Visioni di mercato
Lake Como vs Lugano: One Border, Two Regimes
Which gate a foreign principal passes depends on which side of the border the parcel sits. In Switzerland, a buyer domiciled abroad needs an authorisation under the Lex Koller or the deed is void, and a separate rule caps second homes at 20 percent per commune. In Italy, EU citizens buy freely and non-EU citizens pass a reciprocity test. This note maps the gates and does not rank the lakes.
IllustrazionePunti chiave
- - Switzerland: an acquisition by a person domiciled abroad needs an administrative authorisation; without a final permit the legal act has no effect, and it becomes null if completed without applying or if the permit is refused (Lex Koller, in force 1 January 1985; Swiss legal commentary and UBS, secondary).
- - Residence is the dividing line in Switzerland: EU and EFTA nationals legally and actually resident are outside the act, and resident third-country nationals may buy for own residence (cantonal guidance, official guidance).
- - The Swiss channel for non-residents is holiday dwellings, capped at 1,500 units per year nationally; about 66% was used in 2021, with 995 authorisations and 639 transfers (Die Volkswirtschaft, December 2023; measured, 2021 data).
- - The Swiss second-home cap of 20% per commune limits new second homes and not buyers, whatever the passport; 331 communes were above it on 31 March 2026, down from 337 a year earlier (ARE, measured).
- - Italy: EU citizens buy on the same footing as Italians, and non-EU citizens who are not legally resident need a treaty or reciprocity under Article 16 of the preliminary provisions to the Civil Code (Italian Civil Code, Royal Decree 262 of 16 March 1942).
- - Italy exempts from the reciprocity check non-EU residents holding a valid permit for employment, self-employment, family, humanitarian or study reasons, and nationals of countries with a bilateral investment treaty; for others, the status of each nationality must be checked against the ministry’s sources and not presumed (Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, official guidance).
- - A Tribunal of Vicenza judgment (no. 884, 18 May 2022) voided a Swiss citizen’s Italian purchase for breach of reciprocity, while notarial guidance diverges on whether Swiss nationals need a check (Il Sole 24 Ore report, one first-instance ruling).
- - As of 5 October 2026, the Swiss Lex Koller tightening is a consultation draft opened on 15 April 2026 and closed on 15 July 2026, not law, and its status must be re-verified before any decision (Federal Office of Justice).
In questa pagina (10)
Lake Como or Lake Lugano: which regime governs a foreign buyer?
On the Swiss shore, a buyer domiciled abroad needs an authorisation before the sale, while on the Italian shore an EU citizen buys on the same footing as an Italian and a non-EU citizen passes a reciprocity test. Those are two different gates separated by a short drive between Como and Lugano. This note is about who is allowed to buy, and therefore who sits in the buyer pool. It is not a ranking of the two lakes.
The comparison matters because access, and not only price, shapes who bids. A market that a given passport cannot enter, or can enter only through a quota, has a structurally different demand curve from one that is open. The note describes the legal gates as published by federal, cantonal and judicial sources, and it flags where those sources disagree or where the law is moving. No price from any property portal is compared, and nothing here is tax advice.
Three instruments do the work. The Swiss Federal Act on the Acquisition of Real Estate by Persons Abroad, known as the Lex Koller, is a permit regime for the buyer. The Swiss Federal Act on Second Homes, informally the Lex Weber, is a cap on new second homes per commune. Article 16 of the Italian preliminary provisions to the Civil Code is a reciprocity condition for foreigners. The first two exist only in Switzerland. The third, together with EU membership, defines access in Italy.
The lake itself straddles the border, so the parcel decides the regime and the lake’s name does not. Lake Lugano is shared between Switzerland and Italy, and a parcel on its Italian shore sits under the Italian rules described below, not the Swiss ones. The first question for any principal is the jurisdiction of the specific plot, and the second is the buyer’s domicile and passport.
Can a German, a Briton or an American buy on the Ticino shore of Lake Lugano?
It depends on domicile first and on passport second. A German domiciled in Germany is a person abroad under the act and needs an authorisation, and the route that remains open to that buyer is, in the sources reviewed, a holiday dwelling inside a cantonal quota. A German who is legally and actually resident in Switzerland, as an EU national, is outside the act. A Briton or an American is a third-country national, and the same domicile logic applies, with one difference. A resident third-country national may buy for own residential use, not as an investment holding.
Nationality alone does not open the door, and this is the point most easily lost. Under this regime a Briton resident in Ticino is treated differently from a Briton in London, and a German in Ticino differently from a German in Munich. The buyer pool on the Swiss shore is therefore dominated by residents and by quota-holders. That is a structural filter on who may transact, not a price filter on who is willing to.
The rationing creates a scarcity of its own, though the national ceiling was not the binding limit in 2021. Because the holiday-dwelling channel is capped nationally and each canton holds an allocation, the number of non-resident purchases is bounded by law regardless of demand. With roughly a third of the ceiling unused nationally in 2021, the binding constraints were presumably case-by-case conditions and eligible stock. That reading is an inference, not a measured finding, and it is directional only.
Property-type limits sit on top of the quota. Il Sole 24 Ore, reporting on a 2022 Italian judgment, summarises the Swiss rule as allowing an Italian citizen to buy only commercial premises or a holiday dwelling of up to 200 square metres, on land of up to 1,000 square metres. That is a newspaper’s summary of a court’s reading of Swiss law, so the principal’s counsel should confirm the current limits against the text of the act and against cantonal practice before relying on them.
Without the permit, the deed is not penalised. It does not exist.
Victaura Research
What does the Swiss 20 percent second-home cap restrict, and whom?
The Swiss Second Homes Act caps the share of second homes in a commune at 20 percent, and it caps supply, not buyers. Voters approved the second-home initiative in 2012. The Federal Act on Second Homes, which implements Article 75b of the Federal Constitution, entered into force on 1 January 2016 (ARE). In a commune above 20 percent, no new second homes may generally be approved. The rule applies whatever the buyer’s passport, so a Swiss national seeking a new second home in a capped commune meets the same wall as a German or an American.
That distinction corrects a common shorthand. The cap is often described as a limit on foreign buyers. The sources do not say that. The second-home act limits new second-home approvals per commune, and the Lex Koller limits who may buy. The two rules stack. A non-resident foreigner needs a permit, and where the commune is above 20 percent the stock available for new second-home use is frozen at the margin.
The number of capped communes is measured and published every year. The Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE) reported 331 communes above 20 percent on 31 March 2026, down from 337 in March 2025, with nine communes newly over the line and three back below it. The release names Ticino communes among the newly flagged, including Tenero-Contra and Muzzano. From 2027 the calculation moves to the federal building and housing register. I have not checked the status of every commune on Lake Lugano, so the principal should read the commune’s own line in the ARE inventory published on opendata.swiss.
The cap has exceptions, and they shape what supply looks like. ARE states that tourist-managed second homes may still be created and that primary residences can be built in capped communes. The result is a frozen stock of conventional second homes and a channel for managed hospitality product. The same logic of a supply limit set by rule and not by the market is examined in environmental constraints as an asset in resort property, where it is treated as a feature of the asset class and not as a sales argument.
Can a non-EU citizen buy property on Lake Como?
Yes, on a reciprocity condition, unless the buyer holds a qualifying Italian residence permit or a treaty applies. Italy treats EU citizens on the same footing as Italian citizens. A non-EU citizen who is not legally resident may buy where a treaty allows it or where reciprocity exists, meaning that an Italian could buy in the buyer’s home country. The rule has no permit step, no cantonal quota and no commune-level cap on second homes in the sources reviewed.
Reciprocity is the condition, in Article 16 of the preliminary provisions to the Italian Civil Code (Royal Decree 262 of 16 March 1942), that a foreigner enjoys the civil rights of a citizen on condition of reciprocity and subject to special laws.** Legal commentary on the provision notes that the test does not require a legislative match with the foreign country. It asks whether the foreign country recognises a similar right and whether it discriminates against Italians. The question is therefore comparative and factual, not formal.
A qualifying residence permit removes the test. The Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that non-EU nationals holding a valid permit for employment, self-employment, family, humanitarian or study reasons are exempt from the reciprocity check, as are EU and EEA nationals. For the status of a given country, the ministry points to its list of countries and territories and to its archive of international treaties, and it describes its page as general guidance without legal authority for individual cases. The grade is official guidance, and the reference for any one buyer remains the ministry’s country material read with a notary.
For the common nationalities, reciprocity status should be checked and not assumed. The ministry’s page gives no country list, and it states that nationals of countries with a bilateral investment treaty with Italy are exempt from the check. Canada shows why the check matters: since 1 January 2023 non-Canadians have been barred from buying residential buildings of up to three units in Canadian metropolitan areas and agglomerations, a ban extended to 1 January 2027 (CMHC). Whether that defeats reciprocity for Canadian buyers is a Victaura Research assumption that counsel must confirm. Counsel should still pull the current sheet at signing, because the status of a country can change. For the wider framework of Italian access for international capital, see why Italy attracts international investors.
How does the reciprocity test work in practice on the Italian side of the border?
The test is applied at the deed and tested in court, and a failure is fatal to the transaction. Il Sole 24 Ore reported a judgment of the Tribunal of Vicenza (no. 884 of 18 May 2022) that declared void an acquisition in Italy by a Swiss citizen for breach of reciprocity. According to the report, the court held that where reciprocity is lacking, the Italian legal system does not recognise the foreigner’s capacity for that act, and the contract is null.
The reasoning ran through Swiss law. As reported, the court compared what Swiss law lets an Italian buy in Switzerland, which is limited by the Lex Koller, with what the Swiss buyer had bought in Italy, and found the Italian property outside the equivalent limits. Reciprocity here is symmetric. The restriction a country places on Italians can be mirrored back onto that country’s citizens in Italy. The primary fact for this note is that the Swiss regime described above has been used, in an Italian court, as the yardstick against a Swiss buyer.
One first-instance judgment is not a rule, and the sources diverge. I have read the newspaper report and not the judgment. One notarial page groups EU and EFTA citizens among buyers without limits, while another notarial page states that Swiss nationals, despite EFTA membership, still require a reciprocity check. The first statement does not sit comfortably with the Vicenza outcome, and the second is consistent with it. I do not resolve the contradiction here. The principal’s counsel should obtain current opinion on the specific nationality and the specific property.
For an allocator, the lesson is procedural. The reciprocity check is evidenced at the deed, usually by the notary. A buyer who is neither an EU citizen nor resident should expect counsel to document the basis for reciprocity and should treat the status as a legal-opinion item and not as an assumption. The cost of that step is small. The cost of a void acquisition is the whole position.
| Buyer | Italy (Lake Como) | Switzerland (Ticino, Lake Lugano) |
|---|---|---|
| German national, resident in Germany | EU citizen; same footing as an Italian citizen (published guidance, directional) | Person abroad; authorisation required, deed void without it; holiday dwelling within cantonal quota |
| British national, resident in the UK | Non-EU; reciprocity condition under Art. 16 unless a qualifying Italian permit or a treaty applies; status not confirmed in the sources opened (check MAECI) | Person abroad; authorisation required; holiday dwelling within cantonal quota |
| American national, resident in the US | Non-EU; reciprocity condition under Art. 16 unless a qualifying Italian permit or a treaty applies; status not confirmed in the sources opened (check MAECI) | Person abroad; authorisation required; holiday dwelling within cantonal quota |
| Any national, legally and actually resident in Switzerland | Swiss residence does not count as an Italian permit; EU/EEA citizens buy freely, others need a qualifying Italian permit, a treaty or reciprocity (MAECI, official guidance) | EU/EFTA nationals outside the act; third-country nationals may buy for own residence; April 2026 draft would change this (proposal only) |
| Swiss citizen buying in Italy | Reciprocity tested; a 2022 Vicenza judgment voided one purchase (newspaper report); notarial guidance diverges on whether a check is needed | Not applicable |
Is the Lex Koller about to change, and what would it mean for Lake Lugano?
As of 5 October 2026, the Swiss tightening is a proposal and not law. On 15 April 2026 the Federal Council opened a consultation on a revision of the Lex Koller, with the preliminary draft open for comment until 15 July 2026 (Federal Office of Justice). The office’s page records the stakeholder responses as documented on 27 July 2026. I found no source showing a message to Parliament or a vote, so the baseline described in this note remains the rule in force.
The proposal has four reported parts. According to a Deloitte Switzerland summary of the draft, they are a permit requirement for primary-residence purchases by third-country nationals, with divestment within two years if the buyer leaves; a tightening for commercial property that would reach EU and EFTA nationals too; lower cantonal quotas for holiday apartments, with transfers between foreign owners counted against the quota; and a prohibition on acquiring listed real-estate shares and real-estate funds. The Deloitte summary describes the current baseline imprecisely against the federal and cantonal guidance, so I use it only for the list of proposed changes, and I grade it as a secondary source.
The proposal is framed as a housing-market measure. Swiss legal and financial press describe it as a response to the tight housing situation and as a general tightening of the act. The federal explanatory report and the draft text are published by the Federal Office of Justice and are the documents to read, not the commentary. Any figure about the effect of the draft on volumes is, as far as I can find, not yet measured.
The implication for the buyer pool is directional. If adopted as drafted, third-country residents, for example a British or American family living in Ticino, would need a permit for a main residence they can buy today, and holiday quotas would shrink. The Swiss pool would narrow further. Parliament may change any element. The allocator should treat the draft as a scenario and not as a base case, and should re-verify its status on the date of any decision.
How do the two regimes shape the buyer pool on Lake Como and Lake Lugano?
On the Swiss shore the pool is filtered by domicile and quota, and on the Italian shore it is filtered by passport only at the margin. For an EU principal, Italian access is open. For a non-EU principal without a qualifying Italian permit or a treaty, there is a reciprocity check whose outcome depends on the nationality and must be confirmed against the ministry’s sources. The two filters produce different pools, not pools of different quality. That is a statement about structure, and it carries no view on value.
A narrower pool is not a better pool. Fewer eligible foreign buyers can mean less competition for stock, or it can mean a thinner exit market. The sources give no measure of either, and I do not assert one. Any claim about exit liquidity in either jurisdiction needs transaction data that I did not find in public federal or judicial sources, so the grade of every statement in this paragraph is directional.
The Swiss side stacks gates and the Italian side has one. In Switzerland the principal faces a permit on the demand side, a 20 percent cap on the supply of new second homes, and a pending proposal that would narrow demand further. In Italy the gate is EU status, residence or reciprocity. The market structure of the Italian shore, including its ultra-prime segment, is covered separately in Lake Como ultra-prime.
Cross-border demand may relocate and not disappear, but that is a hypothesis. A buyer who cannot obtain a permit or a quota slot on one shore can consider the other. Whether that happens, and at what scale, is unmeasured in the sources I reviewed. I label it a hypothesis for the allocator to test with local advisers and not a finding. It is not evidence for or against either shore.
The 20 percent cap limits new second homes in a commune. It does not ask for a passport.
Victaura Research
Where this comparison is weak, honestly disclosed
The Swiss primary text was not readable in this review. The federal legislation portal requires JavaScript, so I relied on the Federal Office of Justice, cantonal guidance and secondary summaries for the content of the act. For that reason I quote no article numbers of Swiss law, and the statements about the permit and the residence exemptions carry the grade of official guidance, the statement on nullity rests on Swiss legal commentary, and none of them is statute text read directly.
The statistics are dated and thin. The holiday-dwelling data are for 2021 and come through a federal-economics journal article, and I found nothing newer. Ticino’s cantonal allocation is reported at different values across the sources, so I do not cite it. The only recent measured series in this note is the ARE count of second-home communes as of 31 March 2026, and it covers the cap, not the permit regime.
The reciprocity status of the common nationalities rests on secondary sources, and the Vicenza judgment is a newspaper summary of one first-instance ruling. The sources diverge on Swiss nationals, as set out above. A principal who relies on the status of a nationality without the ministry’s sheet and a notarial opinion is relying on this note more than the note can bear.
Large areas are out of scope. Prices, portal data, financing, succession, landscape protection and municipal building rules are not covered. Swiss lump-sum taxation and Italy’s Article 24-bis regime for new residents exist as separate questions, and this note does not compare them and offers no tax view. The brief’s shorthand that the 20 percent cap bites on foreigners is corrected above, since the cap is not nationality-based. Nothing here is legal advice.
Lake Como, Lake Lugano and the checks a principal should run
The practical output is a checklist, not a conclusion. First, establish the jurisdiction of the parcel, since Lake Lugano straddles the border. Second, establish the buyer’s domicile, residence status and passport. Third, on the Swiss side, establish whether an authorisation is available, whether a holiday-dwelling quota slot exists, and what the commune’s second-home status is in the current ARE inventory. Fourth, on the Italian side, establish EU status, residence permit or the ministry’s reciprocity sheet for the buyer’s country. Fifth, check the status of the Swiss proposal on the date of the decision.
Victaura’s public project card for the Italian lake is Modern Villa on Lake Como. Readers should read that card for the project’s published facts and treat this note as commentary on the legal regimes, not on any project. Nothing in the comparison above is a statement about the merits of one shore over the other.
Status is stated with a date, and the dates will age. As of 5 October 2026, the Swiss tightening is a consultation draft that closed on 15 July 2026, and I found no source on its next step. The ARE count of 331 communes is dated 31 March 2026 and will be replaced with the next annual release. Every status in this note should be re-verified by counsel at the time of use.
Skin in the game disclosure. Victaura, through its parent Greystone B.V. (Netherlands), develops projects on Lake Como (Italy), in Nungwi, Zanzibar (Tanzania), on Gili Air and in Uluwatu, Bali (Indonesia), and holds an off-plan capital position on Al Marjan Island, Ras Al Khaimah (UAE). Readers should assume commentary may be influenced by, or benefit, these positions. This document is classified as marketing material under MiFID II Article 24(3). It is not investment advice.
Fonti
- Fedlex, Federal Act on the Acquisition of Real Estate by Persons Abroad (BewG), 1983
- Federal Office of Justice (BJ), Erwerb von Grundstücken durch Personen im Ausland, Merkblatt
- Federal Office of Justice (BJ), Revision Lex Koller, 2026
- Federal Office of Justice (BJ), Erläuternder Bericht zur Revision Lex Koller, 15 April 2026
- Federal Office of Justice (BJ), Vorentwurf Revision Lex Koller, 15 April 2026
- ARE, Nur wenige neue Gemeinden mit einem Zweitwohnungsanteil von über 20 Prozent, 31 March 2026
- ARE, Zweitwohnungen (Federal Act on Second Homes, in force 1 January 2016)
- opendata.swiss, Wohnungsinventar und Zweitwohnungsanteil
- Die Volkswirtschaft, Kauf von Ferienwohnungen: Das Wallis ist im Ausland beliebt, 2023
- Il Sole 24 Ore, Violata la reciprocità: nullo l’acquisto in Italia di un cittadino svizzero, 2022
- Diritto.it, La condizione di reciprocità nell’art. 16 delle disposizioni preliminari al codice civile del 1942
- Notariato, Rassegna di risposte a quesito in materia di reciprocità, 2024
- Immobiliare.it, Come comprare casa in Italia da stranieri, guida
- Deloitte Switzerland, Switzerland plans tightening restrictions on property acquisition by non-Swiss nationals, 2026
- Canton of Zug, Acquisition of real estate by persons abroad (Lex Koller)
- Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MAECI), Rights and reciprocity
- Officina Notarile, Principio di reciprocità: come funziona negli atti notarili
- Notaio Busani, Stranieri in Italia: acquistare una casa
- CMHC, Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act
- Geissmann Rechtsanwälte, Lex Koller und Zivilrecht: Unwirksamkeit und Nichtigkeit
- UBS, Folgen der Lex Koller für den Schweizer Immobilienmarkt
Le informazioni presenti su questo sito hanno finalità esclusivamente informative e non costituiscono un'offerta, una sollecitazione all'investimento o una consulenza finanziaria. I rendimenti indicati sono stime e non sono garantiti; le performance passate non sono indicative di risultati futuri. Il capitale investito è soggetto a rischio.
Stai valutando un'allocazione in immobili di lusso nelle località in cui operiamo? Parla con noi dei nostri progetti attuali e futuri.
Parla con Victaura →Approfondimenti correlati
Visioni di mercato
Lake Como Prices: What the Official Data Shows
Lake Como OMI quotations from the Agenzia delle Entrate cover seven shore comuni at 670 to 3,060 euro per square metre for apartments (directional), while Knight Frank prices four- or five-bedroom villas at US$14 million to US$18 million (broker-reported). The two sources describe different objects. This note shows why the official band stops short of the lakefront villa, and what would join the two.
DossierVisioni di mercato
Lago di Como ultra-prime 2026: doppia scarsità, PIRI +6,5%
Il prime italiano è letto per convenzione come un'unica asset class con un ciclo sincronizzato. Il PIRI 100 di Knight Frank ha collocato il Lago di Como a +6,5% nel 2025, al 19° posto, contro Milano a +0,4% e Londra a -4,7%, e secondo una lettura di Victaura Research il Lago di Como è uscito da quel ciclo. Tre vincoli stringenti (la norma paesaggistica D.Lgs. 42/2004, uno schema di mancata vendita familiare multigenerazionale che è un'assunzione di Victaura Research, e l'articolo 24-bis a 300.000 € per i nuovi residenti dal 2026) rendono l'offerta anelastica per legge e non pari a zero, mantengono basso il turnover e selezionano investitori internazionalmente mobili con un orizzonte di 15 anni. Il dossier legge il risultato come una rendita composta sull'insostituibilità e non come prime ciclico, e propone come panel di confronto Mayfair Grosvenor, Park Avenue prebellica, St Moritz Suvretta e Cologny, al posto di Forte dei Marmi o Cap Ferrat.
Visioni di mercato
Lake Como Buyers: Reading the Shares
Engel & Völkers cites about 40% and 60% foreign buyers on Lake Como. Gate-away logs enquiries, not deals, and German requests fell 13.6% in 2025. Transactions, enquiries and listings are three instruments. The allocator should read each for what it counts, and should not average them into one share.