Editor’s note: Housing can be an investment, but it is also the foundation of a stable life. Portugal and Spain did not retreat from property Golden Visas because international investment suddenly became undesirable. They retreated because residency-by-property had become inseparable from a deeper question: how much of a country’s housing should be organised around the mobility of global wealth rather than the needs of the people already living there?
For years, Portugal and Spain offered wealthy non-European investors a relatively simple proposition: purchase sufficiently valuable property and receive a pathway to legal residency.
These so-called Golden Visa programs arrived when both countries were eager to attract foreign capital into property markets still recovering from financial and sovereign-debt crises. Empty buildings needed buyers, developers needed financing and governments wanted investment without increasing public spending.
The programs delivered money. They also came to represent something increasingly difficult for either government to defend: access to residency being attached to the purchase of homes in countries where many existing residents could no longer afford one.
Portugal removed property from its Golden Visa program in October 2023. Spain went further, ending its investor-visa framework for new applicants from April 2025.
Their decisions did not solve either country’s housing crisis. Property Golden Visas were only one influence among constrained supply, slow construction, tourism growth, short-term rentals, low wages and rising borrowing costs.
But their retreat marked a significant political change. Housing was no longer being treated primarily as a vehicle for attracting mobile international wealth. It was being reclaimed, at least rhetorically, as essential social infrastructure.
Key Takeaways
- Portugal stopped allowing property purchases to qualify for its Golden Visa in October 2023, although other investment routes remain.
- Spain abolished its wider investor-visa framework for new applicants from 3 April 2025.
- Housing affordability was central to both reforms, but ending Golden Visas could address only a small part of much larger housing problems.
Why Property Golden Visas Appealed to Governments
Residency-by-investment programs are designed to attract capital from people who may not otherwise establish significant economic ties to a country.
Instead of requiring applicants to secure employment, build a business or spend most of the year physically present, governments can offer residence rights in exchange for an approved investment.
Property became a particularly attractive route because it was simple to understand and easy to market internationally. Investors received a tangible asset alongside residency rights. Governments gained foreign capital, transaction taxes and demand for construction, legal and property-management services.
Portugal introduced its Residence Permit for Investment Activity, commonly called the Golden Visa, in 2012. Spain followed with its investor-visa framework in 2013.
Both initiatives emerged after severe economic and property-market disruption. At the time, attracting buyers to underused or depreciated real estate looked like a practical way to accelerate recovery.
The basic bargain appeared mutually beneficial. Governments secured investment without directly borrowing money. Investors gained an asset in a European Union country, along with residence rights and access to movement within the Schengen Area.
What looked useful in a depressed property market became much harder to justify once housing scarcity replaced weak demand as the dominant political problem.
Portugal’s Program Became Closely Tied to Property
Portugal’s Golden Visa became one of Europe’s best-known residency-by-investment schemes. Although several forms of investment were technically available, property purchases dominated the program for much of its history.
Investors could once qualify by purchasing property worth at least €500,000. Lower thresholds were available for certain older buildings and regeneration projects, making the program particularly visible in historic urban areas.
The policy helped attract foreign buyers to Lisbon, Porto, coastal regions and other desirable locations. It also supported a large professional industry involving migration advisers, lawyers, developers, fund managers and property agents.
Yet Portugal’s housing conditions changed substantially after the program began.
Tourism expanded, demand for short-term accommodation grew and international buyers became increasingly interested in Portuguese property. Meanwhile, local wages did not keep pace with rapidly rising rents and sale prices in the most pressured areas.
Golden Visa buyers were never the sole cause of those increases. Their purchases represented only a portion of the overall property market, and many pressures were concentrated in places already attractive to tourists, investors and higher-income foreign residents.
However, the program became a powerful symbol. At a time when younger Portuguese residents struggled to leave family homes and urban workers were pushed farther from employment centres, the state was still offering residence rights to people able to purchase expensive property.
Even where the program’s measurable market impact was limited, its political meaning was difficult to escape.
Portugal Chose Reform Rather Than Abolition
Portugal’s response was not to end its Golden Visa altogether.
Under the Mais Habitação reforms enacted in October 2023, the government removed property purchases as a qualifying investment. Capital-transfer routes that did little beyond moving money into the country were also excluded.
Existing permit holders and qualifying applications already in progress were protected through transitional provisions. New applicants, however, could no longer obtain a Golden Visa simply by purchasing Portuguese real estate.
The program continued through other routes intended to direct foreign capital toward economic, cultural or research activity rather than residential property.
Depending on the route and the applicant’s circumstances, qualifying activity may include investment in eligible non-property funds, support for scientific research, cultural funding, business investment or employment creation.
Anyone assessing the current Portugal Golden Visa Requirements must therefore begin with the most important modern distinction: buying a house, apartment or other property is no longer a qualifying route for a new application.
This allowed Portugal to preserve an investment-migration program while separating it from direct property acquisition.
The choice reflected a compromise. Portugal still wanted internationally mobile investment, but the government could no longer credibly promote the sale of residence through housing while simultaneously promising to improve housing affordability.
Spain Initially Followed a Similar Model
Spain’s investor visa also allowed non-European applicants to qualify through several forms of investment, but its property option attracted the most attention.
The best-known route required an investment of at least €500,000 in Spanish real estate, generally excluding the financed portion of a purchase from the qualifying amount.
The visa was particularly appealing because investors did not need to relocate permanently to preserve their status. That made it useful to international buyers seeking flexibility, a European base or future residence options without immediately changing their principal home.
As in Portugal, the scheme began when Spain wanted to revive investment after a profound property crash.
By the time the government moved to abolish it, the economic context had changed. Housing affordability had become a defining political issue, especially in major cities and highly visited coastal areas.
Madrid, Barcelona, Málaga, Alicante, Valencia and island destinations were among the locations where international demand, tourism, short-term rentals and constrained housing supply collided most visibly.
Spain’s government argued that the great majority of investor visas were connected to real estate and frequently concentrated in already pressured markets. The policy had begun to look less like a recovery measure and more like an additional incentive for investment in places that were no longer struggling to attract buyers.
Spain Went Further Than Portugal
Portugal redirected its Golden Visa away from property. Spain ended the investor-residence mechanism itself for new applications.
Spain’s legislative changes left the investor-visa provisions in Articles 63 to 67 of Law 14/2013 without content. According to the consolidated law published by Spain’s official state gazette, the repeal took effect on 3 April 2025.
Applications submitted before the cutoff and existing permits were addressed through transitional rules, but new applicants could no longer use the former investment route.
This distinction matters.
Portugal continues to treat qualifying investment as a basis for residence, provided that investment falls within the redesigned rules. Spain no longer offers the same general Golden Visa route, whether through real estate or the other investment categories previously covered by the framework.
The two governments therefore reached different conclusions about how much of the model could be preserved.
Portugal judged that the political problem lay primarily in connecting residency to property. Spain concluded that the investor-visa framework itself should be removed.
Housing Pressure Changed the Political Calculation
Golden Visa programs are easiest to defend when a country has surplus property, depressed prices and a shortage of willing investors.
They become more difficult to defend when residents are competing for limited homes in markets shaped by international wealth.
Housing performs two very different functions. It is an investment asset capable of storing wealth and generating income. It is also the place where people build ordinary lives, raise families, access employment and participate in communities.
These functions can coexist, but tensions emerge when policies prioritise the exchange value of homes over their social purpose.
An investor may view a property as a route to diversification, rental income or residence rights. A local household may view the same property as one of a shrinking number of places it might realistically afford to live.
The conflict is particularly visible in historic centres and coastal destinations. Housing demand there can come simultaneously from permanent residents, tourists, second-home owners, remote workers and global investors.
Each buyer may represent only a small part of the market. Together, they can reshape entire neighbourhoods.
Unsustainable has previously explored when real estate investment becomes unsustainable for a community. The central concern is not investment itself, but imbalance: a place can attract capital while losing the affordability, diversity and local continuity that made it desirable in the first place.
Did Golden Visas Cause the Housing Crisis?
No serious account of housing affordability in Portugal or Spain can blame Golden Visas alone.
The supply of housing in high-demand areas has often failed to keep pace with population growth, household formation and changing patterns of work and tourism. Planning constraints, construction costs, labour shortages, vacant buildings and limited social housing also play major roles.
Low interest rates encouraged property investment for years before borrowing costs later increased. Short-term rental platforms changed the economics of centrally located homes. Tourism created jobs and revenue while increasing competition for space in popular neighbourhoods.
Foreign buyers outside Golden Visa programs remained able to purchase property. European Union citizens never needed these schemes to move between member states, and many non-European buyers acquired homes without using investor visas.
Property Golden Visas represented a small share of overall national transactions. Their market effects were uneven, with much greater visibility in specific cities, coastal areas and luxury-property segments.
Ending the programs could therefore never produce an immediate national drop in rents or home prices.
That does not make the reforms meaningless.
Public policy communicates priorities as well as producing measurable market effects. A government that grants residency for the purchase of expensive homes signals that attracting property capital is a national objective.
Removing that incentive signals that access to scarce housing should not serve as the entry ticket to residence.
The European Union Had Other Concerns
Housing pressure was not the only criticism directed at Golden Visa programs.
The European Commission has identified security, money laundering, tax evasion and corruption risks associated with investor-citizenship and investor-residence schemes.
Residence in one Schengen country can provide mobility across much of Europe. The risks and benefits of a national program therefore do not remain entirely within the country issuing the permit.
Concerns have included inconsistent background checks, the use of complex corporate structures, difficulty verifying the source of investment funds and the involvement of intermediaries with financial incentives to secure approvals.
The European Parliament has also argued that investment migration can commodify rights that normally arise through meaningful connections to a country. In 2022, members called for tighter common rules governing Golden Visas and the gradual elimination of citizenship-by-investment schemes.
Critics also question whether investment-migration programs create a two-tier immigration system.
Workers, refugees and family migrants may face demanding requirements, long processing times and extensive scrutiny. Wealthy investors can sometimes access a more flexible route because they possess sufficient capital.
Supporters respond that investment migrants contribute funds, taxes and economic activity without necessarily competing for local employment. They also argue that properly designed programs can channel capital into productive businesses, research and job creation.
Portugal’s revised model effectively embraces that argument. It continues to welcome investment migrants, but seeks to direct their money away from direct property purchases.
Redirecting Capital Is Harder Than Selling Homes
Real estate made Golden Visa programs successful partly because it was familiar.
A home is visible, understandable and potentially useful. It can be occupied, rented or sold. Investors can evaluate its location and compare it with other properties.
Funds, research contributions and cultural investments require more specialised assessment. They may involve higher uncertainty, less liquidity and greater dependence on professional advisers.
That creates both opportunities and risks.
Redirecting capital toward businesses, innovation or cultural preservation may produce wider social benefits than bidding up existing homes. It can support employment and activities that might otherwise struggle to attract funding.
However, removing property does not automatically make every remaining investment socially useful. Funds can be opaque, fees can be substantial and investment structures may still have indirect exposure to property or other assets that do little to meet public priorities.
The credibility of Portugal’s redesigned program will depend on oversight. Authorities need to establish that qualifying investments are genuine, compliant and connected to the forms of economic activity the law intends to support.
Tourism and Short-Term Rentals Complicate the Picture
Portugal and Spain are among the world’s most appealing tourism destinations. That success creates employment and supports thousands of businesses, but it also changes housing markets.
In places with intense visitor demand, a home may earn more as short-term accommodation than as a long-term rental. Owners respond to those incentives, reducing the number of homes available to permanent residents.
Golden Visa buyers entered this wider environment. Some purchased homes for personal use, some rented them and others treated the properties mainly as appreciating assets.
The underlying issue was therefore broader than immigration policy. It concerned the gradual conversion of residential neighbourhoods into internationally traded lifestyle and tourism markets.
Unsustainable’s examination of the hidden environmental and community costs of short-term rentals shows why housing sustainability extends beyond energy efficiency. A property can perform well as a building while still contributing to displacement, excessive turnover and the erosion of local community life.
A sustainable housing market must account for who can remain in a place, not only how efficiently its buildings operate.
What the Reforms Mean for Investors
The most immediate lesson is simple: old Golden Visa comparisons are now unreliable.
A guide that still presents €500,000 property purchases as active Golden Visa routes in both Portugal and Spain is describing a legal landscape that no longer exists.
Portugal remains relevant to people considering residency through qualifying investment, but the investment must fit the current non-property framework. Spain requires prospective residents to examine different immigration categories entirely.
Potential applicants should also separate several concepts that marketing material often blends together:
- A residence permit does not automatically make someone a tax resident.
- Buying property does not itself guarantee citizenship.
- Eligibility rules can change while an investment remains financially exposed.
Investors need independent immigration, legal and tax advice appropriate to their nationality, family circumstances and source of funds.
They should also assess the underlying investment as though no visa benefit existed. Residency may add value, but it cannot rescue a poorly structured fund, an overpriced asset or a decision based on unrealistic expectations.
What the Reforms Mean for Housing
Removing property Golden Visas reduces one source of policy-driven international demand. It also closes a particularly visible connection between housing wealth and migration privilege.
On its own, however, the reform cannot create enough affordable homes.
Portugal and Spain still need more housing in places where people need to live. Existing buildings must be renovated and returned to use. Planning and infrastructure need to support well-located development without encouraging uncontrolled sprawl.
Long-term rentals need to remain viable for responsible landlords while providing stability for tenants. Social and cooperative housing require investment at a scale that isolated policy adjustments cannot replace.
Housing cooperatives offer one alternative to treating every dwelling primarily as a speculative asset. Unsustainable’s article on housing cooperatives and environmental sustainability explores how collective ownership can support affordability, community stability and more locally accountable development.
The retreat from property Golden Visas should therefore be seen as one component of a much larger housing transition.
A Shift in What Governments Are Willing to Sell
Portugal and Spain introduced their investor programs when foreign property demand appeared to offer more benefits than risks.
Years later, the same policies existed in a different social context. Homes had become less affordable, tourism had transformed popular neighbourhoods and public anger increasingly focused on housing as an asset class.
Portugal responded by retaining investment migration while removing real estate from the bargain. Spain decided to close the investor route for new applicants altogether.
Neither approach proves that wealthy foreign buyers caused the housing crisis. Nor does either guarantee that homes will suddenly become affordable.
The significance lies elsewhere.
Both governments eventually accepted that offering residence in exchange for property had become politically and socially difficult to defend. A policy once presented as economic recovery had come to symbolise the financialisation of housing.
The retreat does not end international property investment. It does not eliminate tourism pressure or fix decades of limited housing supply.
It does establish a boundary: purchasing an expensive home should not automatically purchase a preferred route into residency.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can property still qualify for a Portugal Golden Visa?
No. New applicants can no longer qualify for Portugal’s Golden Visa by purchasing real estate. The property route was removed in October 2023. The wider program remains available through qualifying non-property investments and contributions.
Does Spain still offer a Golden Visa?
Spain ended its investor-visa framework for new applicants from 3 April 2025. Transitional provisions may apply to applications submitted before the change and to existing permit holders.
Did Portugal completely abolish its Golden Visa?
No. Portugal restructured the program rather than closing it. Applicants must now use one of the qualifying routes that remain under current law.
Why did the countries remove property investment?
Housing affordability and speculation were central political reasons. European concerns about security, money laundering, tax evasion, corruption and the fairness of investment-migration programs also formed part of the broader debate.
Will ending Golden Visas make housing affordable?
Not by itself. Golden Visa purchases represented only one component of housing demand. Supply shortages, tourism, short-term rentals, construction constraints, financing conditions and domestic investment continue to affect prices and rents.
Can foreign nationals still buy property in Portugal or Spain?
Generally, yes. Ending a property-based visa route does not amount to a general prohibition on foreign property ownership. Buyers must still comply with applicable legal, tax and financial requirements, but purchasing property no longer creates the former investor-residence entitlement.