Last month, a court in Goiânia prohibited a resident from renting out their apartment via Airbnb in a residential condominium. The decision has reignited the discussion regarding the social function of property and the limits of individual rights versus collective interests. The magistrate considered the practice to constitute commercial lodging, which is prohibited by the condominium bylaws—the primary document governing life in a condominium—and ordered the immediate suspension of rentals, reinforcing the role of this instrument as a regulator of communal living. This debate gains relevance in light of Airbnb's expansion in Brazil: in 2024, the platform recorded guests in 2,500 cities, accounting for almost 45% of all Brazilian municipalities, according to the company's own data.
The judge's understanding indicates that condominium bylaws play a central role in community life, functioning as a kind of internal “constitution” by establishing rules for coexistence among residents. Although it cannot override the law, this document possesses normative force to regulate practices that impact the community, including commercial activities or lodging that may compromise safety, tranquility, and public health. The Civil Code, in its Article 1,336, already imposes clear limits on the use of property, guaranteeing co-owners freedom over their unit, provided it does not cause harm to others.
According to Rafael Verdant, a partner in the Civil Litigation practice at Albuquerque Melo Advogados, the decision precisely reinforces this balance between individual and collective rights. “The bylaws are the most important instrument for co-owners to self-govern. They regulate the use of common areas and protect the community from practices that could generate insecurity, excessive noise, or friction in coexistence. It is in this sense that collective interest often overrides individual interest,” he states.
The expert recalls that the right to property is not absolute. “The Civil Code establishes that each co-owner may use their unit freely, provided they do not harm others. In other words, condominium living imposes a natural condition: collective interest tends to prevail over individual interest in case of conflict,” adds Verdant. For him, this is the central point of the Goiânia decision, which reinforces the prevalence of the community over the economic exploitation of the property in certain contexts.
Beyond the legal interpretation, the discussion involves practical aspects of daily condominium life. Among the main risks raised by residents regarding short-term rentals are the frequent entry of unknown persons, the possibility of parties and noise, accelerated wear and tear of common areas, and the erosion of the sense of community. These factors help explain why, in many cases, the collective seeks to impose limits on the individual economic exploitation of the property.
The debate extends beyond the boundaries of individual buildings. Bills under discussion in the National Congress, such as PL 2030/2025 and PLP 78/2025, debate whether this type of rental should be treated as a lease or as lodging, with proposals requiring express authorization from condominiums and rules more closely aligned with those applied to hotels and inns. For Verdant, balanced regulation is necessary. “It's not about prohibiting indiscriminately. We must recognize that this modality is an economic and social reality, but it requires clear parameters. The solution involves internal rules that require, for example, prior registration of guests, limitations on the duration or frequency of rentals, and penalties for non-compliance.”
The platform itself provides resources to protect hosts, guests, and communities, including identity verification policies, damage insurance, and channels for reporting inappropriate behavior. International experience shows that regulation is essential: in Spain, the government recently intensified inspections and imposed restrictions on short-term rentals amidst the housing crisis, demonstrating how public policies can balance the economic use of properties with the preservation of the right to housing and collective security. This perspective reinforces the need for clear rules adapted to the local reality, ensuring that condominiums can protect the community without ignoring the economic viability of Airbnb.
The attorney concludes that the major challenge is harmonizing rights. “Efficient regulation must guarantee the right to property and the economic exploitation of the property, but also preserve the collective interest, allowing condominiums to deliberate on restrictions and conditions. There is no one-size-fits-all model: what works in a family-oriented building may not be applicable to a condominium with a more tourist or commercial profile,” he states.
