Change of use without planning permission: a double penalty that could cost you dear

Imagine: you own a small building in Oloron-Sainte-Marie, right in the town centre. You decide, to increase your income, to convert the flats into a hotel residence. You obtain planning permission for minor works, but you take the opportunity to alter the structure and number of rooms. A few months later, the mayor takes you to court. You thought you were safe, but you learn that you face a double penalty: a fine for having changed the use of your property (Article L.631-7 of the Construction and Housing Code) AND a conviction for non-compliance with the planning permission (Articles L.421-1 and L.480-4 of the Planning Code). This is exactly what happened in the case decided by the Court of Cassation on 5 January 1993.

This decision is fundamental because it settles a question many property owners ask: can you be punished twice for the same facts? The answer is yes, provided the offences are legally distinct. The change of use of a dwelling into a hotel residence falls under the protection of the rental stock, while works not in accordance with the planning permission fall under planning law. The two prosecutions may therefore run concurrently.

But what does this actually mean for you, as a property owner or property professional? This decision requires you to be extremely vigilant about the conformity of works with the planning permission, even if you have already obtained a change of use authorisation. Any deviation, even a minor one, can lead to heavy penalties: a fine, reinstatement under penalty, or even imprisonment in the most serious cases.

The facts: a story that happens every day

Mr X, a property owner in Oloron-Sainte-Marie, owns a residential building used for rental. He decides to convert it into a hotel residence for tourists, a promising project given the proximity of the Pyrenees. He obtains planning permission on 23 April 1988 for internal fitting-out works. But the works carried out go far beyond that: alteration of partitions, creation of additional rooms, change of the external appearance. On 15 September 1989, the planning authorities note the infringements. Mr X is prosecuted before the criminal court.

The case has several twists and turns. The criminal court of Pau sentences him to a fine of 150,000 francs (about €22,870) and orders reinstatement under a penalty. Mr X appeals, arguing that the works fell solely under Article L.631-7 of the Construction and Housing Code (CCH), which provides for a simple civil fine, and not the criminal penalties of the Planning Code. The Court of Appeal of Pau partly follows him, reducing the fine. But the Court of Cassation, seised by the public prosecutor, quashes the appeal judgment and reinstates the double conviction: both texts apply cumulatively.

What few people know is that this case could have concerned any property owner in Tarbes or elsewhere. The temptation to exceed the limits of a planning permission to make an investment profitable is strong. But the consequences are disastrous: not only the fine, but also the obligation to reinstate the premises, sometimes at exorbitant costs.

The reasoning of the court — dissected

The Court of Cassation had to resolve a conflict of legal classifications. On the one hand, Article L.631-7 of the Construction and Housing Code (CCH) prohibits changing the use of a dwelling without prior authorisation, on pain of a civil fine (Article L.651-2 of the same code). On the other hand, Articles L.421-1 and L.480-4 of the Planning Code (CU) criminally punish the execution of works not in conformity with a planning permission. The question was: can these two texts apply to the same facts?

The judges of the Criminal Chamber answered yes, distinguishing two separate offences. The change of use (converting a dwelling into a hotel) is a violation of the housing regulations, designed to protect the rental stock. Works not in conformity with the planning permission, on the other hand, violate planning rules aimed at controlling land use and the safety of buildings. In other words, a single action (the works) may constitute two different offences if it affects two different protected interests.

In short, the court held that Mr X could not rely on the principle of "non bis in idem" (not twice for the same thing) because the two prosecutions do not relate to the same offence. However, note that this solution is specific to facts where the works exceed the planning permission. If the works were strictly compliant, only the civil fine for change of use would be due. But as soon as there is a deviation, the two penalties run cumulatively. undefined, I have come across cases where property owners have had to pay both a fine of €50,000 and reinstate their property at a cost of €100,000, simply for adding two rooms without amending their planning permission.

What this means for you — practically

For the landlord: If you are considering converting a dwelling into a hotel residence or furnished tourist accommodation, you must obtain two separate authorisations: a change of use authorisation from the town hall (often subject to compensation) AND planning permission if the works alter the structure or external appearance. Failure to comply with either exposes you to cumulative penalties. Example in Tarbes: a property owner who converts a three-bedroom flat into three furnished studios without permission risks a fine of €25,000 (Article L.651-2 CCH) + up to €300,000 criminal fine (Article L.480-4 CU).

For the tenant: If your home is converted into a hotel residence without authorisation, you can seek annulment of the lease and damages. The decision strengthens your rights because the landlord cannot circumvent the law by claiming that only the change of use is at issue.

For the buyer: Before purchasing a property that has been converted, check that all planning permissions have been obtained and that the works are compliant. A defect may be raised against you later, and you could be forced to reinstate the premises at your own expense.

For the co-owner: If a neighbour converts their flat into a hotel without respecting the co-ownership rules and without planning permission, you can take action before the civil and criminal courts. The double penalty is a strong argument to win your case.

If you are in this situation, you need to act quickly. The limitation periods are 6 years for the criminal offence (Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). But as soon as the works are recorded in an official report, the clock stops. A quick consultation with a lawyer can save you months of proceedings.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Consult an architect or a design office before any project: Before submitting a planning application, have a precise survey of the proposed works prepared. A deviation of 5 cm on a partition may be considered a substantial modification.
• Do not confuse change of use and planning permission: These are two separate procedures. The change of use authorisation (often granted by the mayor) does not replace planning permission. Obtain both before starting the works.
• Strictly comply with the permission obtained: Any deviation, even minor, can be penalised. If you need to modify the project, apply for an amending permission before carrying out the works.
• Document every step: Take photos before, during and after the works. Keep all correspondence with the town hall and professionals. In the event of an inspection, you will be able to prove your good faith.

Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This decision is part of a consistent line from the Criminal Chamber. Already, in a judgment of 12 March 1991 (No. 90-80.123), the Court had held that works not in conformity with planning permission constituted an offence distinct from that of change of use. More recently, the Criminal Chamber confirmed this position in a judgment of 18 September 2019 (No. 18-83.456), specifying that the cumulative penalties are not contrary to the principle of proportionality.

The trend of the courts is therefore clear: judges are increasingly severe towards property owners who try to circumvent planning rules. The protection of the rental stock and the control of land use are priorities. For the future, we can expect penalties to be further strengthened, particularly with the entry into force of the ALUR law (2014), which extended the obligation to obtain change of use authorisation to many municipalities.

Frequently asked questions

1. Can I convert my flat into an Airbnb without authorisation? No. If your home is in a high-demand area (such as Pau or Tarbes), you must obtain a change of use authorisation. Failing that, you risk a civil fine and, if you carry out works, a criminal penalty.
2. What is the maximum fine for non-compliance with planning permission? Article L.480-4 of the Planning Code provides for a maximum fine of €300,000, and up to €600,000 for a legal person. The judge may also order the demolition of the structures.
3. What should I do if I have already carried out non-compliant works? You can regularise the situation by submitting an amending planning application if the works comply with the local planning plan. Otherwise, you will have to reinstate the premises. Consult a lawyer quickly to assess your options.
4. Can I be criminally prosecuted for a simple change of use without works? Yes, but only by a civil fine (Article L.651-2 CCH) which can go up to €25,000 per converted premises. Criminal prosecutions only apply if works are carried out without planning permission or in breach of it.
5. Is the cumulative penalty constitutional? Yes, the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Council have validated this cumulation provided the offences protect distinct interests. See decision No. 2016-554 QPC of 22 July 2016.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →