You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

May 31, 2013

Buying a House in a Land Development Project: Look Before You Leap

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Recently, consumer interest in purchasing residential homes in Thailand has skyrocketed. In response to this, developers have launched numerous residential development projects catering to both domestic and foreign purchasers. Consumers now have the opportunity to contemplate purchasing homes of varying quality while also factoring in developer reputation and risk. When thinking about buying a home in a land development project, there are a few major issues buyers should consider both before and after making the purchase.

Is the project protected under Thailand’s Land Development Act?

Under Section 4 of the Land Development Act of 2000, “land development” means the sale of land divided into sub-lots from one main lot of land or from several lots of adjoining land in return for property or benefit as remuneration if at least 10 sub-lots are sold. This includes projects where the land is divided into fewer than 10 sub-lots but subsequent divisions are made within three years, resulting in the combined land being at least 10 lots.

Buyers should note that a developer might seek to avoid compliance with the Act by dividing the land into less than 10 sub-lots, so that the project may not have to provide public facilities or services, such as roads, parks, or children’s playgrounds.

Is the project being completed as described in the contract or as in the developer’s advertising materials?

Advertisements purporting to provide services or public facilities are regarded as contractual obligations between the buyer and the developer (Section 11 of the Consumer Case Procedure Act of 2008). Therefore, the land developer must fulfill promises made in the house sale advertisements, as they are contractual terms.

Furthermore, the land developer must request a bank or financial institution to conclude a guarantee with the Land Development Commission. If the land developer fails to provide for public facilities or services, the bank or financial institution will pay the commission the amount specified in the guarantee, so the commission can spend it on the provision of those public facilities or services (Section 24 of the Land Development Act).

How will the public facilities or services be maintained both during and after purchase?

Sometimes, after developing a project, a land developer fails to maintain public facilities or services in good working condition. Thai law provides that buyers of at least half the sub-lots under a project can pass a resolution to establish a developed-estate juristic entity, which is registered with the land official and controlled by an executive committee and the buyers. The management of public facilities or services can then be transferred to this developed-estate juristic entity (Sections 44 and 45 of the Land Development Act) to ensure they are maintained effectively.

Will there be any issues related to the collection of common fees?

Once the developed-estate juristic entity is established, all buyers of the developed land become members. If there are any sub-lots that have not yet been sold or which are transferred back to the land developer, the land developer becomes a member of the developed-estate juristic entity (Section 47 the Land Development Act).

Buyers of developed land are liable to pay common fees for the management and maintenance of public facilities or services, and land developers are liable to pay common fees for sub-lots that have not been sold (Section 49 of the Land Development Act).

To enforce contractual obligations in case of default, the developed-estate juristic entity can file a civil claim against a buyer or land developer who fails to pay the common fees.

What will happen if there are manufacturing defects?

If defects are found before the transfer of ownership, the buyer should submit a written objection (preferably acknowledged by the developer or its representative’s signature) outlining the list of defects (with photos) and requesting the land developer to repair the defects within the prescribed contractual period. If the land developer fails to repair the defects or does so inadequately, then on or before the transfer date, the buyer should present objections and supporting evidence of those defects to the land officer, informing the officer that the transfer cannot proceed unless and until the defects have been fixed.

If the defects are discovered after ownership transfer, the land developer is likely contractually liable. Exceptions include: (1) if the buyer knew or would have known of the defects at the time of sale; (2) if the defects appear at the time of delivery and the buyer accepts the house without objection; and (3) if the house was sold by public auction. The law allows buyers to take action concerning liability for defects within one year from the date the defects are discovered (Sections 472, 473, and 474 of the Civil and Commercial Code).

What are the key steps before making a purchase?

Before buying a house in a land development project, buyers should study the project and the environment to determine whether the government has any plan to use the land or adjacent land or if the land could be subject to expropriation, such as for future transport projects.

Buyers should review the corporate land developer by considering its previous projects and its corporate and financial status. Buyers can also conduct due diligence on the developer’s authorized directors to determine whether they have the authority to sign the sale and purchase contract. This may include investigating whether the developer or its directors have been involved in previous consumer claims.

Finally, buyers should examine the land and the relevant title deeds and prior title rights to confirm whether the developer owns the land or has the right to use it with no risk of encumbrance.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Real Estate

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
Read More
February 3, 2026
Thailand’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) landscape has evolved significantly over the past decade. Legislative reforms such as the Dispute Mediation Act and expanded court‑annexed mediation have strengthened non‑litigious options, while institutional choices have broadened. Parties can now choose between the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), and a growing number of sector‑specific dispute forums. For businesses, these choices matter. Each forum has different rules, administration, costs, speed, and enforcement mechanisms. These factors can directly impact commercial leverage, recovery outcomes, and business continuity. Choosing the right forum and drafting an effective dispute resolution clause can materially influence how a dispute is resolved. This article outlines the practical differences between Thailand’s leading alternative dispute resolution forums, explains when each is likely to deliver the most value, and offers drafting and strategy tips to embed those advantages into your dispute resolution clauses. Why ADR Is Gaining Traction in Thailand Thai policy increasingly supports the resolution of civil and commercial disputes through ADR. Recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Code now provide for court-supervised pre-action and in-case mediation. This type of mediation has its advantages: it suspends limitation periods, involves no court fees, and can conclude with a consent judgment that is immediately enforceable and subject to only limited grounds of appeal. In parallel, the Mediation Act supports out‑of‑court mediation for qualifying disputes within defined subject‑matter and monetary thresholds. Valid settlement agreements reached under this law may be enforced through a streamlined court process. Thailand’s arbitration framework has also matured into a reliable, pro‑enforcement framework under the Arbitration Act, which closely follows the UNCITRAL Model Law and applies to both domestic and international cases, so cross‑border users see familiar rules. As Thailand is a signatory to the New York Convention, Thai courts generally recognize and enforce foreign awards subject only
Read More
January 29, 2026
Following the recent enactment of a comprehensive legal framework addressing sexual harassment, Thailand has launched a fast-track judicial process enabling victims of online sexual harassment to obtain court orders suspending and removing obscene content from the internet. On January 26, 2026, the Office of the Judiciary introduced the “Take It Down” procedure through the Court Integral Online Service (CIOS) platform, providing victims with their first direct, expedited pathway to halt the spread of online content that violates the new legal provisions against sexual harassment. This new remedy stems from section 284/4 of the Penal Code, introduced through the Act Amending the Penal Code (No. 30) B.E. 2568, which took effect on December 30, 2025. Under section 284/4, an injured person or a competent official may petition the court to suspend dissemination of violating data and remove the data from computer systems within a court-specified period. The court may also direct system controllers, service providers, or competent authorities to carry out the order and report back within 15 days. Filing through the CIOS Platform The CIOS platform serves as the primary electronic channel for these petitions. Key features include: Individuals can file online without appearing in person and may submit petitions at any time the system is available. Users must complete digital identity verification via the ThaID application to access the CIOS. Petitions under section 284/4 are limited to requests to suspend or remove violating content. Claims for monetary damages must be pursued separately, including via separate proceedings or prefiling mediation. Streamlined Review Process The submission workflow is end-to-end electronic, and the system provides step-by-step guidance. After submission, court staff review the petition before presenting it to a judge for consideration. The court may conduct an online inquiry to obtain additional information, and in-person attendance is required only if deemed
Read More
January 20, 2026
Arbitrations seated in Thailand are governed principally by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) and, where applicable, the rules of institutions such as the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) and the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI). While these instruments set the core procedural structure, they are not comprehensive. To fill in these procedural gaps, arbitral tribunals often look to the Thai Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and apply its principles when the Arbitration Act or institutional rules are silent. This hybrid system is familiar to local practitioners but can surprise international parties who expect a more self-contained arbitral procedure. Examples of How CPC Principles Are Applied Evidence Management: Section 25 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of the parties and guarantees each side a full opportunity to present its case. At the same time, it grants tribunals broad discretion to conduct proceedings “as it deems appropriate” and expressly suggests that arbitrators may apply the CPC evidence rules where appropriate. In practice, tribunals frequently apply CPC evidence rules when addressing: submission of evidence lists, late or additional evidence, questions of admissibility and relevance, and assessment of witness and expert testimony. Amendments to Pleadings: Because the Arbitration Act and institutional rules provide limited guidance on amending pleadings, tribunals often rely on CPC principles when parties seek to amend a statement of claim or defense. Amendments may be permitted if they are sought in a timely manner, do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party, do not cause undue delay, and do not alter the nature of the dispute. These conditions closely mirror the standards applied by Thai courts under the CPC. Subpoenas and Court Assistance: Arbitral tribunals seated in Thailand generally do not have inherent subpoena powers. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act fills this gap by permitting the tribunal, an individual arbitrator, or a
Read More