Real Estate Law

NOM-247-SE-2021: Obligations for Real Estate Sellers and Developers

March 15, 2026 — Enrique Benet-Gregg

NOM-247-SE-2021: Obligations for Real Estate Sellers and Developers

The Mexican Official Standard NOM-247-SE-2021, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on January 7, 2022 and effective as of July 7, 2022, substantially reconfigured the framework of information and contracting obligations applicable to the sale of real property in Mexico. Its scope of application covers any natural or legal person who, habitually or professionally, offers, promotes, or commercializes real property to the consuming public, including developers, construction companies, real estate firms, and digital intermediation platforms.

Substantive Requirements of the Standard

NOM-247-SE-2021 structures its obligations along three main axes: pre-contractual information, minimum content of adhesion contracts, and verifiable advertising.

Pre-Contractual Information

Section 5.1 of the standard requires that the provider deliver to the consumer, prior to the execution of any binding instrument, a technical sheet that includes: total and usable surface area of the real property, price in national currency, description of materials and construction specifications, applicable property regime, and existence or absence of encumbrances. This obligation is independent of the advertising format used. The omission of any of these elements activates the relative nullity regime provided for in Article 87 Bis of the Federal Consumer Protection Law (LFPC), a provision introduced by means of a reform published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on December 15, 2011.

Adhesion Contracts

Adhesion contracts executed within the framework of real estate transactions must be registered with the Federal Consumer Protection Agency (PROFECO) in accordance with Article 86 of the LFPC. NOM-247-SE-2021 elevates this requirement by establishing, in Section 7, that contract models must contain explicit clauses regarding: delivery conditions and deadlines, technical specifications with allowable tolerances, dispute resolution mechanisms, and consequences of non-performance by either party. Clauses that limit the provider’s liability for hidden defects, which contradict Section 5.4 of the standard, are null and void ab initio pursuant to Article 90 of the LFPC.

Advertising and Binding Offer

Section 6 of the standard establishes that all information disseminated through digital, printed, or in-person media constitutes a binding offer in terms of Article 36 of the LFPC. This means that the advertised specifications, including amenities, common areas, finishes, and delivery dates, become part of the contractual content without need for express reproduction in the contract.

Scope of Application and the Habituality Threshold

The standard defines its subjective scope of application through the criterion of habituality or professionalism in the commercialization of real property. However, this threshold raises relevant practical questions for complex corporate structures: what occurs with a special purpose entity (SPE) established for a single development that, upon completion, sells the units to the public, or with a company that disposes of real estate from its fixed assets that do not form part of its ordinary business activity?

PROFECO has adopted a consistent position of treating sales executed by real estate development SPEs as activities subject to the standard, regardless of whether the entity executes only a single project, on the grounds that the professional and commercial purpose of the constitution of the entity determines the applicability of the regime, regardless of the number of transactions executed. This interpretation has direct implications for Riviera Maya developers who utilize fiduciary vehicles or SPEs per project: the absence of specific binding criteria regarding the habituality threshold creates a structuring risk that must be evaluated case by case before defining the corporate vehicle and the commercialization scheme. An incorrect determination regarding the non-applicability of the standard may result in retroactive sanctions on all executed contracts.

Sanctions Regime

Non-compliance with NOM-247-SE-2021 activates PROFECO’s sanctioning authority in two respects. The first, of an administrative nature, permits the imposition of fines established in Units of Measurement and Adjustment (UMAs) in accordance with Article 127 of the LFPC. For the majority of infractions, the sanctions ceiling reaches 10,000 UMAs; in the case of recidivist conduct, Article 128 of the LFPC provides for higher caps. With the value of the UMA current in 2024 fixed at $108.57 daily pesos, a sanction of 10,000 UMAs is equivalent to approximately $1,085,700 pesos, a figure that may multiply when infractions accumulate per transaction or per development unit. The second respect operates in the jurisdictional forum: PROFECO may exercise collective actions in terms of Book Five of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure, a mechanism that acquires particular relevance in developments with multiple purchasers.

With respect to the distribution of the burden of proof, the interpretative trend observable in the criteria of the Collegiate Courts of the XXVII Circuit in consumer protection disputes of real estate nature is consistent with the position that informational compliance must be proven by the provider and not by the consumer. This orientation is congruent with the pro-consumer interpretative trend that the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has developed regarding article 1 of the Constitution in relation to the rights of users of consumer services, extended by analogy to the real estate sphere. It is clarified that the criteria of the XXVII Circuit and of the First Chamber are cited in this article as a characterization of the doctrinal and jurisprudential trend observed; those who require invoking them in formal proceedings must verify the thesis numbers, case files and records in the Federal Judicial Gazette.

Impact on Contractual Structuring

For developers and investors structuring projects in the Riviera Maya, NOM-247-SE-2021 requires a comprehensive review of their sales documents. Pre-sale contracts, purchase promise agreements and assignment of fiduciary rights over real estate in trust must be aligned with numerals 5 and 7 of the standard, even when the purchaser is a legal entity. The standard does not distinguish between individual and corporate buyers when the provider acts professionally in the real estate market.

Additionally, developers operating under time-share or membership schemes must coordinate compliance with NOM-247-SE-2021 with the specific obligations provided for in NOM-029-SCFI-2010 and in articles 63 Bis through 73 Bis of the LFPC, avoiding inconsistencies that may trigger concurrent proceedings before PROFECO.

The Dimension of the Foreign Buyer and Disclosure Obligations

The Riviera Maya concentrates a significant proportion of foreign non-Spanish-speaking purchasers who acquire real estate through trusts in restricted areas, subject to supervision by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. NOM-247-SE-2021 provides no exception whatsoever on the basis of the buyer’s nationality or language: the technical sheet and the adhesion contract must fully comply with the standard’s requirements in Spanish language, regardless of whether the purchaser does not understand such language.

This reality generates a specific practical risk: a foreign buyer could allege, in conciliation proceedings before PROFECO or in federal court, that pre-contractual information was provided to them in a language they do not master, affecting the effectiveness of the consent given. While bilingual documentation is not a legal requirement of the standard, its adoption constitutes a highly recommended risk mitigation measure: the version in the buyer’s language does not substitute or displace the Spanish version, but rather operates as evidence of effective informational compliance. In fiduciary structures subject to authorization by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the accreditation of comprehensible disclosure acquires greater weight before any challenge regarding the validity of the consent expressed in the act of constitution of the trust.

Rights of the Purchaser and Contractual Remedies

The analysis of the penalty system is incomplete without examining the menu of remedies that the LFPC places at the disposal of the purchaser against violations of NOM-247-SE-2021, since those remedies constitute the direct counterpart of the patrimonial exposure of the developer.

Article 92 of the LFPC establishes a hierarchy of remedies available to the consumer in case of provider non-compliance: first, rescission of the contract with restitution of the amounts paid plus payment of damages and losses; second, proportional reduction of the price when the non-compliance is partial or there is a difference between what was offered and what was delivered; and third, forced compliance with the contracted conditions. Article 92 Bis complements this system by clarifying that the choice among remedies corresponds to the consumer and not to the provider, eliminating any contractual clause that attempts to impose a specific remedy on the buyer or limit their access to rescission.

In the context of violations of NOM-247-SE-2021, the application of these remedies is amplified by the pro-consumer principle: in conciliation proceedings before PROFECO, the interpretation favorable to the consumer operates as a presumption that the provider must rebut by providing direct proof of compliance with disclosure obligations, consisting of the technical sheet signed with proof of receipt, verified advertising materials, and the registered contract. In federal court, the same logic is transferred to the evidentiary standard under which the judge assesses the sufficiency of pre-contractual information, with consequences that may reach the total nullity of the contract under the assumptions of article 90 of the LFPC. For the investor who acquires units for resale purposes, this structure of remedies represents a risk of chain rescission that must be considered when designing the warranty and retention mechanisms in the primary acquisition contract.

Operational Considerations

The effective implementation of the regulation requires: updated registration of contract models before PROFECO with validity no greater than three years in accordance with article 86 Bis of the LFPC; documented protocols for delivery of technical sheets with dated proof of receipt; review of advertising materials by the legal department before their dissemination; and technical adjustment clauses with defined tolerance parameters for properties under construction.

The point regarding the three-year renewal of the registration merits special attention. Article 86 Bis of the LFPC establishes that adhesion contract models registered before PROFECO have a maximum term of three years, after which they must be renewed. PROFECO’s position in its supervision criteria is that a contract model used after the expiration of its registration is treated, for all procedural purposes, as an unregistered contract. The consequences of that equation are significant: the developer loses the evidentiary benefit conferred by the registration, which is precisely the presumption that the contract was reviewed and does not contain abusive clauses; furthermore, the use of an unregistered model may be framed within a different sanctioning track than simple non-compliance with the NOM, activating the nullity contemplated in article 90 of the LFPC on the model in its entirety. To avoid this scenario, it is recommended to establish a review and renewal cycle beginning ninety days before the expiration of each registration, so that the process of documentary updating, legal review, and submission to PROFECO is completed before the expiration becomes effective.

The absence of these controls exposes the provider to a scenario of partial or total contractual nullity, with the consequent financial and reputational impact on projects with multiple units.

IBG Legal is a boutique firm specialized in litigation and transactional real estate advisory, headquartered in Cancún with offices in Mexico City and Querétaro. Our practice combines defense in proceedings before PROFECO and federal courts with contractual structuring of real estate and hospital developments in Quintana Roo and the Riviera Maya. If your project requires a formal compliance assessment, IBG Legal offers a NOM-247 audit with defined scope that includes review of adhesion contracts, technical sheets, advertising materials, and delivery protocols, with delivery of a written report that identifies gaps and proposes specific corrective measures. To initiate the process, contact the real estate practice area of IBG Legal directly through the contact form at www.ibglegal.com or request an initial diagnostic meeting with our team in Cancún.

Sources and References

Legislation

Mexican Official Standard NOM-247-SE-2021, Commercial Practices—Information Requirements and Provisions for the Commercialization of Real Estate. Published in the DOF on January 7, 2022; effective as of July 7, 2022. Numerals 5.1, 5.4, 6, and 7 cited.
Federal Law for Consumer Protection (LFPC). Published in the DOF on December 24, 1992; last relevant reform published in the DOF on May 20, 2021. Article 87 Bis introduced by reform published in the DOF on December 15, 2011. Articles 36, 86, 86 Bis, 87 Bis, 90, 92, 92 Bis, 127, and 128 cited.
Federal Code of Civil Procedures. Published in the DOF on February 24, 1943; last reform in the DOF on January 9, 2012. Book Five (Collective Actions) cited.
Mexican Official Standard NOM-029-SCFI-2010, Commercial Practices—Information Requirements for the Commercialization of Timeshare Service. Published in the DOF on July 14, 2011.

Jurisdictional Criteria

Collegiate Courts of the XXVII Circuit (Quintana Roo). Cited in this article as a characterization of the interpretive trend observable regarding the burden of proof of the supplier in real estate consumer protection proceedings. The thesis numbers, case files and registrations in the Federal Judicial Weekly must be verified before invoking these criteria in formal proceedings.
First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Cited in this article as a reference to the pro-consumer interpretive trend of article 1 of the Constitution in relation to the rights of users of consumer services and its analogous extension to the real estate sphere. The thesis numbers and registrations in the Federal Judicial Weekly must be verified before invoking these criteria in formal proceedings.

Doctrine

Ovalle Favela, José. Consumer Rights. 3rd ed. National Autonomous University of Mexico, Institute of Legal Research, 2017.
Ríos Ruiz, Alma de los Ángeles. Legal Protection of the Consumer in Mexico. Editorial Porrúa, 2019.

Official Sources

Federal Official Gazette (DOF): www.dof.gob.mx. Publication and current text of NOM-247-SE-2021.
Federal Consumer Protection Agency (PROFECO): www.profeco.gob.mx. Registry of adhesion contracts, compliance guidance for the real estate sector and supervision criteria on expired adhesion contracts.
Ministry of Economy: www.gob.mx/se. Regulatory file and public consultation of NOM-247-SE-2021.
National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI): www.inegi.org.mx. Current value of the Measurement and Update Unit (UMA) for the calculation of sanctions in accordance with articles 127 and 128 of the LFPC.