The potential arrival of former President Gustavo Petro to Sierras del Moral, a residential complex in northern Bogotá, has sparked a controversy that goes beyond who will be the new neighbor. A group of residents has expressed their opposition to the implications his presence could have on security and coexistence, while the former president has defended his right to choose where to live.
This situation highlights the limits of authority within a co-ownership property. Residents can express dissatisfaction and demand adherence to coexistence rules, but there are also rights protecting owners and tenants. The core issue is determining how far neighbors can go in attempting to exclude someone from their complex.
Legal Experts Weigh In
Santiago Salazar, legal director of SH Abogados, explained that the rights of co-owners and residents are limited to demanding compliance with horizontal property regulations and coexistence rules. Law 675 of 2001 aims to guarantee security and peaceful coexistence in properties under this regime.
According to Salazar, this authority must be based on concrete facts, not on the characteristics of who inhabits a property. “This right is based on verifiable conduct, not on the person,” he said. Colombian law does not grant neighbors the power to veto the identity, condition, or personal characteristics of those living in the complex.
Ivonne Aristizábal Rojas, legal director of Aristizábal & Rodríguez Legal Partners, agreed that residents cannot decide who has the right to live in a property. However, they can demand that owners, tenants, or occupants comply with the rules and respect others’ rights.
Read Also: Colombia regulator issues conflicting biometric rules for banks
Coexistence Rules and Limits
Aristizábal stated that neighbors lack the right to veto who can live in the complex. The co-ownership can address behaviors affecting coexistence but cannot target a resident’s identity or personal condition. Article 18, section 1, of Law 675 outlines obligations related to private property use, requiring residents to avoid noise, nuisances, or acts that disturb others’ tranquility or affect public health.
In practice, while neighbors can voice concerns about potential disruptions, they cannot legally prevent someone from moving in based on their identity. The focus must remain on addressing specific, verifiable behaviors that violate established rules.
Aristizábal added that Article 31 of Law 1801 of 2016 recognizes tranquility and respectful relationships as essential for coexistence. Its Article 33, modified by Law 2450 of 2025, addresses behaviors affecting peace and quiet. However, these provisions regulate conduct and do not allow selecting who can live in a co-ownership property.
Aristizábal noted that Article 5, paragraph 4, of Law 675 states that regulations cannot prohibit the alienation or encumbrance of private property or limit its transfer. Additionally, Article 58 of the Constitution guarantees private property, subject to its social function.
“Neighbors can complain about concrete facts affecting coexistence,” Aristizábal said. “What they cannot do is prevent someone from legitimately occupying a property simply because they don’t want them as a neighbor.”
Read Also: U.S. Tightens Visa Rules on Financial Capability
Legal experts distinguish between expressing rejection and taking actions to prevent someone from entering or remaining in a property. Aristizábal noted that residents can express their disagreement and protest peacefully, as Articles 20 and 37 of the Constitution protect freedom of expression and the right to assemble and demonstrate publicly and peacefully.
However, this protection does not allow them to physically prevent access to housing. Article 77, section 5, of the National Code of Security and Citizen Coexistence considers it contrary to possession and mere ownership to prevent someone entitled to that right from entering, using, and enjoying a property.
A protest, banner, or petition may fall within freedom of expression. The limit appears when attempting to physically prevent entry. “Physically blocking the entry of an owner or tenant, preventing a move, or using the co-ownership’s access control to exclude them without legal grounds can constitute a breach of the peace and a disturbance of their possession or ownership,” Aristizábal explained.
Aristizábal clarified that Law 675 does not allow expelling a resident or prohibiting them from living in their home as a sanction. Article 59 establishes three types of sanctions for non-monetary obligation breaches: publishing the infringement, successive fines, and restricting the use and enjoyment of non-essential common goods. It also does not allow restricting essential common goods or those intended for exclusive use.
