7 October 2026
Where a building was erected under a planning permission that was subsequently annulled, a neighbour may, in certain protected areas, ask the civil court to order demolition. The French Cour de cassation has clarified that the claimant’s personal harm need not reach any particular level of seriousness. If that harm still exists when the court rules and is directly caused by the breached planning rule, its limited extent cannot by itself justify refusing demolition.
A remedy subject to strict conditions
The action governed by Article L. 480-13 of the French Planning Code does not apply to every unlawful building. In particular, it requires:
- a structure erected in accordance with planning permission;
- prior annulment of that permission by the administrative court for breach of a planning rule or public-utility easement;
- the property’s location within one of the specially listed protected areas; and
- personal harm directly caused by the specific breach.
A breach of planning law alone is therefore insufficient. The claimant must prove an individual loss—such as reduced sunlight or increased overlooking—and show that it results specifically from the rule whose breach led to the annulment.
Limited harm does not rule out demolition
In the case decided on 1 October 2026, the Court of Appeal had refused demolition because the loss of sunlight and increased overlooking were considered limited. The Cour de cassation set that reasoning aside. Once the court finds that current personal harm exists, demolition must be ordered regardless of its degree of seriousness, unless demolition is impossible.
The remedy must nevertheless be confined to what is sufficient to bring the building into compliance with the breached rule. This may require partial demolition rather than removal of the entire structure.
A risk to assess when purchasing or financing property
Purchasers, sellers and lenders should examine carefully any challenge to the planning permission and whether the property lies within an area covered by Article L. 480-13. Completion of the works does not necessarily remove the risk. The timetable of the administrative proceedings, the possibility of regularisation and the precise nature of the alleged harm are all decisive.
Official source: French Cour de cassation, Third Civil Chamber, 1 October 2026, no. 24-14.709.
Further reading: this private remedy should be distinguished from proceedings brought by a public authority. See our article “French Planning Law: Demolition of an Unlawful Structure Is a Last Resort”.
The notarial office does not contractually guarantee the accuracy or currentness of this information. To assess your particular circumstances, please consult a notary at the office.
