Can a building or a landlord ban pets in Peru?

These are two different questions, with two different answers

“Can they ban me from having pets?” is really two separate questions that tend to get mixed together. One is about the building: can the owners’ association ban pets in the condominium’s internal regulations? The other is about the rental contract: can your landlord ban you from having pets in the apartment you’re renting? Both generally have a “yes” answer, but each comes with different limits — and the Constitutional Tribunal and the Civil Code have spelled those out separately.

The owners’ association: it can ban pets, but the ban doesn’t always reach you

Peru’s Constitutional Tribunal has ruled on this twice, with results that look contradictory at first glance but really turn on the same question: which came first, the pet or the rule.

2018 case: the pet arrived before the ban

In case file 01413-2017-PA/TC, an owner already had his pet before the owners’ association amended the building’s internal regulations to ban pets (and, specifically, to ban using the elevators with pets). The Constitutional Tribunal ruled that ban inapplicable to his situation, and went further: it set fundamentos 19 and 20 of that ruling as binding case-law doctrine (doctrina jurisprudencial) — a standard that later similar cases must follow. The core idea: a new rule cannot retroactively strip someone of a right, or a factual situation like already having a pet, that the person was exercising before the rule existed.

2023 case: the person bought knowing the ban already existed

In Sentencia 348/2023 (case file 00949-2022-PA/TC), the facts were different: the claimant bought his property — a vacation unit, not his permanent home — when the internal regulations already banned pets, and he did not claim any disability requiring a service animal. The Tribunal, split 3-3 and decided by the president’s tie-breaking vote, upheld the ban in his case. The ruling expressly distinguished the 2023 facts from those of 2018: the owner knew the rule before buying, the property wasn’t his permanent residence, and there was no disability claim involved.

The practical rule that comes out of both rulings

• If you already had the pet before the association adopted or amended the ban, the 2018 precedent works in your favor: the rule shouldn’t apply to you retroactively.
• If you bought or rented your unit when the ban already existed, the 2023 case shows the Tribunal can uphold that it applies to you — especially if it isn’t your permanent home and there’s no disability claim involved.

Neither ruling says owners’ associations can never ban pets, nor that they can always enforce a ban against anyone. The deciding factor is timing: who got there first, the pet or the rule.

The rental contract: freedom of contract does allow a no-pets clause

This is a different area, governed by the Civil Code rather than constitutional case law. The starting point is freedom of contract, recognized in article 1354:

“Las partes pueden determinar libremente el contenido del contrato, siempre que no sea contrario a norma legal de carácter imperativo.” (“The parties may freely determine the content of the contract, as long as it is not contrary to a mandatory legal rule.”)

A “no pets” clause is simply an agreement about the content of the contract — no different from agreeing on the rent amount or the payment date. If you accepted it when you signed, it’s binding on you, because article 1361 is just as direct:

“Los contratos son obligatorios en cuanto se haya expresado en ellos. Se presume que la declaración expresada en el contrato responde a la voluntad común de las partes y quien niegue esa coincidencia debe probarla.” (“Contracts are binding to the extent expressed in them. It is presumed that the declaration expressed in the contract reflects the parties’ common intent, and whoever denies that must prove it.”)

If there’s no express clause: the contract’s “purpose” is what counts

What if the contract says nothing about pets? That’s where article 1681, numeral 1, comes in — it lists the tenant’s obligations:

“A recibir el bien, cuidarlo diligentemente y usarlo para el destino que se le concedió en el contrato o al que pueda presumirse de las circunstancias.” (“To receive the property, care for it diligently, and use it for the purpose granted to it in the contract or the one that can be presumed from the circumstances.”)

In an ordinary residential lease, with no express restriction, the “purpose” presumed from the circumstances is usually ordinary domestic use of a home — and keeping a pet normally falls within that. The problem arises when the contract does expressly ban pets, or when the pet leads to a use of the property that goes beyond that purpose — causing damage, for instance, or a disturbance that breaches good customs.

What the landlord can do if you breach a no-pets clause

The Civil Code doesn’t say “the landlord can throw you out immediately”; it says the landlord can seek termination of the contract (resolución), which is a distinct legal step that comes before eviction. Article 1697 lists the grounds for terminating a lease, and two of its numerals matter here:

“El contrato de arrendamiento puede resolverse: (…) 3.- Si el arrendatario da al bien destino diferente de aquél para el que se le concedió expresa o tácitamente, o permite algún acto contrario al orden público o a las buenas costumbres. (…) 5.- Si el arrendador o el arrendatario no cumplen cualesquiera de sus obligaciones.” (“The lease may be terminated: (…) 3. If the tenant gives the property a different purpose than the one expressly or tacitly granted, or allows any act contrary to public order or good customs. (…) 5. If the landlord or the tenant fails to fulfill any of their obligations.”)

Numeral 3 is the most direct fit for a no-pets clause: if the contract defined the property’s purpose without pets and the tenant keeps one anyway, that’s giving the property a different purpose than agreed. Numeral 5 is broader still — it covers breaching any agreed obligation, whether or not it’s specifically about the property’s “purpose.”

Terminating the contract isn’t the same as eviction: termination ends the contractual relationship; physically removing the tenant from the property, if they don’t leave voluntarily, requires a separate eviction process, before a judge or, if the contract qualifies, through the notarial route.

What this article doesn’t settle: noise, damage, and coexistence

None of the above replaces the building’s coexistence rules or the rules on damages. If the real conflict isn’t “having a pet” but the noise, mess, or damage it causes, that’s a different — and probably easier to prove and resolve — issue than arguing over whether a blanket pet ban is valid.

Foreigners

These rules — both the Constitutional Tribunal’s case law on internal building regulations and the Civil Code articles on rental contracts — apply the same way regardless of the nationality of the owner, tenant, or landlord. If you bought a unit in a condominium in Peru or signed a rental contract here, the same rules apply to you as to any Peruvian.