Rethinking Thailand's condominium ownership policy

International demand has long driven Thailand's condominium sector. Following the pandemic recovery, the market experienced a notable rebound in foreign buyer activity as travel restrictions lifted and cross-border mobility resumed. As a result, foreign condominium transfers increased from their lowest point of around 7% in 2020 to 15% of total nationwide salestoday. Coastal destinations have a strong international appeal, with foreigners accounting above 30% of total condominium transactions. While the Northern region, centered on cities like Chiang Mai, has seen foreign ownership increase to around 20% in 2025.

Figure 1: Foreigners’ transferred units by region, 2018-2024

Source: Department of Lands and Real Estate Information Center (REIC)
Remark: Coastal Destination includes Chon Buri, Rayong, Prachuap Khiri Khan, Phuket, and Surat Thani

Figure 2: Foreigners’ sales shares by region, 2018-2024

Source: Department of Lands and Real Estate Information Center (REIC)

The period between 2018-2015 saw a renewed interest from overseas buyers along with highly diversified source markets. This expansion moved beyond traditional Chinese and Russian buyers to Burmese, Taiwanese, European and  Middle Eastern investors, seeking safe capital havens in Thailand’s key urban and coastal locations. However, increasing foreign participation raises concerns about whether a more open market could fuel speculative buying and drive prices beyond local affordability.

Under the current Condominium Act, foreigners are permitted to own up to 49% of a project’s total saleable area. While this quota rarely reaches capacity in mass market developments, speculative purchases by overseas investors continue to increase entry-level prices in select markets. In contrast, major tourist destinations frequently approach the legal ownership limit, creating additional market pressure. Thailand must strike a careful balance that preserves market accessibility for domestic purchasers, without deterring foreign investment that contributes to economic growth.

Other SEA countries offer valuable insights for managing this delicate balance:

Singapore allows foreigners to purchase condominiums but curbs speculation through a steep Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty of up to 60%, filtering out short-term investors. Malaysia employs a minimum purchase price policy of around USD 240,000 in Kuala Lumpur and Penang, to ensure foreign buyers target high-end products. Vietnam and Indonesia manage foreign interest through controlled long-term leaseholds. In Vietnam, foreigners are allowed to hold up to 30% of units in a condominium through 50-year leases, whereas Indonesia enforces a minimum price of USD 120,000-180,000 for apartments in Jakarta and Bali, with leases extendable to 80 years.

For Thailand, the issue is not the 49% quota but rather flexibility and segmentation. Instead of broad deregulation, policymakers could adopt targeted measures. These might include foreign quota adjustments for selected areas, especially where tourism drives key economic activity. A minimum purchase price threshold of USD 215,000 or above, paired with wider access to loans, would make the luxury segment more appealing to foreigners while preserving affordable options for locals. Additionally, extending conventional leasehold terms from the current 30 years to 50 years could enhance long-term investor confidence by offering such greater security and transferability. This would also appeal to international end users and retirees.

Implementation could begin with pilot programs in priority zones. This would allow careful monitoring of the impact on local communities, prices, and developer interests before a nationwide rollout.

Thailand’s real estate strategy should focus on attracting long-term, responsible, and value-adding investment. By maintaining this balance, Thailand can strengthen its position as a leading Asian destination for real estate, while ensuring that home ownership remains fundamentally Thai.