BANGKOK, THAILAND – Foreigners remained barred from owning land, but Thai law offered binational couples several legal tools to secure homes and long-term rights.
Why foreigners could not buy land – and what still worked
Thailand’s Land Code prohibited foreigners from directly acquiring land, a rule that had been in force for decades and was strictly enforced to protect national resources. Informal agreements or nominee arrangements could not legally bypass this ban without exposing all parties to criminal risk.
Despite this, thousands of binational couples lived in houses that effectively belonged to them in practice. The key lay in a clear separation: the land was registered in the Thai partner’s name, while robust legal instruments secured use of the building for the foreign partner.
Section 86: The core prohibition – and its narrow exception
Section 86 of the Land Code stipulated that foreigners could acquire land only if an international treaty allowed it. No such treaty existed with any country, leaving only one narrow exception under Section 96 bis.
That exception required an investment of 40 million baht and was in practice rarely usable. Foreigners who ignored the ban and tried to buy land through a Thai nominee faced, under Section 111, fines and imprisonment of up to two years, applying to both the foreigner and the Thai nominee.
Section 74: Why land offices scrutinised binational purchases
When purchase funds originated from abroad, officials at the Land Department became particularly alert. Section 74 obliged them to halt any transaction if there was reasonable suspicion of a nominee arrangement and to seek instructions from the Interior Minister.
That ministerial decision was final and could not be appealed. In practice, a foreign partner wiring funds for a land purchase had to prove that no ownership claim to the land was attached to the money.
Form Tor Kor 3: The document no foreign-funded deal could skip
If a foreign partner provided the money for the land purchase, the Thai spouse had to declare at the land office that the funds were his or her personal property. This declaration, made on Form Tor Kor 3, was signed on site and permanently kept in the land file.
The form appeared formal but had far‑reaching effects: by signing, the foreign funder waived any future ownership claim to the land. Without clear arrangements before the purchase, this could lead to serious disadvantages for the foreign partner in the event of separation.
Section 97: Why foreign-controlled Thai companies were blocked
Section 97 of the Land Code closed another route often discussed in property forums. Thai companies were deemed foreign-controlled if more than 49 percent of their capital was held by foreigners or more than half of the shareholders were non‑Thai nationals.
Such entities were barred from buying land. From 2024, the Land Department stepped up enforcement against sham structures, and media reports cited 23 convictions in a single case in September 2024. For private couples, direct registration of the land under the Thai partner remained the safest and most transparent option.
Marriage contracts under Section 1465: Legal certainty versus wishful thinking
A prenuptial agreement under Section 1465 of the Civil and Commercial Code could clearly regulate the couple’s property relations, provided it was properly executed. Crucially, it had to be registered at the district office at the same time as the marriage.
Agreements concluded after marriage generally carried much less weight before Thai courts. Couples who missed this window were advised not to view their situation as hopeless, but to consider other instruments that applied regardless of when they married.
Section 1471 and property separation: Why “gift” was a legal term
Section 1471 distinguished between personal property (Sin Suan Tua) and marital community property (Sin Somros). Land purchased with funds declared as a gift fell under the personal property of the Thai spouse.
This was more than a formality; it formed the legal basis for correct registration at the land office. The classification protected both sides: the plot did not count as joint marital property, which would clash with land law, and the origin of the funds was clearly documented.
Tracing the money: Why every foreign transfer had to be documented
For a purchase price of, for example, 3,700,000 baht – around 100,000 euros at roughly 37 THB/EUR – authorities had to be able to trace the flow of funds from the foreign account to the sale contract. Thai banks issued a Foreign Exchange Transaction (FET) certificate to confirm the receipt of funds from abroad.
This certificate was mandatory at the land office. The purpose stated on the transfer also mattered and was expected to be unambiguous, for instance:
“Funds for purchase of property in Thailand”
said the standard wording required by banks.
Couples who failed to keep these records risked having their transaction halted on the day of transfer. Experienced property advisers in Thailand helped compile the necessary documents in advance.
Usufruct under Section 1417: Lifelong use as key retirement protection
Without additional safeguards, the death of the Thai partner could leave the foreign spouse vulnerable to eviction by heirs. A usufruct right under Section 1417 of the Civil and Commercial Code addressed this risk by granting a lifelong right to live in and use the property.
The usufruct was registered directly on the Chanote title deed and remained valid even if the land was sold, as long as it was properly recorded. Registration fees at the land office were generally under 100 baht if no payment for the usufruct was agreed.
Renting out the property: What usufruct holders could and could not do
The holder of a usufruct was allowed to rent out the property and keep the income, a right expressly recognised by law. A key limitation applied to foreigners, however: leases longer than three years could not be registered in their name at the land office, because foreigners could not appear as landlords on the title.
In practice, this meant short‑term rentals, including via platforms such as Airbnb, were legally feasible under a usufruct. For lease terms exceeding three years, couples were advised to seek legal counsel and design an appropriate structure before signing the usufruct contract.
Superficies under Section 1410: Separating the building from the ground
As an alternative to usufruct, Section 1410 provided for a right of superficies. It allowed one person to own buildings on land belonging to someone else, legally separating ownership of the house from ownership of the plot.
The superficies right was also registered in the land registry and could be granted for up to 30 years, with the option of extension. It was particularly useful for new constructions on a Thai partner’s land because it legally isolated the foreigner’s investment in the building from the underlying land and provided clearer conditions in inheritance situations.
Taxes and fees: What transfers cost at the land office
Every land transfer in Thailand triggered several charges: a transfer fee of two percent, a stamp duty of 0.5 percent and, in some constellations, a Specific Business Tax of 3.3 percent. These were usually calculated on the official appraised value, which was often lower than the market price.
With an official valuation of 2,000,000 baht – around 54,000 euros – total costs could range between 60,000 and 100,000 baht depending on the case. Standard practice was to split these expenses between buyer and seller unless the sale contract specified otherwise.
At the land office: Documents and expectations for couples
At the Land Department (Krom Thidin), all parties met in person: buyer, seller, and, where applicable, a notary and interpreter. Thai was the only language used, and officials checked that both sides understood the explanations.
Couples had to bring complete and consistent paperwork, including passports, house registration extracts, proof of funds, the bank’s FET certificate, the completed Tor Kor 3 form and, if already arranged, usufruct or superficies contracts. Those who arrived well prepared typically experienced the appointment as a routine procedure; missing documents often turned it into an avoidable source of stress.
What might change – and what was expected to stay stable
Core rules on land ownership in Thailand had remained stable for decades and were not expected to change fundamentally based on information available for 2026. While there were ongoing discussions about easing conditions for long‑term residents, for example under the LTR visa framework, no concrete legal amendments had been adopted.
Observers advised treating media reports on alleged “reforms” with caution. Administrative processes at the Land Department were gradually being digitised, but properly registered usufruct or superficies rights were expected to remain legally secure regardless of future reforms.
“This article provides factual information on the legal framework for land transfers in Thailand in 2026 and does not replace individual legal advice.”
said the editorial note, citing the Thailand Land Code B.E. 2497, the Thai Civil and Commercial Code and the Land Department of Thailand as sources.