The “90-year lease” in Thailand: what 30+30+30 really gives you

If you have looked at villas in Phuket, Samui or Hua Hin, you have seen the pitch: “90-year lease — 30 years plus two guaranteed 30-year renewals. Almost like freehold.” It is one of the most persistent marketing formulas in Thai real estate.

Here is the uncomfortable truth: there has never been a 90-year lease under Thai law. Only the first 30 years is ever recorded on the title deed. The other 60 years live in side agreements that, in the worst cases, the courts will not enforce at all — as a widely reported Supreme Court decision reminded the whole market in early 2025.

This article explains what 30+30+30 actually gives you, where the much-discussed 99-year reform really stands as of June 2026, and how to make a 30-year lease as strong as the law allows.

What Thai law actually allows: 30 years, full stop

Section 540 of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code (the CCC — Thailand’s main private-law code) caps any lease of land or buildings at 30 years. Write 90 years into the contract and the law simply cuts it down to 30. A lease can be renewed when it expires — but each renewal is itself capped at 30 years and only exists once it is actually agreed and registered at that future date.

Section 538 adds the second pillar: any lease longer than 3 years must be in writing and registered at the Land Office. An unregistered “30-year lease” is enforceable for only 3 years. Registration costs a 1% fee plus 0.1% stamp duty on the total rent for the whole term — roughly 1.1% all-in — and it is the cheapest insurance in Thai property law. These rules apply identically to Thai and foreign tenants; they simply matter more to foreigners, who generally cannot own land and for whom a lease is the lawful baseline.

Why the two “renewals” are promises, not property rights

Thai law draws a sharp line between a real right (a right attached to the land itself, visible on the title deed and binding on whoever owns the land) and a personal right (a promise between two specific people). Your registered 30-year lease term is a real right for practical purposes. The renewal options in your side agreement are personal promises by whoever signed them — nothing more.

That distinction is not academic. Since a 2008 Land Department instruction (No. มท 0515.1/ว 8867), land officials have been directed to refuse registration of leases containing prepaid multi-renewal clauses — which is precisely why developers put the renewals in private side agreements instead.

And a promise is only as good as the person who made it, for as long as they own the land. Which brings us to the case everyone is still talking about.

The Supreme Court case that ended the debate: Decision No. 4655/2566

The facts are painfully typical. In 1990, a lessee took a 30-year registered lease over land in Phuket. A separate agreement promised two further 30-year terms — 90 years in total — and the lessee prepaid the rent for those future renewals in a lump sum. In 2020, when the registered 30 years ran out, the landowner demanded the property back.

The Supreme Court sided with the landowner. It held that pre-agreed automatic renewals designed to deliver 90 years are void as a circumvention of the mandatory 30-year cap in Section 540 — regardless of mutual agreement, payment or registration. The lessee had to leave at year 30; the prepayment did not save the deal.

Two careful points. The case number 4655/2566 indicates a 2023 (B.E. 2566) decision; it became famous when widely reported in early 2025. And — contrary to much online commentary — it did not change the law. A line of Supreme Court decisions stretching from the 1960s to the 1990s already treated renewal promises as personal undertakings binding neither heirs nor buyers of the land. The 2025 headlines confirmed decades-old law that parts of the market had chosen to ignore.

One genuinely reassuring detail: the initial registered 30-year term stays valid even where the renewal clauses are void. Only the extension promises fall away. If you are mid-term on a 30+30+30 structure, you are not about to be evicted — but your “90 years” is, legally, whatever is left of your first 30.

What happens when the landowner sells — or dies

This is where the real-right/personal-right line bites hardest. Under CCC Section 569, a registered lease survives a sale of the land: the buyer automatically steps into the lessor’s shoes and must honour your lease for the remainder of the registered term. The lessor’s death works the same way: the lease binds the estate and heirs.

But the renewal options, purchase options and other side promises do not transfer with the land. If your 60 extra years rest on a side letter signed by a developer who has since sold the project — or a landowner whose children inherit — those years rest on goodwill, not law.

And what happens when you die

Here is the asymmetry few buyers are told about: while the lessor’s death does not end the lease, the lessee’s death, by default, does. Thai courts characterise a lease as a personal right of the tenant, so without deliberate drafting it terminates when the tenant dies.

Good drafting can change the outcome. Where a lease expressly permits the lessee to transfer or sublease the lease right (waiving the default rule in Section 544), Thai courts have treated it as losing its strictly personal character, making it inheritable for the remaining term. A succession clause and co-lessee spouse or children strengthen this further — but even then the protection is contractual, not a registered real right.

The 99-year lease reform: where it stands in June 2026

You may have read that Thailand was about to introduce a 99-year tradeable leasehold and raise the foreign condo quota to 75%. Both ideas were real proposals — floated under the Srettha government in 2024 and pushed by Pheu Thai through 2025. Neither is law.

On 16 September 2025, the incoming Bhumjaithai-led government announced it would not pursue the 99-year leasehold bill, citing a limited mandate, and said it would instead consider short-term measures such as a 50% land-and-building-tax cut for 2026. As of June 2026, the lease cap remains 30 years and the foreign condo quota remains 49%. Anyone selling you property on the strength of a “coming 99-year law” is selling you a shelved bill.

What is actually in force

Two genuine, often-overlooked statutes do exist alongside the ordinary CCC lease:

• The Sap-Ing-Sith Act B.E. 2562 (2019) creates a registrable real right over Chanote-titled land, buildings or condo units. It is still capped at 30 years — the 99-year version was the shelved amendment — but unlike an ordinary lease it is freely transferable without the owner’s consent, can be mortgaged, and is inheritable: it does not die with you.
• The Hire of Immovable Property for Commerce and Industry Act B.E. 2542 (1999) allows registered leases of 30 to 50 years, renewable for up to 50 more — but only for qualifying commercial or industrial projects, with conditions such as a minimum THB 20 million investment or BOI promotion. It is not available for an ordinary residential villa.

How to make a 30-year lease as strong as legally possible

A 30-year lease is not a bad instrument — done properly, it survives sales, deaths and disputes. The difference between robust and fragile is almost entirely in the structuring. Our checklist when we handle a leasehold purchase:

• Register the full 30-year term on the title deed. Budget ~1.1% of total rent (1% fee + 0.1% stamp duty). Never rely on an unregistered long lease — it is a 3-year lease in disguise.
• Do not prepay renewal periods. Prepaid future terms are the exact pattern the Supreme Court struck down. Money paid for years 31–90 buys you litigation risk, not time.
• Draft renewal as a genuine option, not an automatic rollover. The Court was especially hostile to identical, frozen, prepaid renewal terms. An option at rent adjusted to future market conditions is more defensible — and any renewal must be renegotiated and re-registered (with fresh fees) at expiry.
• Plan for your own death. Include a succession clause, permit transfer and sublease of the lease right (the Section 544 waiver), and consider naming your spouse or children as co-lessees.
• Own the building, even if you lease the land. A registered superficies (CCC Section 1410) is a real right to own structures on someone else’s land, for up to 30 years or for life, transferable and inheritable under Section 1411 — the standard tool for putting the villa itself in the foreigner’s name.
• Consider Sap-Ing-Sith where transferability matters. On Chanote-titled land, this registrable, mortgageable, inheritable right can outperform an ordinary lease — but beware marketing that attaches the old renewal myth to it.
• Get the contract reviewed before signing, not after. Most of the damage in 30+30+30 deals was done at the drafting stage, in side agreements buyers never showed to a lawyer.

The honest comparison: lease vs usufruct vs superficies vs condo freehold

There is no secret structure that turns a foreigner into a Thai landowner. Each lawful tool trades something off:

• Registered 30-year lease: the workhorse. Survives a sale of the land for the registered term; renewable only by a fresh, re-registered agreement; terminates on your death unless carefully drafted.
• Usufruct (CCC Section 1417): a registered right to possess, use and enjoy the property for up to 30 years or for your lifetime. You may even rent the property out. But it always ends on your death: strong for a lifetime user, useless for your heirs.
• Superficies (CCC Section 1410): ownership of the building separated from the land — transferable and inheritable. Best used in combination with a lease over the land, not instead of one.
• Sap-Ing-Sith (2019 Act): 30 years, but transferable, mortgageable and inheritable by statute. The closest thing in force to the “tradeable leasehold” the shelved 99-year bill promised.
• Freehold condominium: for apartments, ownership within the 49% foreign quota remains the only true freehold available to foreigners — see our guide to the 49% condo quota rule.

And one structure to avoid outright: holding land through a Thai company with nominee shareholders. Nominee landholding violates the Land Code, and enforcement has tightened — see our article on nominee property structures.

---

This article is general guidance — not legal or tax advice. If you'd like a scoped opinion on how it applies to your specific situation, contact our team.