Buying a rural property with several co-owners

Buying a property together with family, friends or business partners is a common way to access a property that, individually, would be difficult to afford, or simply because the project (a shared leisure property, a family farming business) makes sense precisely because it is shared among several people. However, buying together is not just about splitting the price: it also means sharing decisions, responsibilities and, over time, possible disagreements about the use or the future of the property.

At the time of buying, when the relationship between the parties tends to be good and enthusiasm for the project is at its highest, it is easy to assume that future agreements will sort themselves out naturally, according to whatever common sense dictates at each moment. Experience shows that this trust, however well-intentioned, does not replace a clear written agreement: each co-owner's personal circumstances change over the years, and what seems obvious today may not be so obvious in the future.

This guide reviews what it legally means to buy a property with several people, how ownership is split, and what agreements are worth putting clearly in writing from the start, before day-to-day life with the shared property puts to the test agreements that only ever existed verbally. It does not replace personalised legal advice, which is especially advisable for this type of transaction given its complexity.

This situation is different from buying together with a partner with whom one shares a marital property regime, where specific family-law rules apply that are not covered here; this guide focuses on the more general case of co-ownership between people (family, friends, business partners) who buy jointly without that prior legal bond.

When several people buy a property together, it is usual for what is known as joint ownership or a community of property to be established: each co-owner holds a share or percentage of the whole property, not a specific physical part of the land. This means that, unless otherwise established, no co-owner can say that "their part" is a particular area of the property; all of them own the whole of it, in the proportion that corresponds to them, although in practice co-owners often informally agree which area each one preferentially uses, without that changing their actual legal position.

Each co-owner's share does not have to be equal: it can be split according to what each one has contributed financially, or according to any other criterion the parties freely agree before buying. This proportion should be clearly reflected in the purchase deed, since it will determine, among other things, the share of costs corresponding to each one and the share of the value each will receive if the property is sold or divided in the future. A common mistake is to set the shares carelessly at the start, without thinking through the future consequences, only to discover years later that the proportion no longer reflects what each party considers fair.

There is also the possibility of physically dividing the property between the co-owners, instead of keeping it in joint ownership, through a subdivision that creates independent plots each with a single owner. This option is not always possible (it depends on the minimum plot size required in each municipality and on the layout of the property) and it is worth considering from the start if each co-owner's project is different enough that they would not want to share ownership indefinitely.

Before deciding between keeping the joint ownership or seeking a subdivision, it is worth being clear that both options have different practical implications. Joint ownership keeps the whole property together under shared management, which can be an advantage if the project benefits from that unity (for example, a farming business that loses its point if fragmented), but it requires constant coordination between the co-owners. Subdivision, on the other hand, gives each owner autonomy over their plot, but it may not be technically feasible or may reduce the property's combined value if the fragmentation turns out to be artificial.

The most important agreement, and the one most often taken for granted without being formalised, is how decisions about the property will be made: who decides whether to carry out a renovation, whether to hire someone to work the land, whether to allow third parties to use it, or whether, at some point, to sell it. Making clear from the start whether decisions are taken by a majority of shares, unanimously, or in some other way, avoids deadlock and misunderstandings when the time comes to decide something important, especially if the number of co-owners grows over time through successive inheritances.

It is also worth agreeing how the property's usual maintenance costs (property tax, insurance, repairs, farming expenses if any) will be shared, and what happens if one of the co-owners cannot or will not pay their share at some point. Setting a clear mechanism for this scenario, even if it seems unlikely at the time of buying, saves a lot of tension if it eventually happens, especially in properties with high maintenance costs or with productive activity that generates recurring expenses.

A third point worth agreeing in writing is what happens if one of the co-owners wants to sell their share in the future: whether the other co-owners have a right of first refusal to buy it, on what terms, and what happens if they cannot agree on the price of that share. Without this kind of prior agreement, a co-owner's exit can turn into a long and conflictive process, especially if relations between the parties are not good at that point, or if the co-owner wanting to leave needs cash urgently and the others are not in a position to buy their share immediately.

Formalising these agreements in a private document between the co-owners, in addition to what is stated in the purchase deed, provides an extra layer of security. A lawyer can help draft this document so that it is clear, balanced and enforceable if a real disagreement ever arises between the parties.

When there is no prior agreement and a serious disagreement arises between co-owners, the law provides, as a last resort, the possibility of requesting the division of the common property: any co-owner can ask for the property to be physically divided (if possible) or, if that is not possible or does not suit the parties, for it to be sold and the proceeds shared among all according to their share. This mechanism exists precisely because no one is obliged to remain indefinitely in a community of property against their will, even if the other co-owners would prefer to keep things as they are.

Reaching this point tends to be costly, both in time and in the personal relationship between the parties, and it is exactly what a good prior agreement between co-owners tries to avoid. Most serious disagreements that end up in this kind of procedure could have been anticipated and resolved differently if time had been spent, before buying, talking honestly about differing expectations among the future co-owners, instead of assuming that everyone understands the shared project in exactly the same way.

That is why, before buying together, it is worth having an honest conversation about each party's expectations regarding the use of the property, the expected frequency of use, the time horizon of the investment, and what would happen in situations such as a death, a divorce or an urgent need for cash by one of the co-owners. Anticipating these scenarios, however uncomfortable it may feel to do so before buying, is much easier than resolving them after they have already happened.

A death, in particular, is a scenario worth anticipating with special care: the deceased co-owner's share will pass to their heirs, who will automatically become new co-owners of the property, whether or not they have any real interest in the project shared with the others. Planning for this scenario in the prior agreement, for example with a right of first refusal in favour of the surviving co-owners over the heirs, prevents the community of property from ending up made up of people who never took part in the original project.

This guide focuses mainly on buying together with others from the start, but it is worth also mentioning the reverse case: buying a property that already has several co-owners (typically, a property inherited by several siblings). In this case, the sale generally requires the consent of all the co-owners, or of someone with sufficient authority to represent them, and it is worth verifying this situation with the appropriate documentation, covered in the guide on what documentation to request before buying a property, paying special attention to whether all the heirs have already formalised their ownership or whether the inheritance is still being processed.

If only some of the co-owners want to sell, the transaction becomes more complicated: buying only a share of a jointly owned property means becoming part of that community of property alongside the co-owners who are not selling, with all that implies in terms of shared decisions. This is a situation worth understanding well and weighing carefully before proceeding, ideally with legal advice specific to the particular case.

In this scenario, it is also worth finding out whether there is any statutory right of first refusal in favour of the remaining co-owners, which in certain circumstances allows them to acquire the share being sold on the same terms offered to the external buyer. Confirming this with a lawyer before committing avoids discovering, once the negotiation is well advanced, that the purchase could fall through because another co-owner exercises that right.

It is also worth, in this type of partial purchase, trying to find out beforehand what the relationship is like between the existing co-owners: if they carry previous disagreements about the property, buying a share means stepping directly into the middle of that dynamic, with less room to negotiate living arrangements from scratch than if buying together with people with whom one decides to buy jointly from the outset.

In addition to what is stated in the public purchase deed (which reflects each co-owner's ownership and share before a notary and towards third parties), it is advisable to formalise an additional private agreement between the co-owners themselves that develops the day-to-day matters in more detail: the decision-making system, the sharing of costs, rotating use if applicable, and the exit conditions for any of the parties.

This private agreement does not replace the public deed, nor does it generally have the same effect towards third parties, but it is binding between the parties who sign it and serves as a clear reference if a disagreement arises in the future about what was agreed at the time. Drafting it with the help of a lawyer, rather than improvising it among the co-owners themselves, helps anticipate situations that might otherwise be overlooked.

It is worth reviewing and, if necessary, updating this agreement from time to time, especially if any of the co-owners' circumstances change significantly (a change of residence, a different family situation, a change in one of the parties' financial capacity). An agreement that worked well at the time of purchase may stop reflecting the co-owners' reality as time goes by.

Finally, it is worth bearing in mind that no agreement, however well drafted, completely eliminates the risk of disagreement between co-owners; what it does do is substantially reduce the likelihood of that disagreement turning into a long and costly conflict, by giving all parties a clear framework to fall back on when some discrepancy arises about the property.