Op-ed published in La Nación (Opinión / Foros), 4 September 2026. Original: nacion.com
Every foreign buyer who acquires property in Guanacaste hears the reasons to feel confident: Costa Rica is a stable democracy, it has environmental legislation, a functioning National Registry and independent courts. All of that is true. But my experience as an owner in Nosara taught me that good laws do not always amount to effective protection.
Before buying, I did the recommended due diligence: a title study at the National Registry, a review of the corporate structure, the cadastral survey, permits and legal advice. It was indispensable, but it turned out to be insufficient. The difficulties appeared afterwards, once disputes arose and various institutions had to intervene.
In legal terms, Costa Rica regulates real estate development in detail. The problem is not the absence of rules, but what happens when you try to have them enforced, when institutions simply do not respond to complaints, take refuge in bureaucratic language and offer no solutions.
For a buyer, it is not enough to confirm that a permit exists. You should also verify whether what was built corresponds to what was authorized, whether there were subsequent inspections, and what happens when a citizen files a complaint or requests a review.
In practice, oversight can depend on someone activating the procedure, as some of us owners have experienced with the Municipality of Nicoya, which has left us waiting.
My own experience gives a sense of what happens when those doubts turn into a dispute.
In a proceeding to which I am a party, a Civil Court issued a precautionary measure suspending certain resolutions of a condominium assembly that changed the payment rules for owners. The court examined the file and granted the protection sought. That did not end the conflict, however. Procedural challenges followed, and months later a further ruling was needed to state expressly and without exception that the suspension remained in force.
I learned that obtaining a court ruling and having its effects take hold in good time can be two very different things. A precautionary measure can be no more than the beginning of a long run of filings, appeals, further motions and costs.
Water has been another example. Nosara has a limited and seasonally fragile supply, managed through ASADAs, AyA and other arrangements. Availability letters are issued, wells are drilled and connections are made. Yet the fact that a connection works does not prove that its documentation, concession or authorization is in order.
I turned to the entities with jurisdiction over water and electricity infrastructure. For months, I received no substantive response to the requests I considered necessary. Faced with that, I went to the Administrative Contentious Court through amparos de legalidad, a mechanism designed to require a public entity to perform the duties the law imposes on it. In my case, it has been necessary to file five amparos de legalidad against five public institutions with jurisdiction over water, electricity and local oversight in this area, in order to clarify the alleged irregularities I have been reporting for nearly a year. [Note: three at the time of publication; five as of September 2026.]
That figure helps convey the scale of the process. It is not simply a matter of filing a complaint and waiting for an answer. It can mean going to different forums, pressing for administrative rulings, and sustaining civil, criminal and administrative proceedings at the same time.
Cost matters too. Keeping a single precautionary measure in force required me to deposit a substantial cash bond, a five-figure sum held by the court for the duration of the proceeding, on top of years of professional fees.
For anyone seeking to enforce their rights, the passage of time carries a considerable financial and emotional cost, which should also be weighed when deciding whether or not to acquire a property.
I do not recount these facts in order to assign responsibility. There are proceedings under way, and any determination rests with the competent authorities and courts.
I mention them because they show a risk a buyer ought to weigh: due diligence does not end when you confirm the title is clean.
Before buying, it is worth knowing who administers the development and how decisions are made, checking the documentary backing for water and electricity service, verifying that what was built matches the permits, finding out whether there are relevant complaints or proceedings, and understanding what routes would have to be taken to enforce your rights, how long they might take and what they might cost.
After years of working through judicial and administrative channels, that is the lesson I consider most important to share: before investing, it is not enough to ask what rights exist. You also have to understand what it may take, in practice, to enforce them.
In a high-value real estate market, that risk should form part of the purchase decision too.
David Riabov is Managing Partner and Founder of Scratch Agency, and owns property in Nosara.
English translation by the author of the op-ed published in La Nación (Opinión / Foros), 4 September 2026. Original: nacion.com. The count of amparos de legalidad has been updated from three to five to reflect filings made after publication.