In a previous note, we discussed the proposed amendments to the General Ordinance on Urban Planning and Construction (OGUC) that the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MINVU) submitted for public consultation. Aimed at reviving housing construction and speeding up reconstruction in disaster zones, these amendments were incorporated into MINVU Decree No. 68 of 2026, which was recently cleared through toma de razón, with clarifying remarks, by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic and published in the Official Gazette on October 2.
The original version of Decree 68/2026, submitted for toma de razón on July 27, 2026, was withdrawn by MINVU itself on September 7 in order to address several of the Comptroller’s observations. Resubmitted on September 16, it was finally cleared on October 1, with the clarifying remarks discussed below. Before that, the amendment had been submitted to public consultation between April 8 and 22, and the Ministry responded to the comments received.
The observations that led to the withdrawal covered several of the matters we had already discussed. Regarding density, the Comptroller found no apparent basis for replacing the coefficient of four inhabitants per dwelling set out in the previous regulation with the proposed coefficients. On parking, it noted that the reduction in the minimum number of spaces did not take into account Article 60 of Law No. 21,442 on condominium ownership, which requires at least one parking space per unit in public-interest housing condominiums.
With respect to the Road Impact Mitigation Report (IMIV), it observed that powers conferred by Article 171 of the General Law on Urban Planning and Construction (LGUC) on the Regional Ministerial Secretariat of Transport and Telecommunications and the relevant Traffic Department were being assigned to the Housing and Urban Development Service, and, moreover, that there was no record of the report having been requested from the relevant ministry under Article 37 bis of Law No. 19,880. On harmonious complexes (conjuntos armónicos), it noted the need to harmonize the new rules that lowered the conditions for accessing this mechanism with its incentives. And, regarding reconstruction in disaster zones, it stated that the simultaneous building permit and final approval had to be confined to the terms of Article 116 bis D of the LGUC, among other matters.
In light of these observations, the Ministry adjusted the text that was ultimately cleared. On density, the base coefficient was set at 2.8 inhabitants per dwelling, in line with the trend in average household size, together with a differentiated coefficient of 1.4 for projects near transport infrastructure, while the coefficient of 2 included in the originally submitted text was eliminated. On parking, the reduction was limited to housing projects and service-class facilities, safeguarding the requirement of Law No. 21,442. For harmonious complexes, the conditions for accessing this mechanism and the rules on its benefits were adjusted, including road requirements and the possibility of reducing the increases in historic conservation zones. And, in the case of reconstruction, the requirement to comply with urban planning rules on risk areas and the protection of natural and heritage resources was reinstated, as were the restriction strips or radii and the public-utility designations established in the relevant land-use planning instrument.
Decree 68/2026 was also cleared with clarifying remarks. The Comptroller specified that it is for the Municipal Works Departments to verify that the risk study is signed by a specialist professional, and for MINVU, through its Urban Development Division, to define who qualifies as such. In addition, regarding the technical grounds for the regulation, which were challenged in various submissions filed during the process and at the public participation stage, the Comptroller stated that, although it had analyzed them, assessing them was primarily a matter for the competent sectoral authority.
This is relevant because toma de razón is a preventive legality review. Its observations therefore addressed questions of that kind: the competence of the bodies involved, consistency with higher-ranking rules, the reasoning behind the act and compliance with procedural steps such as the report under Article 37 bis of Law No. 19,880. The merits, timeliness or advisability of the decisions adopted, such as whether the chosen density coefficient is the most appropriate, are a different matter, reserved to the administrative authority and beyond the Comptroller’s power to assess. That is why, once the legality objections had been addressed, the Comptroller cleared the decree without ruling specifically on the merits of the public policy decisions adopted.
Ultimately, the toma de razón makes it possible to distinguish between the legality of the amendments and the advisability of the urban policy decisions they contain. The Comptroller’s ruling addresses the former but does not settle the latter, given the scope of its preventive review. From that perspective, it remains relevant to examine how the new parameters fit with local planning and what effects they have in each area.
In practical terms, these amendments make it possible, under certain conditions, to build more housing units on the same plot, gain greater buildable area and reduce parking requirements, as well as making reconstruction in disaster zones easier.
However, although their rationale is to improve project viability and expand housing supply through changes to national regulations, their effects play out in areas whose local planning responds to specific conditions and public participation processes. Although the OGUC amendment was submitted to public consultation, disputes may still arise when the new rules are applied, both over the scope of the benefits and how they fit with zoning plans, and over the capacity of infrastructure and services to support more intensive construction. All of these issues were raised by various stakeholders, including several municipalities, during the process.
Experience shows that when these tensions materialize, they tend to lead to more litigation over building permits, through constitutional protection actions, illegality claims or invalidation requests, so that the debate on how the new regulation fits with local planning ultimately tends to move to administrative and judicial forums.
In this context, the relationship between the Ordinance and land-use planning instruments remains an open question and is especially important for developers, municipalities and holders of pending permits, who face the challenge of determining how the new rules apply to each plot, what opportunities they offer and what conditions must be met to take advantage of them. This is particularly relevant for those who already hold a building permit but have not yet obtained final occupancy approval, as the decree provides a transitional route for opting into its provisions through a project amendment, subject to specific requirements and limits.
