Elias, Matias Advogados | View firm profile
The recent revision of the Master Plan (Plano Diretor Estratégico – PDE) of the City of São Paulo, pursuant to Article 47, restructured two key instruments of the public housing policy: HIS – Social Interest Housing, and HMP – Popular Market Housing. These programs are essentially characterized by the granting of urban planning and tax incentives to developers for the construction of housing units intended for low-income populations. Such benefits are conferred irrespective of the formalization of agreements with public authorities, thereby encouraging private sector participation by enabling more advantageous land use—such as increased construction potential—and reducing certain financial burdens, including concession fees.
The commercialization of these units is subject to strict regulatory compliance, particularly regarding the income thresholds applicable to purchasers or tenants, as established by the relevant legal framework. Non-compliance may result in sanctions under Law No. 17.945/2023 and Decree No. 63.130/2024.
In this context, the State Public Prosecutor’s Office, alleging non-compliance by developers with the prescribed income limits, filed a Public Civil Action against the Municipal Government, registered under case no. 1005296-65.2025.8.26.0053. The Prosecutor’s Office contended that the developments in question were failing to reach the target demographic envisioned by the policy. Accordingly, it sought injunctive relief compelling the municipality to adopt effective enforcement and sanctioning mechanisms, to conclude all pending administrative investigations regarding irregularities within 180 days, and—more severely—to immediately suspend the public policy that permits the private development of HIS and HMP units. This included a request to suspend the issuance of occupancy permits (habite-se) for developments under investigation.
While it is undisputed that the conferral of public benefits for housing development requires rigorous oversight of the projects governed by such a regime, the Court issued a well-reasoned decision that prudently considered the broader societal implications—particularly the potential harm to the very beneficiaries the policy seeks to protect. The ruling also recognized the substantial disruption that a suspension of the policy would cause to the real estate market, including the economic impact on ongoing developments and construction firms.
The judgment made clear that, despite the legitimate concerns raised by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the relief sought was unduly burdensome. The municipality’s obligation to monitor and enforce compliance remains intact, while the fundamental right to housing continues to be preserved.
By Dr. Lídia Roberta Fonseca, Specialist in Real Estate Law at Elias, Matias Advogados.