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 is no such thing as a 90-year residential 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 showed the whole market in early 2025.

This article explains what 30+30+30 actually gives you 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 hire of immovable property — land, buildings or condominium units — 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 counted from the date of renewal, 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, or for the life of the lessor or lessee, must be in writing and registered at the Land Office. An unregistered “30-year lease” is enforceable for only 3 years; with no written evidence at all, it cannot be enforced in court. Those 3 years are a fixed term that neither side can end early unless the other side is in breach or the contract gives a right to terminate (Decision 53/2546). Once they run out, a tenant who stays on without objection from the owner holds a lease with no fixed term, which either side can end on notice of at least one rental period, though no more than two months’ notice is ever required (Sections 566 and 570; Decision 2196/2545). If the contract obliges the parties to register, demand registration within those first 3 years; after that, the court will not order it (Decision 5542/2542). 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). A lease is a personal right, not a real right, even after it is registered. What registration buys you is Section 569: the lease itself survives a sale of the land for the registered term, so in practice it behaves like a right in the land. The renewal options in your side agreement get none of that protection. They stay personal promises by whoever signed them.

That distinction is not academic. A promise to grant a future lease is not a registrable right at all: the Land Office records the lease term, not an option to take a further lease later. That is precisely why developers put the renewals in private side agreements instead. That does not make the promise worthless. Between the two people who signed it, a clear promise to renew is binding, and it needs only written evidence signed by the lessor, not registration (Decision 3078–3079/2552), unless it is really a disguised 90-year lease, as the next section shows. The other problem is that it binds no one else.

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 May 1990, a lessee took a 30-year registered lease over land and a house in Phuket. On the same day, the landowner also promised two further 30-year terms — 90 years in total — and the lessee prepaid the rent for those future renewals in a lump sum of THB 1.2 million, on top of THB 1.5 million for the registered term. In May 2020, when the registered 30 years ran out, the landowner demanded the property back.

The Supreme Court sided with the landowner. It held that the two renewal promises were void. The promises were made on the same day as the lease, the rent for both further terms was paid up front, and nothing new was set for periods 30 and 60 years away: the renewals simply carried over the original rent and conditions, even though land values and the economy were bound to change. Together, that showed an intention to obtain a 90-year lease and so to evade the mandatory 30-year cap in Section 540. Their object was contrary to law, and the Court refused to save them as a personal undertaking between the two parties, because that would defeat the purpose of Section 540. The lessee had to leave at year 30 and pay damages for holding over, and the prepayment did not save the deal.

Two limits on how far the case reaches. The ruling turned on a package: renewals agreed on day one, paid up front and frozen at the original terms. It does not squarely decide the fate of a genuine option on fresh, definite terms that is not prepaid. Registration would probably not have saved the package, though, because the Court held the promises void for an unlawful object. And money paid for a void renewal is not automatically lost: the lessee may have a restitution claim against the lessor. That is a separate action, subject to prescription, and worth far less than the years the buyer thought they had bought.

Two careful points. The case number 4655/2566 indicates a 2023 (B.E. 2566) decision; it became famous when widely reported in March 2025. And it went a step further than the earlier case law. A line of Supreme Court decisions stretching from the 1990s to 2020 already treated a promise to renew as a personal undertaking, separate from the lease, that does not bind a buyer of the land (for example Decisions 6491/2539, 6763/2541 and 3799/2563). Those decisions still let a promise to renew bind the person who gave it. Decision 4655/2566 held that a prepaid 30+30+30 package does not bind even the landowner who signed it.

One 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 line between the registered lease and the side promises 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 rule covers any transfer, including a gift or an auction sale, and the lease ends only if the parties expressly agree to cancel it; the court will not infer that, even where the buyer and the tenant are husband and wife (Decision 2208/2559). One exception matters at the due-diligence stage: a lease granted after the enforcement officer has seized the land does not bind the buyer at the auction (Decision 7271/2560), so check the title for seizures before you sign. The lessor’s death works the same way (Decision 498/2536), although by a different route: Section 569 governs transfer of ownership, while death is governed by the ordinary rules of succession (Sections 1599–1600). The lease is an obligation of the estate, and the heirs take the land subject to it.

But the renewal options, purchase options, rights of first refusal and other side promises do not transfer with the land: the courts treat them as agreements separate from the lease, which Section 569 does not carry over (Decisions 6491/2539, 6899/2539 and 3799/2563). 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. No section of the CCC says so; the rule comes from settled Supreme Court case law, which characterises a lease as a personal right of the tenant, so without deliberate drafting it terminates when the tenant dies (Decisions 925/2501, 5038/2557 and 6857/2562). Heirs who stay on are treated as occupiers claiming through the tenant and can be evicted; paying rent in the deceased’s name does not create a new lease with them (Decision 119/2509).

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), the Supreme Court sitting in plenary session has held that the lease loses its strictly personal character and passes to the lessee’s heirs for the rest of the registered term (Decision 11058/2559, on a registered 30-year lease that allowed subletting, with THB 1 million paid in advance). A succession clause and naming a spouse or children as co-lessees strengthen this further — but even then the protection is contractual, not a registered real right. Outcomes still turn on the wording of the particular lease, and the case law is not uniform: an earlier decision held that a transfer clause makes no difference (Decision 5038/2557).

Two other statutes worth knowing

Two often-overlooked statutes sit 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 capped at 30 years, with no statutory renewal at all: Section 540 at least lets a lease be renewed; the Act does not. 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. Two catches: it must cover the whole title or the whole unit, and buildings the holder puts up revert to the landowner at expiry unless the parties agree otherwise and record that at registration (Section 11). Registrations also remain rare, so some Land Offices process them slowly.
• The Hire of Immovable Property for Commerce and Industry Act B.E. 2542 (1999) allows registered leases of more than 30 and up to 50 years, renewable on expiry for up to 50 more counted from the date of the renewal agreement. It is confined to qualifying commercial or industrial use; the conditions sit in a ministerial regulation, with a minimum investment of THB 20 million as the usual threshold, and a lease of more than 100 rai needs the Director-General’s approval. Its real advantage is statutory: unless the contract says otherwise, the lessee may sublease or assign the lease, and the lease passes to the lessee’s heirs (Sections 7–8). 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 is more defensible when it does not look like prepaid years 31–90, but it must still be definite. Fix the renewal term and a rent formula (a stated increase or an index) in advance: a clause that leaves rent or term to be agreed later, or to the lessor’s discretion, is not a binding promise at all (Decision 3738/2563, where renewal rent was to be agreed or set at market rate, capped at 10% above the old rent). Any renewal must still be signed and registered as a new lease (with fresh fees) at expiry. Be clear with yourself about what that option is worth: it binds the person who signed it, not a later owner of the land. It improves your position; it does not create a 60-year right.
• 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; where there are several lessees, the lease ends only for the one who dies. If you lease through a company, keep the company in good standing: a lease ends when the company lessee is struck off the register (Decision 3323/2561). The sublease permission is also what lets you rent the villa out. Without it, subletting is a ground for the owner to terminate (Section 544). Even with permission, a sublease ends when your own lease ends (Decision 4215/2531).
• 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 (Section 1412), transferable and inheritable under Section 1411 — the standard tool for putting the villa itself in the foreigner’s name. Register it at the same time as the lease, not later: a later registration depends on the owner still being willing.
• 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 (Section 1418). 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 with no statutory renewal, but transferable, mortgageable and inheritable by statute.
• Freehold condominium: for apartments, ownership within the 49% foreign quota (49% of the total floor area of all units in the building, not 49% of the units) remains the only true freehold available to foreigners, provided the buyer can evidence the remittance of foreign currency into Thailand for the purchase — see our guide to the 49% condo quota rule.

And one structure to avoid outright: holding land through a Thai company with nominee shareholders. Using Thai nominees to hold land for a foreigner is an offence under the Land Code and may also breach the Foreign Business Act, 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.