How to Perform an Effective Real Estate Due Diligence

The Anatomy of Real Estate Due Diligence in Mexico

Real estate due diligence in Mexico is not a perfunctory checklist exercise. It is a structured, multi-phase legal investigation that conditions the enforceability of the acquisition, the buyer’s ability to develop the property, and — increasingly — the transaction’s regulatory compliance under anti-money laundering and environmental frameworks. In markets like the Riviera Maya and the Cancún corridor, where rapid urbanization, coastal ecology, and agrarian land tenure intersect, a superficial review creates exposure that no contractual warranty can adequately remediate after closing.

The following framework reflects the due diligence methodology applied by IBG Legal across residential, commercial, and resort-scale transactions throughout Quintana Roo and the broader Mexican Caribbean. It reflects the legal framework in force as of April 2026.

Phase 1: Title Chain and Registry Verification

The foundational inquiry is whether the seller holds uncontested, registrable title. Under Article 3042 of the Federal Civil Code (CCF), acts and contracts relating to real property ownership are subject to mandatory inscription at the Public Property Registry (RPP) to be enforceable against third parties. The due diligence review must trace the chain of ownership — the uninterrupted chain of transfers — back at least twenty years, which corresponds to the extraordinary acquisitive prescription period under Article 1152 CCF.

The RPP search must yield: the current folio real or inscription folio; the surface area and cadastral description matching the cadastral certificate issued by the municipal authority; and the absence of competing inscriptions or annotations. A certificate of freedom from liens, while procedurally essential, is not conclusive. Registry backlogs and indexing errors in Quintana Roo’s RPP mean that the physical inspection of the folio history remains indispensable.

The SCJN has addressed the scope and limits of the good-faith acquisition doctrine under Article 3009 CCF in traceable published criteria. The First Chamber, in Isolated Thesis 1a. CCXL/2013 (10a.), published in the Federal Judicial Weekly and its Gazette, Tenth Epoch, Book XXVI, November 2013, tome 1, held that the registry principle does not protect a buyer who omitted a reasonably available registry inquiry, establishing that constructive notice derived from public inscription requires that the buyer actually undertake — and not merely have available — the corresponding search. This criterion remains authoritative for the proposition that passive reliance on a freedom from liens certificate, without physical folio examination, is legally insufficient where discrepancies were ascertainable.

Critically, the legal consequence of RPP institutional deficiency in Quintana Roo extends beyond administrative inconvenience. Because the constructive notice premise underlying Article 3009 CCF depends on the registry’s reliable and complete public disclosure function, the structural impairment of that function — through indexing gaps, dual inscriptions, and delayed processing endemic to the Quintana Roo registry offices — means that the good-faith purchaser defense is more fragile here than the statutory text suggests. A certificate of freedom from liens from a Quintana Roo RPP office does not produce the same legal certainty as the same certificate in a jurisdiction with a digitized, real-time folio system, and this gap is not cured by Article 3009 CCF itself, because constructive notice is only as reliable as the underlying registry’s capacity to disclose. This structural reality elevates field-level document verification from best practice to legal necessity.

Surface area discrepancies between the deed, the RPP folio, and the municipal cadastre are endemic in the Riviera Maya, particularly in properties carved from irregular subdivisions. These discrepancies trigger surface area correction proceedings that require judicial or notarial intervention and substantially delay closing timelines.

Phase 2: Encumbrances, Liens, and Preventive Annotations

Beyond the certificate of freedom from liens, the practitioner must specifically verify: mortgage (hipoteca) registrations under Articles 2893 to 2941 CCF; usufruct rights, which survive ownership transfers and are binding on successors under Article 1000 CCF; easements (servidumbres), whether voluntarily constituted or legally imposed; and preventive annotations of judicial proceedings that may render the property subject to a pending claim. Article 3043 CCF establishes that preventive annotations expire but retain their priority date, meaning a registered annotation — even for a concluded proceeding — may affect the marketability of title if not formally cancelled.

En desarrollos de resorts y propiedad horizontal, el due diligence debe examinar adicionalmente el condominium ownership regime constituido conforme a la Condominium Property Law of the State of Quintana Roo, revisando la escritura constitutiva, los estatutos del condominio (internal bylaws), y la situación financiera del régimen de condominio — incluyendo atrasos en cuotas de mantenimiento que, bajo el marco legal estatal aplicable, pueden constituir cargas reales sobre la unidad individual.

Phase 3: Judicial and Administrative Searches, and Fiscal Obligations

Effective due diligence requires systematic litigation searches across federal, state, and municipal jurisdictions. The review must cover: civil and commercial court dockets at both the Superior Court of Justice of the State of Quintana Roo and the relevant federal district courts; agrarian proceedings before the Unitary Agrarian Courts; and administrative proceedings before SEMARNAT, PROFEPA, CONAGUA, and SEDATU. Properties in tourist corridors are disproportionately exposed to pending deed nullity actions, restitution claims by ejido members, and SEMARNAT enforcement actions for unauthorized vegetation clearing.

The National Register of Attachment Notices (RNAE) must be queried to identify fiscal liens imposed by the SAT or state tax authorities. Two legally distinct categories of fiscal encumbrance must be assessed separately at this stage.

First, federal tax liens imposed by the SAT on real property are governed by Article 160 of the Federal Tax Code (CFF), which regulates the precautionary attachment and the formal procedures by which the federal treasury asserts a lien over real assets. These liens are identifiable through RNAE and attach to the property as a result of the federal authority’s enforcement action, not by operation of the tax obligation itself.

Second, real property tax arrears are a categorically distinct matter. The real property tax is a municipal tax, not a federal one, and its in rem character — meaning its capacity to follow the property through a change of ownership — does not derive from the CFF. It derives from the applicable state fiscal legislation and municipal ordinances: in Quintana Roo, the Tax Code of the State of Quintana Roo and the fiscal codes of the relevant municipalities (Benito Juárez, Solidaridad, Tulum, and others) establish that unpaid real property tax obligations constitute real charges on the property that transfer with title. The due diligence must therefore include a formal real property tax clearance from the relevant municipal treasury, separate from and in addition to the RNAE query for SAT liens.

The fiscal sub-phase must also confirm: current payment of water rights fees owed to the municipal concessionaire; absence of outstanding improvement contributions (improvement contributions) under the applicable municipal fiscal code; and, under Article 2189 CCF, the priority ranking of unpaid real property taxes as preferential credits that rank ahead of most private encumbrances in insolvency. The due diligence should identify arrears early enough to allow for negotiated price adjustments or escrow holdback arrangements, rather than leaving fiscal confirmation to the notarial closing stage where remediation options are limited.

Phase 4: Land Use, Urban Planning, and Density Entitlements

In Quintana Roo, land use is governed by the Law on Human Settlements, Territorial Planning and Urban Development of the State of Quintana Roo, harmonized with the federal General Law on Human Settlements, Territorial Planning and Urban Development (D.O.F., November 28, 2016). Permissible uses, building coefficients (COS and CUS), and setback requirements are established in the Urban Development Program for Population Centers (PDU) applicable to the relevant municipality — principally Benito Juárez (Cancún), Solidaridad (Playa del Carmen), or Tulum.

The land use certificate issued by the municipal authority is a prerequisite but not a guarantee of entitlement. The SCJN has addressed this principle in published criteria: the Second Chamber, in Jurisprudence Thesis 2a./J. 99/2009, published in the Judicial Weekly of the Federation and its Gazette, Ninth Epoch, Volume XXX, August 2009, held that administrative authorizations and certificates do not generate vested rights that are enforceable against subsequent modifications of the regulatory framework when those modifications are grounded in public interest — a principle directly applicable to land use certificates issued under PDU programs that are subsequently amended. A practitioner must cross-reference the certificate against the current version of the applicable PDU, since several Quintana Roo municipalities have adopted PDU amendments in recent years affecting tourism and mixed-use density corridors. Reliance on an outdated certificate has been a recurring cause of post-closing disputes in this market.

Phase 5: Environmental and Ecological Compliance

Environmental due diligence in coastal Quintana Roo is materially more complex than in most Mexican jurisdictions. Four overlapping legal regimes must be assessed:

1. Environmental Impact Authorization: Under Article 28 of the Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente (LGEEPA) and its Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation, construction of hotels, residential subdivisions, marinas, and certain commercial facilities in the coastal zone requires a SEMARNAT-issued environmental impact authorization (MIA/AIA). Acquisition of a property developed without a required authorization exposes the buyer to demolition and ecological restoration orders under Article 170 LGEEPA, which are enforceable against subsequent owners.
2. Protected Natural Areas (ANPs): A significant portion of the Quintana Roo coast falls within federally decreed ANPs — including the Parque Nacional Arrecife de Puerto Morelos and the Reserva de la Biosfera Sian Ka’an — governed by their respective management programs under Articles 44 to 50 LGEEPA. Within an ANP, permitted activities are substantially restricted, and any development requires compatibility verification against the applicable program and may require an additional authorization from CONANP.
3. Mangroves and Wetlands: NOM-022-SEMARNAT-2003 prohibits the filling, draining, or alteration of mangrove ecosystems. The SCJN has reinforced, in constitutional controversies addressing development in coastal zones, that mangrove protection constitutes a matter of public order that overrides private development entitlements. In Tesis Aislada P. LXVII/2010, published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta, Novena Época, Tomo XXXII, December 2010, the Pleno held, in the context of a constitutional controversy involving coastal development regulation, that environmental norms protecting ecosystems of public interest — including coastal wetland systems — operate as limitations on property rights that cannot be displaced by prior administrative authorizations or private entitlements. Buyers must commission a vegetation survey to establish whether mangroves, coastal dunes, or other federally protected ecosystems exist within or adjacent to the property boundaries before any price or timeline commitment is made.
4. Zona Federal Marítimo Terrestre (ZOFEMAT): Under Articles 119 to 131 of the Ley General de Bienes Nacionales (LGBN), the 20-meter strip landward of the high-tide line constitutes federal public domain and cannot be privately owned. Properties adjoining the coast must be verified to confirm that any portion within the ZOFEMAT is either the subject of a valid SEMARNAT concession or is not included within the sold perimeter. A deed purporting to convey title over ZOFEMAT land is null and void under Article 13 LGBN, and nullity actions brought by the federal government are imprescriptible with respect to public domain assets.

Phase 6: Agrarian Status and Ejido Compliance

The Mexican Caribbean’s development over the past three decades was substantially built on land expropriated or regularized from ejido regimes. The Ley Agraria of 1992 permitted ejidos to convert parcel rights to full private ownership (dominio pleno) through a two-stage process: adoption of the PROCEDE domain regime under Article 81 and subsequent individual regularization under Articles 82 to 87. However, significant tracts of undocumented or irregularly regularized ejido land remain in circulation, particularly in the Tulum, Cobá, and Holbox corridors.

Due diligence must include a formal query to the Registro Agrario Nacional (RAN) to confirm: whether the land was ever part of an ejido or agrarian community; whether dominio pleno was validly acquired; and whether any restitution or nullity actions are pending before the Tribunales Unitarios Agrarios.

The First Chamber of the SCJN has addressed the validity conditions for dominio pleno conversions in published criteria that are traceable and binding. In Tesis Aislada 1a. CLXXXVIII/2013 (10a.), published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta, Décima Época, Libro XXI, June 2013, tome 1, the First Chamber held that dominio pleno proceedings conducted without satisfaction of the formal assembly requirements established in the Ley Agraria — including the qualified quorum required by Article 23 — are void ab initio and do not generate a transmissible right in favor of the ejidatario or any subsequent acquirer. Complementarily, in Tesis de Jurisprudencia 1a./J. 11/2014 (10a.), published in the Gaceta del Semanario Judicial de la Federación, Décima Época, Libro 3, February 2014, tome I, the First Chamber further held that the registry principle under Article 3009 CCF cannot be invoked by a subsequent buyer to cure an original dominio pleno defect where the agrarian origin of the land was discernible from the chain of title, because the registry’s protective function presupposes a valid underlying act — a presupposition that is structurally absent where the conversion itself was void. These criteria together establish that agrarian regularization defects are not remediable through good-faith acquisition and must therefore be resolved at the source prior to any private law transaction.

Phase 7: Foreign Ownership Restrictions, the Restricted Zone, and Fideicomiso Structuring

The entirety of Quintana Roo falls within the restricted zone established by the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Political Constitution, which prohibits foreigners from acquiring direct ownership of real property within 50 kilometers of the coastline. Foreign individuals and foreign-majority companies must therefore acquire through a bank trust (real estate fideicomiso) under Article 10 of the Foreign Investment Law (LIE), for an initial term of 50 years, renewable, with a trustee institution authorized by the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs (SRE).

Due diligence must verify: whether an existing fideicomiso is properly constituted and the SRE permit is current; whether the fideicomiso beneficiary rights being transferred require a substitution of beneficiary rather than a deed of conveyance; and whether the trust term is sufficient for the investor’s development horizon or must be renewed prior to closing. Structural errors in fideicomiso constitution and unauthorized direct-ownership acquisitions by foreign parties have generated a recurring and costly category of litigation in Quintana Roo courts, often surfacing only at the moment of resale or financing.

Two additional due diligence points in the fideicomiso context generate recurring problems in Quintana Roo that are frequently overlooked in generic transaction frameworks. First, the due diligence must affirmatively verify that the trustee bank holds a current and unrestricted SRE authorization specifically for real estate trust operations in the restricted zone. Several trustee institutions have had these authorizations suspended, restricted, or subjected to remediation conditions by the SRE, and a fideicomiso held by a bank whose authorization has been impaired creates an administrative defect in the trust structure that can affect the beneficiary’s ability to transfer, encumber, or enforce the trust rights. Second, the tax treatment of fideicomiso beneficiary right substitutions must be analyzed before closing rather than deferred to the transaction itself: substitution of fideicomiso beneficiary rights may trigger income tax consequences under Articles 18 and 119 of the Income Tax Law, either as a taxable alienation of the beneficial interest — if the substitution is characterized as a disposition — or as a non-taxable internal beneficiary change, depending on the structure and documentation of the transaction. This characterization affects both the seller’s tax exposure and the notarial structuring of the instrument, and must be resolved in due diligence, not at the closing table.

Phase 8: Anti-Money Laundering Compliance

Under Article 17, Section VIII of the Federal Law for the Prevention and Identification of Operations with Resources of Illicit Origin (LFPIORPI), real estate transactions constitute a “vulnerable activity” subject to mandatory customer due diligence, transaction reporting, and beneficial ownership disclosure obligations. The operative threshold for mandatory reporting under the LFPIORPI Regulations is currently set at transactions at or above 16,000 UDIS for real estate operations — a threshold that is almost universally met in the Quintana Roo residential and resort market. Once a transaction reaches this threshold, the obligated party must file the corresponding report with the Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF) within 72 hours of the triggering event, in the format and through the electronic platform established by the UIF for this purpose.

The notary public, as a designated obligated party under the LFPIORPI framework, bears specific due diligence obligations that are independent of and in addition to those of the buyer’s counsel: the notary must identify and verify the identity of the parties, assess the risk profile of the operation, determine whether the threshold is met, and file the UIF notice within the prescribed window. Failure to comply exposes the notary to administrative sanctions under the LFPIORPI enforcement regime. This institutional obligation on the notary does not relieve the buyer’s legal counsel of the parallel obligation to conduct an independent beneficial ownership and financing source review.

Desde la perspectiva del comprador, este marco tiene una dimensión recíproca: la falta de establecimiento de una cadena limpia de propiedad y financiamiento de la propiedad —incluyendo la verificación de la fuente de adquisición del vendedor— puede generar exposición regulatoria posterior al cierre bajo marcos tanto mexicanos como extranjeros. Para transacciones que involucran compradores o vendedores conectados con los EE.UU., la verificación de la lista SDN (Nacionales Especialmente Designados) de OFAC se intersecta directamente con la obligación de identificación notarial: un notario que formaliza una transacción en la cual una parte aparece en la lista SDN de OFAC puede exponer la transacción a consecuencias de sanciones secundarias estadounidenses, y el asesor legal del comprador debe confirmar el estado SDN como parte del protocolo de identificación para evitar una estructura de transacción que sea compatible con la ley mexicana pero sancionable conforme a la ley estadounidense. La transparencia de la titularidad real es un requisito de debida diligencia sustantivo, no meramente procedimental, para compradores institucionales y estructuras de fondos regulados públicamente que operan en ambas jurisdicciones simultáneamente.

Marco Comparativo: Estados Unidos, España y Colombia

En los Estados Unidos, la debida diligencia inmobiliaria se estandariza a través de los estándares de Encuesta de Título ALTA/NSPS, Evaluaciones Ambientales del Sitio de Fase I y Fase II regidas por ASTM E1527-21, y suscripción de seguros de título conforme a la Ley de Procedimientos de Liquidación de Transacciones Inmobiliarias (RESPA). El seguro de título efectivamente monetiza el riesgo residual, permitiendo que las transacciones se cierren a pesar de cadenas de título imperfectas — un mecanismo completamente ausente en México. Las leyes de registro estadounidenses, combinadas con el seguro de título, producen una certeza de transacción que el principio de registro mexicano conforme al Artículo 3009 CCF no puede actualmente replicar dadas las deficiencias institucionales a nivel de registro estatal.

En España, la Ley del Suelo y Rehabilitación Urbana (Real Decreto Legislativo 7/2015) y la Ley Hipotecaria (Decreto de 8 de febrero de 1946, modificado) crean un sistema de registro estructuralmente similar al de México, pero con confiabilidad sustancialmente mayor: los registradores españoles ejercen amplia autoridad calificadora (calificación registral) que filtra instrumentos defectuosos previos a la inscripción. La nota simple informativa española genera datos confiables en tiempo real sobre gravámenes y titularidad. Los registros mexicanos, particularmente en Quintana Roo, aún padecen de brechas de indexación, inscripciones duales y procesamiento retrasado — deficiencias institucionales que hacen que la verificación de documentos a nivel de campo por parte de abogados experimentados sea innegociable.

El Estatuto del Notariado y del Registro de Colombia (Ley 1579 de 2012) y la plataforma digitalizada de la Superintendencia de Notariado y Registro representan un modelo moderno que los registros latinoamericanos — incluyendo el de México — han replicado solo parcialmente a través del programa de modernización RPP nacional iniciado bajo SEGOB en 2018 y aún pendiente de implementación completa a la fecha de publicación.

Fundamentos Doctrinales y Brechas Legales Críticas

Rafael Rojina Villegas, en su tratado fundacional Compendio de Derecho Civil: Bienes, Derechos Reales y Posesión, estableció la primacía teórica del principio de registro en la ley de propiedad mexicana mientras reconocía que su fuerza práctica depende enteramente de la confiabilidad y completitud del sistema de registro. Esa brecha entre principio normativo y realidad institucional define el desafío central de la debida diligencia inmobiliaria mexicana hasta hoy día y explica por qué la investigación a nivel de campo — más allá de solicitudes de certificados formales — sigue siendo irreemplazable.

Bernardo Pérez Fernández del Castillo, en Contratos Civiles, analiza los requisitos formales de los traspasos de propiedad conforme al Artículo 2317 CCF y la naturaleza vinculante de la escritura notarial. Señala, críticamente, que la formalización notarial no sustituye la revisión sustantiva del título subyacente — una distinción que los tribunales han consistentemente aplicado cuando se alega nulidad de título no obstante la existencia de una escritura pública formalmente válida.

Fausto Rico Álvarez y Patricio Garza Bandala, en De los Contratos Civiles, proporcionan un tratamiento riguroso de la garantía de evicción (saneamiento para el caso de evicción) conforme a los Artículos 2119 a 2162 CCF. Su análisis expone una brecha legal crítica: la garantía de evicción aborda la privación judicial de posesión pero no se extiende a la privación administrativa del uso — específicamente, órdenes de demolición de SEMARNAT, medidas de cumplimiento de PROFEPA, o laudos de restitución agraria. Esta laguna doctrinal significa que los riesgos ambientales y agrarios endémicos a la propiedad inmobiliaria de Quintana Roo no pueden ser adecuadamente gestionados únicamente a través de garantía contractual, haciendo que la debida diligencia preventiva sea la única protección confiable disponible para el comprador.

Jorge Alfredo Domínguez Martínez, en Derecho Civil: Contratos, aborda las condiciones estructurales para el consentimiento válido en transacciones de propiedad, incluyendo el papel del error sobre la naturaleza del derecho adquirido — una doctrina directamente relevante a casos donde compradores descubren post-cierre que la parcela adquirida era tierra ejidal o ubicada dentro de la ZOFEMAT, ninguna de las cuales el vendedor había divulgado.

Javier Arce Gargollo, in Atypical Commercial Contracts, provides doctrinal analysis of atypical contractual structures that, while not the subject of this article’s core phases, are directly relevant to the complex mixed-use arrangements, joint ventures, and development agreements that frequently accompany resort-scale acquisitions in the Quintana Roo tourist corridor — structures that layer commercial and civil obligations in ways that generic due diligence frameworks, designed for straightforward bilateral conveyances, are not equipped to address.

A further systemic gap in the Mexican framework is the absence of a unified national real estate register. The fragmented nature of state-level RPPs — with varying digitization levels, folio systems, and indexing methodologies — produces inconsistent reliability thresholds that no amount of institutional effort at the individual transaction level can fully cure. Legislative proposals for a National System of Registry Information, contemplated in the 2016 General Law on Human Settlements, remain only partially implemented as of April 2026. Until that reform is completed, the practitioner’s ability to independently verify and cross-reference registry data remains the primary safeguard against structural title defects.

IBG Legal is a litigation-focused boutique specializing in real estate acquisitions, title disputes, environmental regulatory compliance, ejido land regularization, and cross-border investment structuring in the Riviera Maya and the Mexican Caribbean, headquartered in Cancún with offices in Mexico City and Querétaro. IBG Legal advises institutional and individual buyers on the intersection of title chain integrity, environmental authorization compliance, and agrarian status that defines the distinctive legal risk profile of real estate acquisition in the Mexican Caribbean — a market where registry deficiencies impair the constructive notice premise that underpins the good-faith purchaser defense, coastal ecology regulation imposes obligations that no contractual warranty can cure after closing, and ejido land tenure generates nullity exposure that survives multiple subsequent transfers. Generic due diligence frameworks are not designed for this convergence. Ours are.

Sources and References

Legislation

• Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, Article 27 (as amended through Official Gazette March 28, 2024)
• Federal Civil Code (Official Gazette May 26, 1928, as amended): Articles 750, 1000, 1152, 2119–2162, 2189, 2317, 2320, 2893–2941, 3009, 3042, 3043
• Federal Tax Code (Official Gazette December 31, 1981, as amended): Article 160 (federal tax lien and precautionary levy procedure applicable to SAT enforcement actions on real property)
• Agrarian Law (Official Gazette February 26, 1992, as amended): Articles 9, 23, 27, 80, 81, 82–87, 89
• Law on Income Tax (Official Gazette December 11, 2013, as amended): Articles 18 and 119 (ISR treatment of fideicomiso beneficiary right substitutions and dispositions)
• General Law on Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection — LGEEPA (Official Gazette January 28, 1988, as amended): Articles 28, 44–50, 170
• Regulation of the LGEEPA on Environmental Impact Assessment (Official Gazette May 30, 2000, as amended)
• General Law on National Assets (Official Gazette May 20, 2004, as amended): Articles 13, 119–131
• Foreign Investment Law (Official Gazette December 27, 1993, as amended): Articles 10, 11
• Regulation of the Foreign Investment Law (Official Gazette September 8, 1998, as amended)
• Federal Law for the Prevention and Identification of Operations with Resources of Illicit Origin — LFPIORPI (Official Gazette October 17, 2012, as amended): Article 17, Section VIII
• Regulation of the LFPIORPI (Official Gazette August 16, 2013): threshold for vulnerable activity reporting in real estate operations (16,000 UDIS); UIF reporting mechanics and 72-hour window
• General Law on Human Settlements, Territorial Planning and Urban Development (Official Gazette November 28, 2016, as amended)
• Law on Human Settlements, Territorial Planning and Urban Development of the State of Quintana Roo (as amended, harmonized with the 2016 federal framework)
• Law on Condominium Property of the State of Quintana Roo (as amended)
• Tax Law of the State of Quintana Roo (as amended): provisions establishing the in rem character of real property tax arrears as real charges on property transferable through changes of ownership
• Applicable Municipal Tax Codes: Municipality of Benito Juárez, Municipality of Solidaridad, Municipality of Tulum (as amended): municipal tax provisions governing real property tax, water rights, and improvement contributions
• General Law on Wildlife (Official Gazette July 3, 2000, as amended)
• NOM-022-SEMARNAT-2003: Specifications for the preservation, conservation, sustainable use and restoration of coastal wetlands in mangrove areas (Official Gazette April 10, 2003)
• NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010: Environmental protection — Native species of Mexican flora and fauna — Risk categories (Official Gazette December 30, 2010)

Judicial Criteria

• Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, First Chamber: Isolated Thesis 1a. CCXL/2013 (10a.), Federal Judicial Weekly and its Gazette, Tenth Epoch, Book XXVI, November 2013, Volume 1 — limits of the good-faith acquisition doctrine under Article 3009 CCF where the buyer omitted a reasonably available registry inquiry; constructive notice requires active, not merely potential, inquiry
• Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, First Chamber: Isolated Thesis 1a. CLXXXVIII/2013 (10a.), Federal Judicial Weekly and its Gazette, Tenth Epoch, Book XXI, June 2013, Volume 1 — nullity ab initio of dominio pleno proceedings conducted without satisfaction of the assembly quorum and formal requirements under Article 23 of the Agrarian Law; no transmissible right arises in favor of the ejidatario or any subsequent acquirer
• Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, First Chamber: Jurisprudence Thesis 1a./J. 11/2014 (10a.), Gazette of the Federal Judicial Weekly, Tenth Epoch, Book 3, February 2014, Volume I — non-applicability of the registry principle under Article 3009 CCF to cure original dominio pleno defects where the agrarian origin of the land was discernible from the chain of title; the registry’s protective function presupposes a valid underlying act
• Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Second Chamber: Jurisprudence Thesis 2a./J. 99/2009, Federal Judicial Weekly and its Gazette, Ninth Epoch, Volume XXX, August 2009 — administrative authorizations and municipal land use certificates (certificados de uso de suelo) do not generate derechos adquiridos enforceable against subsequent modifications of the regulatory framework grounded in public interest
• Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Plenary: Isolated Thesis P. LXVII/2010, Federal Judicial Weekly and its Gazette, Ninth Epoch, Volume XXXII, December 2010 — public order character of environmental norms protecting coastal wetland and mangrove ecosystems as limitations on private property rights that cannot be displaced by prior administrative authorizations or private development entitlements
• Unitary Agrarian Courts: jurisprudence on procedural and substantive validity requirements for dominio pleno conversions under the Agrarian Law, including quorum verification and RAN inscription requirements

Doctrine

• Rojina Villegas, Rafael. Compendium of Civil Law: Property, Real Rights and Possession. Editorial Porrúa, Mexico (multiple editions).
• Pérez Fernández del Castillo, Bernardo. Civil Contracts. Editorial Porrúa, Mexico (current edition).
• Rico Álvarez, Fausto and Garza Bandala, Patricio. Civil Contracts. Editorial Porrúa, Mexico (current edition).
• Domínguez Martínez, Jorge Alfredo. Civil Law: Contracts. Editorial Porrúa, Mexico (current edition).
• Arce Gargollo, Javier. Atypical Commercial Contracts. Editorial Porrúa, Mexico (current edition). Relevant to the analysis of complex mixed-use arrangements, joint ventures, and development agreements that accompany resort-scale acquisitions in the Quintana Roo tourist corridor, where atypical commercial structures layer obligations over real property in ways that standard conveyance due diligence frameworks are not designed to capture.

Comparative Law

• United States: ASTM E1527-21, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process; Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.; ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey Standards (2021 edition); OFAC SDN List (Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury) — operative for cross-border transactions involving U.S.-connected buyers or sellers subject to U.S. secondary sanctions jurisdiction
• Spain: Royal Legislative Decree 7/2015, of October 30, approving the Consolidated Text of the Land and Urban Rehabilitation Law; Mortgage Law (Decree of February 8, 1946, as amended); Mortgage Regulations (Decree of February 14, 1947, as amended)
• Colombia: Law 1579 of 2012 (Notarial and Registry Statute); Superintendence of Notary and Registry (SNR), Public Instruments Consultation System

Official and Institutional Sources

• Public Property Registry of the State of Quintana Roo (RPP-QR): Chetumal, Cancún, Playa del Carmen, and Tulum offices
• National Agrarian Registry (RAN): www.ran.gob.mx
• Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT): www.gob.mx/semarnat
• National Commission of Natural Protected Areas (CONANP): www.gob.mx/conanp
• Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (PROFEPA): www.gob.mx/profepa
• Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF): www.gob.mx/uif — reporting platform and guidelines for vulnerable activity notices under the LFPIORPI and its Reglamento
• Tax Administration Service (SAT): www.sat.gob.mx
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs (SRE), General Directorate of Legal Affairs — Foreign investment permits and authorizations; registry of authorized trust institutions to operate real estate trusts in restricted zones
• Ministry of Agrarian, Territorial and Urban Development (SEDATU): Urban Development Programs
• Financial Action Task Force (FATF/GAFI): Recommendations on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing applicable to real estate sector obligated parties
• Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), U.S. Department of the Treasury: SDN List and guidance on real estate transactions involving designated parties — www.treasury.gov/ofac