Article 446 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation does not allow foreclosure on housing that is the only one suitable for the residence of the debtor and his family members, except in the case when it is the subject of a mortgage. The literal interpretation of the norm is at odds with its actual judicial interpretation: it is possible to foreclose on a single dwelling if it is luxurious. There is no consensus in science on the application of this provision. The purpose of this article is to consider the concept of luxury housing as an economic and legal category. For this purpose, the provisions of the legal and economic sciences on the concept of luxury housing, as well as approaches to its normative definition, are examined. The scientific novelty lies in the fact that luxury housing in relation to the operation of the legal institute of executive immunity is studied as an economic and legal category. The theoretical basis is laid for further research of the issue with the use of practical legal and economic knowledge. The authors formulate the results that have scientific novelty. The legal regulation of the definition of criteria for luxury housing should not be detailed, general criteria should be formulated in the legislation; the use of evaluation concepts is permissible. The law should regulate the procedure for removing luxury housing from executive immunity, the assignment of housing to the luxury category should be established by the court taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, based on the application of the participants in the process. When deciding on the luxury of housing, the court should be guided not only by regulation and approaches developed by judicial practice, but also by economic research in relation to housing classes. The removal of luxury housing from executive immunity should be an exceptional measure applied in case of an obvious (understandable to any average subject) excess of a reasonable need for housing, as well as if there is a significant economic effect. It is unacceptable to use standards for the provision of housing under social employment contracts to determine luxury and replacement housing.