Europe Is Quietly Killing the Traditional Golden Visa Model

Golden Visa real estate has been one of Europe’s simplest investment migration propositions: purchase qualifying property, satisfy the programme’s requirements and obtain residence. That model is now shrinking. Spain has ended its investor visa, Portugal no longer allows real estate to qualify, and Latvia will remove its property route on September 15, 2026. Greece remains a major exception, but even there, investment thresholds have risen sharply.

This is not an EU-wide ban, nor are all European governments following the same policy. But the direction is difficult to ignore.

Europe still wants foreign capital. It is becoming much more particular about where that capital goes.

Latvia is the latest country to redraw the rules.

Its new Immigration Law was adopted on August 20, 2026, published on September 1 and will take effect on September 15, 2026. Under the current system, foreign investors can qualify for temporary residence through eligible real estate worth at least €250,000, alongside other conditions and a state payment equal to 5% of the property’s value. Residence can be issued for up to five years.

The new law removes real estate as a qualifying route for new applicants.

Importantly, Latvia has included transition provisions. Applications for temporary residence submitted before the new law takes effect are to be processed under the previous Immigration Law. Existing temporary permits also remain valid until the end of their applicable registration or validity period.

That distinction matters. Buying a Latvian property before September 15 should not be confused with automatically securing residence. Investors relying on the transition need a compliant application submitted within the applicable timeframe.

Latvia is not abandoning investment residence altogether. The new law retains qualifying business investment and creates a new route based on an investment of at least €150,000 for five years through a state-established alternative investment fund manager, together with a €10,000 state-budget payment. The legislation allows residence under this route for up to five years.

The message is clear: Latvia still wants investment. It simply wants it in a different form.

Spain went further.

Its Golden Visa framework ended on April 3, 2025, removing investor residence not only through property but through the wider investment categories covered by the programme. Before its closure, the property route had required an investment of more than €500,000.

Housing was central to the political argument. The Spanish government explicitly linked the closure to concerns over housing accessibility and property markets in areas facing high prices and limited supply.

Portugal chose a different route.

Rather than eliminate investment residence completely, Portugal reshaped it. Its current Residence Permit for Investment Activity, commonly known as the Golden Visa or ARI, remains available through qualifying investments. However, Portugal’s immigration authority explicitly states that qualifying investment activity cannot be intended, directly or indirectly, for real estate investment.

Portugal therefore demonstrates an important distinction.

The Golden Visa itself did not have to disappear for the traditional property-based model to disappear.

Greece now stands out because property continues to qualify for investor residence.

However, today’s Greek Golden Visa looks considerably different from the programme investors knew several years ago.

The standard minimum real estate investment is €800,000 in Attica, Thessaloniki, Mykonos, Santorini and islands with populations above 3,100. In other qualifying areas, the standard threshold is €400,000. The Greek government introduced these higher limits as part of measures intended to reduce distortions in the housing market.

A €250,000 route still exists in specific circumstances. For example, official Greek administrative guidance confirms a €250,000 minimum for certain properties converted to residential use and for qualifying listed buildings requiring restoration or reconstruction.

For investors, Greece’s position creates an interesting contrast.

Spain removed the route. Portugal redirected capital away from property. Latvia is about to do the same.

Greece has kept real estate, but has made ordinary property investment considerably more expensive in many locations and reserved the lower threshold for more targeted projects.

Property-linked Golden Visas are politically vulnerable for a simple reason: housing is emotional, visible and local.

When residents are struggling with affordability, a programme allowing wealthy foreign investors to receive residence by purchasing property can become an easy political target.

Spain openly connected its decision to housing concerns. Portugal’s Golden Visa reforms formed part of its wider Mais Habitação housing package. Greece has described its higher thresholds as a way to limit distortions in the housing market.

There are also regulatory concerns. The European Commission has repeatedly highlighted security, money-laundering, tax-evasion and corruption risks associated with investor residence schemes and has called for stronger checks. At the same time, the Commission acknowledges that granting investor residence permits remains a national competence rather than a single EU-controlled programme.

That is why describing this as an EU ban would be inaccurate.

What we are seeing is something more gradual: individual governments reaching similar conclusions for different political, housing and economic reasons.

Tax is often part of the discussion around American interest in second citizenship, but it is also where misinformation can become expensive.

Obtaining another passport does not automatically remove U.S. tax obligations.

The Internal Revenue Service states that U.S. citizens living abroad are generally subject to U.S. income tax on worldwide income. Certain exclusions or foreign tax credits may be available depending on individual circumstances, but simply becoming a citizen of another country does not end the U.S. tax relationship.

Renouncing U.S. citizenship is an entirely separate decision.

The IRS also has expatriation rules that can apply to certain people who relinquish U.S. citizenship. Among the tests used to determine “covered expatriate” status is having a net worth of $2 million or more at the date of expatriation, alongside separate tax-liability and compliance tests.

For wealthy Americans, citizenship planning should therefore never be confused with a simple tax strategy. Cross-border tax advice must be considered separately and professionally.

Europe has not suddenly stopped wanting wealthy foreign investors.

Portugal still accepts qualifying investment capital. Latvia is creating a new €150,000 fund route. Greece still welcomes hundreds of thousands of euros into qualifying property. European governments continue to compete for businesses, entrepreneurs and investment.

The disagreement is increasingly about where the money should go.

Property is passive. Governments can instead direct investor capital toward funds, companies, job creation, research, cultural projects or other politically preferred areas.

From the government’s perspective, that may produce more measurable economic activity.

From an investor’s perspective, the trade-off is different.

Real estate is familiar. It can be inspected, rented, financed, inherited and sold. An investor may already have wanted property in Athens, Lisbon, Madrid or Riga even without the residence benefit.

Fund and business investments introduce different questions: manager quality, fees, liquidity, counterparty risk, investment strategy and exit timing.

That does not make them inferior. It makes the investment decision fundamentally different.

Europe still wants the investor’s capital.

Increasingly, it wants the capital with instructions attached.

The wrong response is to rush into whichever property programme appears to be closing next.

Regulatory urgency should never replace investment discipline.

An investor considering residence through property should examine several issues separately: whether the underlying real estate makes sense at the purchase price, whether the immigration rules suit the family, how long capital must remain invested, what physical-presence obligations apply, how the investment can eventually be exited and what happens if the programme changes during the holding period.

Tax residence should also be analysed separately from immigration residence. Receiving a residence permit does not, by itself, answer every question about an investor’s tax position.

Most importantly, investors should begin treating programme stability as another category of political risk.

Investors already assess the possibility that governments will change corporate taxes, property regulations, foreign ownership rules or capital controls.

Residence programmes deserve the same treatment.

Spain, Portugal and Latvia show that a route can be legitimate, established and commercially popular — and still be materially changed by government policy.

It would be premature to declare European property Golden Visas dead. Greece remains a significant example, and European countries retain control over their own investor residence policies.

But the traditional formula is clearly becoming less common.

The important question for investors is therefore not simply where Golden Visa real estate remains available today. It is whether the investment, immigration framework and political environment still make sense over the full period in which the family expects to rely on them.

Programme rules are part of the investment risk now.

They should be analysed accordingly.

Investors considering European Golden Visa real estate, or assessing alternatives as property routes become more restricted, should compare jurisdictions on more than the headline investment amount.

Imperial Citizenship advises investors and families on citizenship by investment and residency by investment strategies across multiple jurisdictions, taking into account programme rules, investment structure, family objectives, compliance requirements and long-term planning. Speak with Imperial Citizenship to assess which routes remain suitable for your circumstances.