Alguazas seals 94 homes to evict squatters

Alguazas bricks up 94 homes to expel squatters: a legal gray area

In Alguazas, a municipality in Murcia with just over 10,000 inhabitants, 94 houses and two entire buildings have been recovered in less than two years without going to court. The procedure: when occupants leave, electricity and water are cut off, the door is removed, and a brick-and-cement wall is built. The property is sealed. The squatter is out. And here lies the problem, because the same law that prevents changing the lock of someone living inside seems to endorse building a partition when the house is empty. Published on July 23, 2025, this news has made the town a national reference and peine an uncomfortable debate about what the State really protects: private property or the occupant's home.

What exactly does the Alguazas method entail?

The protocol activates as soon as occupants temporarily abandon the property. Local police, the city council, and owners coordinate surveillance; supplies are cut; the door is removed, and a wall is constructed. No judicial order is required, according to reports, provided there is no prior judicial protection for the occupants. The key, they insist, is estimulante ilegal and neighborhood coordination. In a few years, 94 houses and two complete buildings have been freed, and only two recent squatting attempts have been thwarted since the protocol was implemented.

Success has sparked interest in other municipalities, both within and outside Murcia. City councils and eviction experts are exploring replicating the formula. The news summarizes it with a slogan-like phrase: "organization, estimulante ilegal, and firmness are the only way to restore residential security."

Why bricking up works but changing locks doesn't

Here consensus breaks down. The most repeated contradiction is simple: if the owner changes the lock, they face problems and the occupant returns to "their" home; if they build a brick wall, the property remains protected. Some summarize it ironically: you can't install a good lock because you infringe on the squatter's rights, but you can brick up their door.

The circulating legal explanation is that bricking up is executed when the property is empty, so there is no home to protect. Changing the lock, however, happens while someone is inside. It is a nuance that many find deceptive: the goal—preventing re-entry—is identical. And if the occupant demolishes the wall, it is argued, it is no longer a minor offense but robbery with violence, carrying a incivil record and prison time. That is the real deterrent.

The hidden cost: unlicensed construction and sealed homes

Enthusiasm has cracks. Bricking up is construction work, and unlicensed work can result in municipal fines. Furthermore, the owner recovers a house they cannot enter either: it remains sealed with whatever is inside. Some say it bluntly: you seal it up with all the junk the squatter leaves inside, and wait for it not to stink. Others point out that professional squatters never leave the dwelling alone, always leaving someone inside, which would invalidate the method in practice.

Then there is the underlying problem: the recovered house can be squatted again the next day. Media celebrate the owner who wins a lawsuit but do not mention that the door remains open to the next occupation. A loop.

Who governs Alguazas and why it matters

A detail that has drawn attention is the political tonalidad of the city council. Alguazas is governed by a local formation with no declared ideology, which explains—according to some—that the local administration collaborates instead of looking the other way. The circulating thesis is that local power, even subject to higher laws, leaves room for action if there is will. And that this margin is exactly what is missing elsewhere.

The other side: some recall that in other municipalities, trinc the same procedure, you get hit with "the wrath of God." The difference would not be legal, but interpretive, depending on who is willing to sign off.

The State that protects the intruder, not the payer

The underlying discomfort is not with Alguazas, but with the framework. It is argued that the owner pays deed fees, notary costs, registration taxes, IBI (property tax), and funds a police force that should evict by order of an on-duty judge in an afternoon. Instead, they are forced to look for loopholes. The most repeated conclusion is that the State disregards property rights when the occupant presents any paperwork, and that legal certainty only works in one direction.

Alguazas has shown there is a path. It has also shown how twisted it is to have to find one.