Ley 26.737 — Rural Land in Foreign Hands (repealed, suspended, still in force)

Argentina (AR) — civil law.

Nothing on this page describes United States practice. There is no certificate sold to an investor, no administrative sale, and no post-sale redemption window in Argentina. If you arrived carrying US assumptions, read falsos-amigos first.

Ley 26.737 — Ley de Tierras Rurales

The clearest live illustration on this wiki of why every page carries a date.

What the law does

Ley 26.737 restricts foreign ownership of rural land. Broadly:

• A cap of 15% of Argentina’s total rural land in foreign hands;
• Limits on land containing significant water bodies;
• Limits in border-security zones (overlapping, but not identical with, the separate `zona de seguridad` regime).

The status, in order

Step	Effect
DNU 70/2023, art. 154 — in force 29 Dec 2023	Repealed Ley 26.737
Cámara Federal de La Plata, March 2024	Declared that article unconstitutional
Precautionary measure	Suspended the repeal
Before the CSJN	Under review
Net position at last check	Ley 26.737 remains in force

Both of the obvious readings are wrong.

A reader who consults DNU 70/2023 concludes the limits are gone. A reader who consults Ley 26.737 alone concludes nothing ever happened. The actual position — a statute formally repealed, the repeal judicially suspended, the question pending before the Supreme Court — has no tidy label, and it is the position that binds.

What this means for a buyer

• Do not treat the rural-land limits as abolished. Until the CSJN rules, proceed on the basis that they apply.
• Verify the current position at the time of the transaction. This page’s last_verified is 2026-08-21; a CSJN ruling could change the answer entirely and without warning.
• The zona de seguridad de fronteras regime is separate and unaffected by this litigation. Border-zone authorisation is required regardless of how Ley 26.737 is resolved.

Border-zone carve-out inside the law

Even under the repeal as drafted, land in a border zone was to remain subject to its own legal regime. The two regimes were never fully co-extensive.

See dnu-70-2023-y-ley-bases.