Spain’s anti-eviction ‘shield’ collapses: what the new legal landscape means for landlords

SPAIN’S controversial anti-eviction laws are set to expire, marking a significant shift in the country's rental market and restoring a level of legal certainty for property owners.

The decision by the lower house to scrap the general suspension of evictions ends years of "social shield" protections first introduced during the 2020 pandemic. For the first time in six years, landlords across the country—including the thousands in the Málaga and Costa del Sol regions—can initiate proceedings without an automatic block based on tenant vulnerability.

The process for repossessing a property now depends heavily on the profile of the landlord. The new framework distinguishes between "small" and "large-scale" property owners:

• Small Landlords: In cases of non-payment, social services will now have a two-month window to attempt to rehouse the tenant. If no alternative is found within this timeframe, the court-ordered eviction process begins.

• Large-scale Owners (Gran Tenedores): Those owning multiple properties face a more rigorous path. They must enter a five-month mediation phase to assess tenant vulnerability. If the tenant proves they are at risk, social services may be granted an additional four months to find a solution before the eviction can be executed.

According to the Observatorio Desca, approximately 60,000 landlords have been unable to repossess their properties since the social shield was established. For many, this has resulted in years of lost rental income and significant legal costs.

However, the "shield" was never absolute. Judicial data reveals that 27,564 evictions took place in 2024 alone, largely involving tenants who failed to meet the strict legal criteria for vulnerability or those whose situations were not verified by social services.

The move has been welcomed by property associations, who argue that the previous system placed an unfair burden on private citizens to solve a public housing crisis.

"Ignoring property rights just postpones the conflict," noted one legal analyst. Critics, however, warn that the sudden removal of the shield could lead to a spike in homelessness if social services are unable to meet the new, tighter deadlines for rehousing.