To analyze the different existing contractual modalities, it is essential to pay attention to the economic operation they aim to achieve. In the case of built to suit contracts, the financial logic that underpins the operation is that of investment. On one side, the user seeks working capital, while on the other, the investor aims for a return on investment. The operation is highly complex and often involves several parties through the use of securitization instruments. The BTS has as its essential characteristic the combination of construction and usage assignment payments, with the counterpart being the payment of a monthly price. In this context, there is a significant debate regarding its qualification. The doctrine discusses whether built to suit contracts are a typical contract with some peculiarities or if, due to the necessity of combining elements from both construction contracts and leasing, it would be considered an atypical mixed contract. This debate is not merely academic, as it generates relevant practical consequences for the applicable legal regime. Legislators sought to resolve the impasse with article 54-A of the 8.245/91 law. However, due to the protective nature of this legal framework, some of its provisions are incompatible with a business relationship like that of built to suit. Given the complexity of the operation, it is crucial that the legal system provides security to the parties that the agreed payments will be fulfilled. In this scenario, judicial review should be considered exceptional and applied with extreme caution, as failing to do so may distort the economic operation intended by the parties and, consequently, discourage its use, negatively affecting the real estate market and the economy as a whole.