judicial Criteria

In accordance with the criteria sustained by the Collegiate Courts of the XXVII Circuit in matters related to ANP in Quintana Roo, the judicial bodies have interpreted that the absence of a published management program does not suspend the general prohibitions provided for in the constitutive decree of the ANP, and that the private party cannot invoke such administrative omission to obtain authorizations that contravene the protection category. This criterion delimits the margin of litigation maneuver: the lack of a management program constitutes an argument for challenging acts of authority, not an opening to execute works. Given that no isolated thesis or published jurisprudence with registration number has been located.

The First Chamber of the SCJN has developed a consistent interpretive line regarding the right to a healthy environment enshrined in constitutional article 4. In accordance with the criteria sustained in that jurisprudential line, among which stand out those issued in the context of amparo writs in review resolved between 2015 and 2022 on land use restrictions in areas of ecological value, the Chamber has held that such restrictions constitute limitations on the right of property derived from the social function provided for in constitutional article 27, and that they do not generate indemnity liability of the State unless the affectation is of a de facto expropriatory nature. Whoever cites this criterion in a specific proceeding must verify the registration number and the applicable thesis in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta, given that the line comprises multiple pronouncements and the exactly applicable thesis depends on the facts of the case.

Implications for Project Structuring

For projects in or adjacent to ANP in Quintana Roo, the legal viability analysis must follow an ordered sequence of verifications before specific authorities. The following list presents the steps in the recommended operational order, indicating the responsible authority and the applicable legal instrument at each stage:

1. Verification of constitutive decrees and current management programs. Authority: CONANP (for federal ANP) and SEMA (for state ANP). Instrument: decrees published in the DOF or in the State Official Gazette; article 65 LGEEPA for the management program. This verification determines the category, zoning, and activities expressly authorized or prohibited in the specific polygon.
2. Consultation of the National Agrarian Registry and the state cadastre regarding area, property regime, and boundaries. Authority: National Agrarian Registry and Cadastre of Quintana Roo. Instrument: Agrarian Law and state cadastral legislation. This step makes it possible to identify whether the property has an ejidal, communal, or private origin, which determines the applicable regularization and acquisition route.
3. Evaluation of restrictions due to maritime-terrestrial federal zone (ZOFEMAT) when the property adjoins coastline or reefs. Authority: SEMARNAT, General Directorate of Maritime-Terrestrial Federal Zone. Instrument: General Law of National Assets (LGBN), DOF May 20, 2004 with subsequent amendments, articles 119 to 137. See the specific section on ZOFEMAT and ANP later in this article.
4. Review of applicable territorial ecological zoning in the corresponding municipality (Benito Juárez, Solidaridad, Tulum, or Bacalar). Authority: SEMARNAT (federal OET), SEMA and municipalities (local OET). Instrument: articles 20 bis and following of the LGEEPA and decrees of applicable ecological zoning programs. See the specific section on OET later in this article.
5. Submission of the Environmental Impact Statement (MIA) in particular or regional modality as appropriate. Authority: SEMARNAT (federal modality) or SEMA (state modality). Instrument: articles 28 and 30 LGEEPA; Regulations of the LGEEPA on Environmental Impact Assessment, 2014 amendment.
6. Request for authorization of change of land use in forest lands, when the work implies affectation of forest vegetation. Authority: SEMARNAT. Instrument: current LGDFS (DOF June 5, 2018), articles 93 to 97.
7. Interinstitutional coordination and obtaining sectoral opinions from CONANP, SEMA, and the corresponding municipality, as well as from the National Water Commission when the project affects water bodies. This stage is frequently the operational bottleneck; its early management reduces the risk of contradictions among sectoral authorizations.
8. Review of the acquisition or contracting structure in light of the restrictions identified in the previous steps, including environmental representations and warranties clauses, closing suspension conditions subject to obtaining specific authorizations, and contractual allocation of regulatory risk.

Applicable Territorial Ecological Zoning in Quintana Roo

A dimension of the analysis that is frequently underestimated in project structuring in Quintana Roo is the existence of operative territorial ecological zoning instruments (OET) that overlap and, on occasions, conflict with the management programs of protected natural areas (ANP). The legal basis of these instruments is found in articles 20 bis to 20 bis 7 of the LGEEPA, which distinguish between the general ecological zoning of territory (federal jurisdiction), regional ecological zoning (federal or state jurisdiction, depending on the scope of application) and local ecological zoning (municipal jurisdiction).

For projects in the municipalities of Tulum, Bacalar and Solidaridad, particularly relevant are the Regional Ecological Zoning Program of the Chicchicté-Bacalar Biological Corridor and the Ecological Zoning Program for the Coastal Territory of the State of Quintana Roo, both operative instruments that establish land use criteria, environmental management units (UGA) and ecological guidelines that may be more restrictive or, in certain cases, technically incompatible with the uses authorized in the buffer zones of adjacent ANPs.

When there is conflict between the criteria of an OET and the provisions of an ANP management program, the resolution in administrative and judicial practice follows the rule of application of the most restrictive standard for environmental protection, in accordance with the pro natura principle derived from article 4 of the Constitution and developed in the case law of the SCJN in environmental matters. The formal coordination mechanism is the Intersecretarial Commission on Climate Change and the technical committees of the zoning instruments themselves, although in practice the coherence between instruments must be actively managed by the proponent through prior consultations with SEMARNAT, CONANP and SEMA before submitting any EIS, in order to obtain pronouncements that reduce the risk of contradictory resolutions in subsequent stages.

ZOFEMAT, Concessions and Restrictions by ANP in Coastal Properties

For projects on coastal properties or adjacent to reefs, which represent a significant proportion of tourism and real estate investment in Quintana Roo, the federal maritime-terrestrial zone regime (ZOFEMAT) introduces a layer of restrictions that operates independently of the ANP regime and that requires separate and coordinated analysis.

ZOFEMAT is not regulated by the so-called “Federal Law on Maritime-Terrestrial Federal Zones,” a designation that does not correspond to any operative statute in the Mexican legal system. The applicable instrument is the General Law of National Assets (LGBN), published in the DOF on May 20, 2004 with subsequent amendments, specifically its articles 119 to 137, which regulate the legal regime, administration and granting of concessions for the federal maritime-terrestrial zone. The competent authority is SEMARNAT through its General Directorate of Federal Maritime-Terrestrial Zone and Coastal Environments.

The ZOFEMAT concession procedure is initiated by filing an application with the federal delegation of SEMARNAT in the state, accompanied by a location map, technical study and, if applicable, project of works. The concession, when granted, confers upon the holder the right of use and benefit of the corresponding federal strip for the authorized term, subject to the payment of fees and compliance with the conditions established.

However, the obtaining of a ZOFEMAT concession does not grant to the holder the right to execute the projected works or activities when the property is located within or in the zone of influence of an ANP. The ZOFEMAT concession and the environmental impact authorization under article 28 of the LGEEPA are independent procedures, and the latter constitutes a condition precedent for the execution of any work or activity that may affect the ecological balance of an ANP, in accordance with article 28, section VII, of the LGEEPA and article 5, subsection A, of the Regulations of the LGEEPA on Environmental Impact Assessment. A formally valid ZOFEMAT concession does not have the legal effect of displacing or suspending the prohibitions of the constitutive decree of the ANP or those of the applicable management program. Consequently, a project that has a ZOFEMAT concession but lacks environmental impact authorization in the ANP matter, or whose activities are incompatible with the zoning of the ANP, is legally unfeasible in its execution regardless of the formal validity of the concession.

This distinction has direct implications for acquisition structuring: the buyer or developer cannot assume that the existence of a prior ZOFEMAT concession confirms project viability; must independently verify the compatibility of the projected activities with the applicable ANP regime and obtain authorization from SEMARNAT under article 28 of the LGEEPA as a condition precedent to closing or commencement of work.

Inspection, Surveillance and Sanctioning Procedure

Knowledge of the substantive regime of restrictions is not sufficient for managing regulatory risk: the operator active in ANP zones must also understand the audit chain and the procedural consequences of non-compliance.

The federal environmental inspection and surveillance authority is the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (PROFEPA), a deconcentrated body of SEMARNAT, whose competence in ANP matters is based on articles 160 to 169 of the LGEEPA, which regulate the administrative inspection and surveillance procedure. PROFEPA is empowered to conduct ordinary and extraordinary inspection visits, request information and documentation, take samples and evidence, and draw up detailed reports that serve as the basis for initiating the administrative sanctioning procedure.

Upon verification of a violation or imminent risk of damage, PROFEPA may impose precautionary measures in accordance with article 170 of the LGEEPA, which include temporary total or partial closure of the infringing facilities or activities, precautionary seizure of assets and vehicles, and suspension of works or activities. These measures are executed immediately and do not require the conclusion of the sanctioning procedure to take effect.

The sanctioning procedure concludes with the imposition of sanctions provided for in article 171 and following articles of the LGEEPA, which include fines, permanent closure, forfeiture, and, where applicable, the obligation to repair the environmental damage caused. The operationally critical distinction is that between regularizable infractions and infractions that trigger irreversible consequences. A work executed without an EIA in a buffer zone may, in certain cases and at PROFEPA’s discretion, be subject to a subsequent regularization procedure that allows the omission to be remedied through the belated filing of the environmental impact statement and the adoption of corrective measures. By contrast, works executed in the core zone of a biosphere reserve or in critical habitat of a species at risk listed in NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010 cause environmental damage that the LGEEPA itself characterizes as difficult or impossible to repair, which may result in permanent closure, absolute nullity of any authorization obtained, and environmental criminal liability under articles 418 to 423 of the Federal Criminal Code, regardless of the outcome of the administrative procedure. In these cases, regularization is not available as a mechanism for closing the sanctioning file.

The parallel existence of administrative procedures before PROFEPA and criminal actions before the federal Public Ministry is possible and not unusual in cases of significant impact on federal ANP in Quintana Roo. Specialized legal advice from the moment of the first inspection visit is, therefore, a critical element of the defense strategy.

Operational Conclusion

The ANP regime in Quintana Roo operates as a system of stratified restrictions, where non-compliance not only generates administrative sanctions under article 171 and following articles of the LGEEPA, but environmental criminal liability under the Federal Criminal Code, articles 418 to 423, and the obligation to repair environmental damage independently of the outcome of the sanctioning procedure. Prior diligence and legal structuring of the project from its inception are the only effective mechanism for managing this risk.

IBG Legal has advised on the structuring and obtaining of authorizations for regenerative tourism and mixed-use development projects in polygons with overlapping federal ANP, coastal OET and ZOFEMAT in the municipalities of Tulum and Bacalar, including coordination of the environmental impact procedure before SEMARNAT in projects adjacent to the Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve. That accumulated experience in managing the interface between ecological planning instruments and private investment schemes is the concrete differentiator that we place at the disposal of developers, funds, and purchasers who require legal certainty before closing an operation in areas of high ecological sensitivity in Quintana Roo and the Riviera Maya. For specialized advice on this matter, please contact us.

Sources and References

Legislation

• General Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (LGEEPA), DOF January 28, 1988, last reform May 8, 2023. Arts. 20 bis to 20 bis 7, 28, 44 to 77 bis, 47 bis, 47 bis 1, 50, 65, 160 to 170, 171 et seq.
• Regulations of the LGEEPA on Environmental Impact Assessment, DOF May 30, 2000, reform November 26, 2014. Arts. 5, subsection A; 9; 30.
• General Law on Sustainable Forest Development (LGDFS), DOF June 5, 2018 (which repealed the law published on February 25, 2003), with subsequent reforms. Arts. 93 to 97 (change of land use in forest lands).
• General Law on Wildlife (LGVS), DOF July 3, 2000, reform 2021. Arts. 60 bis et seq.
• General Law on National Assets (LGBN), DOF May 20, 2004, with subsequent reforms. Arts. 119 to 137 (maritime-terrestrial federal zone and coastal environments).
• Federal Criminal Code, DOF August 14, 1931, reforms in force as of 2025. Arts. 418 to 423 (environmental crimes).
• Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. Arts. 4° (right to a healthy environment) and 27 (social function of property).
• Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection of the State of Quintana Roo (LEEPA-QR), Official Gazette of the State of Quintana Roo, reform December 2022. Art. 68.

Jurisprudential Criteria

• First Chamber of the SCJN: in accordance with the criteria sustained in the jurisprudential line developed between 2015 and 2022 in amparo cases in review concerning restrictions on land use in areas of ecological value, the Chamber has interpreted Article 4° of the Constitution as a source of direct efficacy of the right to a healthy environment in State-individual relationships, and has characterized administrative restrictions on land use in Protected Natural Areas as a manifestation of the social function of property (Article 27 of the Constitution) that does not generate state liability for compensation except in cases of de facto expropriation. For the invocation of specific theses in a contentious proceeding, the registration number and applicable thesis must be verified in the Federal Judicial Gazette and Its Bulletin, given that the line comprises multiple pronouncements.
• Collegiate Courts of the XXVII Circuit (Quintana Roo): in accordance with the criteria sustained by these bodies in matters related to Protected Natural Areas in the state, the absence of a published management program does not suspend the general prohibitions of the constitutive decree of the Protected Natural Area nor legitimizes the individual to obtain authorizations contrary to the protection category. No isolated thesis or jurisprudence with registration number has been located; its invocation in contentious proceedings must be supported by constitutional argumentation and by the general principles of the LGEEPA.

Doctrine

• Brañes Ballesteros, Raúl. Manual of Mexican Environmental Law. 2nd ed. Fondo de Cultura Económica / Fundación Mexicana para la Educación Ambiental, 2000.
• Carmona Lara, María del Carmen. Rights in Relation to the Environment. UNAM, Institute of Legal Research, 2010.

Official Sources

• National Commission of Protected Natural Areas (CONANP): Registry and management programs of federal Protected Natural Areas, available at conanp.gob.mx (consulted January 2025).
• Secretariat of Ecology and Environment of Quintana Roo (SEMA): registry of state Protected Natural Areas, applicable territorial ecological planning instruments in the state, including the Regional Ecological Planning Program of the Chicchicté-Bacalar Biological Corridor and the Ecological Planning Program of the Coastal Territory of the State of Quintana Roo.
• SEMARNAT, General Directorate of Maritime-Terrestrial Federal Zone and Coastal Environments: information on ZOFEMAT concessions and the regime of the federal coastal strip.
• Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF): constitutive decrees of federal Protected Natural Areas in Quintana Roo, including the Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve, Cozumel Reefs and Tulum National Park, among others.
• Official Gazette of the State of Quintana Roo: decrees of state Protected Natural Areas and reforms to the LEEPA-QR.
• Federal Judicial Gazette and Its Bulletin: criteria of the First Chamber of the SCJN on the right to a healthy environment and social function of property.