Partial vs. Total Regularization in REURB: Limits and Legal Consequences

Urban Land Regularization (REURB), established under Law No. 13,465/2017, was designed as a collective instrument aimed at regularizing consolidated informal urban settlements.

In practice, however, a frequent question arises: is it possible to pursue partial regularization—limited to certain lots, apartments, or fractions—when there is no consensus or feasibility for the entire settlement?

This article examines the possibilities of partial regularization, the risks of this strategy, and its legal and property-related consequences.

1. The Collective Nature of REURB

By definition, REURB has a collective scope:

·         it encompasses subdivisions, condominiums, buildings, and urban settlements;

·         it requires a comprehensive urban study (as-built plan, common areas, minimum infrastructure);

·         it culminates in the issuance of a single Urban Land Regularization Certificate (CRF) covering the entire settlement.

This means that, as a rule, REURB seeks total regularization of the development.

2. Partial Regularization: When It Is Possible

Despite the general rule, there are circumstances where partial regularization is allowed:

2.1. Very large settlements

When the settlement is extensive and consolidated in distinct sections, REURB can be carried out in phases, delimiting autonomous sectors.

2.2. Buildings with uneven documentation

If a building has 10 floors but only 6 contain occupied and consolidated units, the regularization may start with those units, leaving the rest for a later stage.

2.3. Resistance from some occupants

If certain owners refuse to participate, the Municipality may issue a partial CRF for the interested parties, without hindering future regularization of the remaining units.

Note: the law does not expressly prohibit partial regularization — and Decree No. 9,310/2018 allows the CRF to cover “the entirety or part of the settlement.”

3. Legal Consequences of Partial Regularization

3.1. Opening of individual land records

Units included in the partial CRF receive their own registrations, with full legal security.

3.2. Persistence of irregularity

Units or lots not included remain irregular, with no possibility of financing, formal sale, or registration.

3.3. Potential internal conflicts

·         Regularized owners may feel burdened by sharing space with irregular ones;

·         Collection of fees and condominium management become more complex.

3.4. Future difficulties

Partial regularizations may result in fragmented records, complicating future unifications.

4. Advantages of Partial Regularization

·         Allows the process to begin without requiring unanimity;

·         Provides immediate legal security for part of the residents;

·         May enable financing of collective works, later extending regularization to others.

5. Disadvantages of Partial Regularization

·         Creates “two worlds”: regularized properties vs. irregular ones;

·         May generate internal disputes and legal challenges;

·         Requires caution to avoid fragmented registrations that compromise the unity of the condominium or subdivision.

6. Recommended Strategy

·         Always aim for total regularization;

·         Use partial regularization only as an exceptional and strategic measure, when unanimity is unfeasible;

·         Include provisions in assemblies and fee agreements ensuring that new stages can follow, guaranteeing continuity of the process.

Conclusion

REURB is, by nature, collective and comprehensive. However, in practice, partial regularization may be necessary, whether due to resident resistance or technical infeasibility.

Although valid, this strategy must be adopted cautiously, as it brings significant legal consequences, particularly regarding coexistence between regularized and irregular units.

In summary: partial regularization is possible, but should be regarded as a temporary bridge toward total regularization, never as a definitive solution.