My previous article examined how a water-law permit can affect property value: how a source with valid permits differs from one without them, and why official recognition as natural mineral water is an important condition for market access. This article adopts a different register. It is not about principles, but about reality. I have been involved in the permitting processes for two very different water-related property projects: a mineral-water well in the Börzsöny hills and a thermal well on the Great Hungarian Plain. Both lead to the same conclusion. The regulatory maze is not only slow and costly; it is also difficult to predict. The most serious obstacles often emerge not at the beginning, but years into the process.

Author: Emese Széll, Private Real Estate Advisor to Premium Clients in Hungary

Parallel jurisdictions: when several bodies are involved

A water-related property development in Hungary will usually bring the investor into contact with several authorities and specialist bodies. Regional water-management and water-protection authority functions are exercised by the county government offices designated in Government Decree 223/2014 (IX. 4.). The National Directorate General for Water Management (OVF) and the regional water directorates are water-administration bodies. A regional directorate may, among other things, issue asset-management consent and a water-infrastructure identification statement during the procedure, but it is not the permitting authority.

The mining authority acts in relation to the exploration, extraction and use of geothermal energy in the cases specified by the Mining Act; the exceptions applicable to certain forms of thermal-water extraction must be examined separately. Where a Natura 2000 site is affected, nature-conservation rules and authorities may become relevant; agricultural-land-protection, building and land-registry rules and bodies may also play a role. The municipality defines the framework for land use through its local building regulations (HÉSZ) and other local decrees.

This fragmentation is not accidental. The regulatory framework has accumulated from legislation enacted at different times for different purposes. In a single project, the relevant procedures may proceed in parallel, but at independent speeds. A decision in one procedure does not automatically create a right in another. The investor is therefore not walking down one corridor, but navigating several intersecting systems at the same time.

The Natura 2000 collision: consequences that are not apparent at the outset

In the Great Plain thermal-well case, the Natura 2000 designation, specifically the HUBN10004 Heves Plain Special Protection Area, was not a late surprise. According to the case files available to me, the Natura 2000 legal designation was already recorded in the land register when the well was drilled in 2007. What became clear only during the permitting process was how far its consequences could extend.

Under Section 10 of Government Decree 275/2004 (X. 8.), the first question is whether a plan or development may affect the Natura 2000 site; a detailed impact assessment is required if the possibility of a significant effect cannot be ruled out. In this case, the assessment focused primarily on the potential effects on the species for which the site was designated, including the red-backed shrike. The authority imposed mitigation conditions, including the retention of woodland buffers and existing shrub belts and the exclusion of certain lower-lying areas from development. The process took years, while the well remained unused.

If you missed it – Looking beyond price per square metre: how Budapest, Warsaw and Bucharest’s new-build home markets differ

The seven hectares discovered only years later

The most striking experience, however, was unrelated to Natura 2000 and arose through a separate regulatory channel. The local building regulations in force designate part of the Great Plain project’s development site, nearly seven hectares, as green space, specifically a public park. The owner did not learn this through the service of an authority decision. It emerged during a review of documents in an ongoing procedure, years after the property had been acquired: under the HÉSZ, that part of the site could not be built on or developed for the intended purpose because the municipal decree classified it as a public park.

This situation, which is not unique, illustrates a systemic feature of Hungary’s rural property market. The effect of a water-law permit on property value does not depend solely on the water-law procedure. Land-use classification, local building regulations, zoning and the land register are partly independent systems.

A property’s title sheet does not necessarily disclose every restriction contained in the HÉSZ. The municipal decree that determines what may be built on a plot is not automatically reproduced in the land register. A buyer who reviews only the title sheet, without separately checking the current local building regulations, may acquire property whose development potential is fundamentally constrained by a municipal decree of which the buyer was unaware.

What this means for the long-term viability of a water-law permit

The operating water-law permit for the Great Plain well expired in 2018. The proposed use, which required a larger water allocation, called for updated water-use plans and a fresh examination of the permitting conditions; the absence of the necessary asset-management consent delayed the procedure.

While the permit reserving 320,000 cubic metres per year remained in force, the absence of actual abstraction did not automatically eliminate liability for the water resource charge (vízkészletjárulék). Under Section 15/B(3) of the Water Management Act, where actual use is lower, the general calculation base is 80 per cent of the authorised quantity, which in this case would be 256,000 cubic metres.

The amount payable cannot, however, be determined from that volume alone. The formula under KHVM Decree 43/1999 (XII. 26.) also takes account of the type of water, the purpose of use, metering, the status of the water body and any applicable exemptions. Under certain combinations of parameters, the annual amount may exceed HUF 10 million. Any liability arising after the permit expired must be assessed separately by reference to the relevant period and the actual legal position.

The Börzsöny lesson: the value of patience and preparation

The Börzsöny mineral-water project followed a different course. There, the process from hydrodynamic modelling to official recognition as natural mineral water advanced with careful preparation. The interdependence of the procedures was planned in advance, and where one decision was a prerequisite for the next, the project waited for that decision to become final. Questions concerning the water-law regime, the HÉSZ, zoning and neighbouring properties were addressed before development began. This may extend the preparation phase, but it substantially reduces the risk of surprises later. Whether procedures should run in parallel or sequentially must be decided separately for each project on the basis of a tailored timetable.

Also interesting – From the offer to the land registry extract: how a safe property purchase works in Hungary

What every investor needs to understand

Together, the two cases offer three lessons.

  1. Map the parallel constraints before purchase. The value created by a water-law permit can be realised only if Natura 2000 implications, HÉSZ zoning, agricultural-land-protection obligations and any green-space or public-park designation are known in advance.
  2. A permit is not perpetual. Its validity period, conditions and scope for amendment must be examined separately. A buyer acquiring property associated with an existing permit should have an expert verify whether the permit remains valid, who holds it, the conditions for changing the permit holder or owner, whether it can be amended, and whether its validity can be extended.
  3. The HÉSZ and the title sheet are separate sources. They must be checked independently of one another.

In closing

Hungary’s water resources, from mineral-water wells in the Börzsöny hills and thermal sources on the Great Plain to the use of geothermal energy, embody genuine and still underexploited value. That value does not realise itself. Regulatory procedures, interlocking specialist rules and long lead times stand between the resource and the investor. The outcome, a legally final permit, a recognised source and a properly protected water base, may constitute an asset that the market can rarely replicate. That is its cost, and that is its value.

Legislation cited

Emese Széll, an expert in Hungary’s premium property market. premiumingatlanok.com

This article provides general market and legal information only and does not constitute individual legal, water-law, mining, nature-conservation or investment advice. The project-specific data and authority history described above should be verified against the original permits, decisions, registers and expert documentation. The English titles of Hungarian legislation are descriptive translations; the Hungarian-language legal text is authoritative. Legislation checked as at 3 September 2026.