Alux 33

1. Do not make further payments until there is a valid federal environmental authorization and the permit dispute is resolved — request written proof of both.
2. Do not accept a state (SEMA) permit as proof the project is legal — a state authorization does not cure the federal defect, and as of September 2026 press reports a federal court invalidated that permit outright (amparo 959/2025-G-1).
3. Document every payment you have made and demand that funds move to an independent, regulated escrow.
4. Consult an independent Mexican attorney about your rescission/refund rights and how the amparo affects your contract.
5. If the project was misrepresented to you (including any PROFECO registration that is not the developer's own), file a complaint with PROFECO.
6. Verify the amparos yourself at the PJF portal (515/2025-IV and, as reported, 959/2025-G-1) — including whether the rulings are final or under appeal.

Findings

1. 01 · Environmental authorizationCritical

   Red flag

   Does the project hold a valid, current federal environmental authorization for its actual location and scope?

   SEMARNAT's gaceta (primary record, checked 15 Sep 2026) confirms the 44-unit project's MIA file 23QR2024TD086: filed 17 Sep 2024, resolved 12 Dec 2024, validity “not applicable” — consistent with the NEGATIVE resolution reported by press. No valid federal authorization is on record. The site sits within the influence area of the “Manglares de Puerto Morelos” protected area. The June 2025 state (SEMA) authorization invoked to resume work (SEMA/DS/SGPA/DIRA/1522/2025) was reportedly invalidated by a federal court in September 2026 (amparo 959/2025-G-1), on the ground that the state lacks competence over coastal wetlands.

   Basis — ◪ Corroborated by reporting — confirm primary record · SEMARNAT Gaceta DGIRA 0042/24 (primary PDF) — MIA filing 23QR2024TD086, project ALUX33 · SEMARNAT Gaceta DGIRA 0004/25 (primary PDF) — file resolved 12 Dec 2024, validity “not applicable” · Por Esto — SEMARNAT negative resolution; state re-authorizes · PulsoSur (Sep 2026) — court invalidates state SEMA permit (amparo 959/2025-G-1)

   Verify at — SEMARNAT / SINAT — environmental impact registry

   How to verify this yourself

   1. Ask for the federal environmental impact authorization folio (in Mexico, a SEMARNAT MIA resolutivo).
   2. Look the folio up yourself in the federal environmental authority's public records.
   3. Confirm it is favorable, current, and matches the project's coordinates and size.

2. 02 · Building permit & zoningCritical

   Red flag

   Is there a valid, current building permit that matches the height, density, and unit count actually being sold?

   A federal judge (Juzgado Tercero de Distrito, Quintana Roo), within amparo 515/2025-IV, reportedly left municipal building license PM-1616 without effect and barred the municipality from using it for future authorizations. Corroborated by multiple outlets; the primary court docket was not directly accessed — confirm it yourself. (Do not confuse it with a separate case, amparo 473/2025 / license PM-1566.) The municipal portal publishes no searchable license registry and could not be queried on 15 Sep 2026; the project also does not appear on the state's published “irregular developments” map (checked 15 Sep 2026) — absence from that list is not a clearance.

   Basis — ◪ Corroborated by reporting — confirm primary record · La Jornada (2026-06-16) — court voids Alux 33 license · Quadratín QR — judge cancels illegal works

   Verify at — Federal Judiciary — case lookup (PJF en línea)

   How to verify this yourself

   1. Request the building-permit number and the zoning limits for the lot from the municipality.
   2. Confirm at the municipality that the permit is active and authorizes the number of levels/units shown in the renders.
   3. Compare the approved height/density to the marketing materials for any gap.

3. 03 · Litigation & closuresCritical

   Red flag

   Are there any active lawsuits, injunctions, or government closures against the project, the land, or the developer?

   PROFEPA imposed a total temporary closure and placed seals on the site (May 2025 coastal operation) because it lacked federal environmental authorization — confirmed in PROFEPA's own press release. The amparo also ordered works suspended. Reporting indicates the seals were later broken and work resumed citing a June 2025 state (SEMA) permit. In September 2026, multiple outlets reported that a federal court (amparo 959/2025-G-1, Ninth District Court, Quintana Roo, plaintiff DMAS A.C.) invalidated that state permit — reported, not yet confirmed against the docket: the PJF's public portals require litigant credentials and could not be queried on 15 Sep 2026. An active, fast-moving conflict; confirm current status before relying on any dated fact.

   Basis — ▪ Verified against official source · PROFEPA press release (primary) — coastal closures · SIPSE — seals broken, SEMA re-authorization · Por Esto — SEMARNAT negative resolution; state re-authorizes · PulsoSur (Sep 2026) — court invalidates state SEMA permit (amparo 959/2025-G-1)

   Verify at — PROFEPA — federal environmental enforcement

   How to verify this yourself

   1. Have an attorney search the courts by the project name, land, and developer/entity name.
   2. Ask the environmental and consumer regulators whether any closure or sanction is on file.
   3. Visit or have someone photograph the site to check for closure/suspension seals.

4. 04 · Title & liensCritical

   Not determined

   Does the seller hold clear, registered title, free of mortgages, liens, or encumbrances?

   Not independently reviewed here. The federal commerce registry (SIGER/RPC) and the state gazette were unavailable when probed on 15 Sep 2026, so the promoter's corporate folio could not be publicly confirmed either. Order your own lien-free certificate (certificado de libertad de gravamen) from the public registry.

   Basis — — Could not be independently verified

   How to verify this yourself

   1. Get the property's registry folio and order your OWN lien-free certificate from the public registry — do not rely on the seller's copy.
   2. Have a notary/attorney confirm the titleholder matches the party signing your contract.

5. 05 · Ownership structureImportant

   Not determined

   If you are a foreign buyer, is the ownership structure lawful and fully in your name (e.g., a proper bank trust with its permit)?

   Not independently reviewed here. If you are a foreign buyer, confirm a proper bank trust (fideicomiso) and its SRE permit.

   Basis — — Could not be independently verified

   How to verify this yourself

   1. Ask which bank will act as trustee and request the trust contract and its government permit.
   2. Have an independent attorney review the trust's fees, term, and your rights before signing.

6. 06 · Payments & escrowCritical

   Red flag

   Are your funds held by an independent, regulated escrow agent and released only on independently verified milestones?

   Buyer-provided materials indicate payments were structured as direct wires to the developer's accounts, with no independent escrow. This portal has not independently confirmed the current payment terms — but given the federal closure and active dispute, do not wire funds directly to the developer under any circumstances.

   Basis — † Reported — not independently confirmed

   How to verify this yourself

   1. Ask who holds the funds; confirm they are an independent, regulated escrow/title company (not the developer).
   2. Read the escrow agreement and confirm each release requires independent certification of the milestone.

7. 07 · Contract & consumer rightsImportant

   Red flag

   Is the purchase contract in writing, independently reviewed, with clear refund and cancellation terms?

   The official record cuts both ways (RPCA queried directly, 15 Sep 2026). Registration 2806-2023 — the number circulated with this project — belongs to a different company, Operadora Frase 21, S.A. de C.V. (Puebla), and is a generic brokerage template: presenting it as protection for this purchase is misleading. The promoter DOES hold three registrations of its own (2747, 2748, 2749-2023, “compraventa de bien inmueble”, status ACTUALIZADO, 7 Mar 2023), but none is linked to the Alux 33 name in the registry. Demand the exact registration number printed in YOUR contract and verify it names this promoter. PROFECO's complaint bureau showed zero complaints against the promoter as of 15 Sep 2026 — absence of complaints is not a clearance.

   Basis — ▪ Verified against official source · PROFECO RPCA record 2806-2023 (primary PDF) · PROFECO RPCA record 2747-2023 (primary PDF) — promoter's own registration

   Verify at — PROFECO — adhesion contract registry (RPCA)

   How to verify this yourself

   1. Ask whether the contract is registered with the consumer-protection authority and for its registration number.
   2. Have an independent attorney read it in full before you pay anything; confirm the refund/rescission clause.

8. 08 · Marketing vs. realityAdvisory

   Caution

   Do the renders, brochures, and active listings match what is actually approved and lawful to sell right now?

   The developer has publicly asserted the project complies with environmental law, relying on the state (SEMA) authorization — while a federal court and SEMARNAT rejected it. A state permit does not cure the federal defect; do not rely on the developer's compliance messaging.

   Basis — ◪ Corroborated by reporting — confirm primary record · La Jornada Maya — developer says project complies (SEMA)

   How to verify this yourself

   1. Compare marketing claims (floors, amenities, delivery dates) against the approved permit and environmental authorization.
   2. Check whether the project is still being actively sold despite any suspension.