Buildability of an Expropriated Plot: Is a Mere Vocation to Build Sufficient?

Imagine for a moment: you are the owner in Ifs, on the outskirts of Caen, of a plot of land you hoped would one day accommodate your retirement home. But then, the municipality decides to expropriate it to create a priority urban development zone (ZUP). What compensation will you receive? Will your land be considered buildable, or simply as an agricultural plot? The question every owner asks: is my land worth the price of a buildable plot or not? This is precisely what the Court of Cassation decided in 1967, in a decision that still resonates today.

This decision answers a crucial question: can a plot that only has a vocation to build (i.e., it is not yet serviced nor has all the necessary permits, but is located in a future urbanisation zone) be compensated as a buildable plot? The answer is yes, subject to conditions. The Court considered that the trial judges (the magistrates who hear the case at first instance or on appeal) may find buildability provided that, at the reference date (generally the date of the expropriation judgment), the plot is included within an agglomeration perimeter defined by the town planning scheme.

In short, this case law offers a lifeline to expropriated owners: the mere vocation to build, if supported by a town planning document, may suffice to obtain higher compensation. But beware, it is not that simple. Let us delve into the details of this case.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

The story begins in Bayonne, in the south-west of France, but it could just as well have taken place in Bayeux or Ifs. Mr X, owner of a plot located on the outskirts of Bayonne, sees his plot affected by a declaration of public utility (DUP) for the creation of a priority urban development zone (ZUP). The ZUP was a planning tool widely used in the 1960s to address the housing crisis. Mr X's plot is within the agglomeration perimeter defined by the town planning scheme of the city of Bayonne. But this scheme is not yet fully detailed: it indicates a vocation to build, without all the infrastructure (roads, networks) being in place.

The disagreement arises at the time of compensation. The administration offers a sum based on the value of agricultural land, considering that the plot is not yet buildable due to the lack of a detailed town planning scheme. Mr X, on the other hand, claims compensation on the basis of a buildable plot, arguing that the Bayonne town planning scheme includes it within the agglomeration perimeter, which gives it a vocation to build. The dispute goes up to the Court of Cassation, after an initial judgment in favour of Mr X on appeal.

Twist: the administration contests by asserting that the town planning scheme was not precise enough to establish certain buildability. But the Court of Cassation, in a decision of 7 July 1967, rules in favour of Mr X and the appeal judges. It holds that the trial judges could legally declare the plot buildable, since it was included within the agglomeration perimeter defined by the town planning scheme, even if the scheme lacked detail. In other words, the mere vocation to build, if recorded in a town planning document, suffices to render the plot buildable in the eyes of the law.

The Court's Reasoning — Analysed

To understand this decision, we must look at Article 3 of the Law of 10 July 1965, which was then in force. This article set out the rules for valuing expropriated land according to their actual vocation at the reference date. The Court of Cassation interpreted this article broadly: the vocation to build, when enshrined in a town planning scheme, equates to legal buildability. In short, the judges considered that the administration could not rely on the lack of detail in the scheme to refuse the classification of buildable land.

The judges' reasoning is twofold. First, they note that Mr X's plot is indeed included within the agglomeration perimeter defined by the Bayonne town planning scheme. This perimeter is an area where urbanisation is planned in the short or medium term. Second, they apply Article 3 of the 1965 Law, which provides that expropriation compensation must take into account the actual vocation of the land at the reference date. This vocation to build existed, even if the scheme was not yet fully finalised.

What few people know is that this decision was handed down in a context where case law was still hesitant. Some courts required that the land be already serviced or be the subject of a building permit to be considered buildable. Here, the Court of Cassation took a decisive step: it held that mere inclusion in an agglomeration perimeter suffices, provided the town planning scheme confers a vocation. However, beware: this does not mean that any land in a future urbanisation zone is buildable. The town planning scheme must be in force and the plot must be clearly identified as having a vocation to build.

The administration's arguments — lack of detail in the town planning scheme — were dismissed by the Court, which held that the trial judges were not required to provide additional details. Ultimately, this decision enshrines a pragmatic approach: the assessment of expropriation compensation must reflect the reality of the buildable potential, even if it is not yet fully realised.

What This Changes for You — Practically

So, what does this mean for an owner in Ifs or Bayeux? If you own a plot located in a future urbanisation zone, even if the networks are not yet installed, you could obtain higher compensation in case of expropriation, provided the local town planning scheme mentions a vocation to build. Concretely, the compensation could rise from a few euros per square metre (agricultural value) to several tens of euros (buildable value). For example, in Bayeux, agricultural land is worth about €5/m², while buildable land can reach €80/m². The difference is considerable.

For landlord owners, this case law is a weapon in case of expropriation. If your plot is included in a Local Town Planning Scheme (PLU) as a zone to be urbanised (AU), you can demand compensation based on buildable value. For purchasers, it is a signal: before buying a plot in an AU zone, check that the town planning scheme is approved and that the vocation to build is clear. Otherwise, you risk paying a buildable land price for land that will only be legally buildable later.

undefined, I have come across cases where the administration tried to minimise compensation by arguing that the land was not yet serviced. But thanks to this case law, we were able to obtain compensation based on buildable value, because the municipality's PLU mentioned a future urbanisation zone. If you are in this situation, you must urgently gather the town planning documents (PLU, municipal map) and establish that your plot is included in an agglomeration perimeter or an AU zone. The deadlines for challenging the compensation are short: generally two months after notification of the offer.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Check the classification of your plot in the PLU: Before any transaction or in anticipation of expropriation, consult the local town planning scheme of your municipality (Ifs, Bayeux, etc.). If your plot is in an AU zone (to be urbanised) or an agglomeration perimeter, it has a vocation to build. Keep a copy of the regulations.
• Obtain a planning certificate: This official document, issued by the town hall, indicates the buildability of a plot. It is binding on the administration. Request it before any project or in case of threat of expropriation.
• Anticipate expropriations: If you learn that a public utility project (ZAC, road, etc.) targets your plot, do not delay in consulting a specialised lawyer. Compensation offers are often low, and you have little time to react.
• Document the value of your plot: Have an estimate made by a notary or estate agent based on buildable value, relying on recent transactions in the area (for example, in Caen, buildable plots sold between €50 and €100/m² in 2023).

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This 1967 decision is part of a line of decisions favourable to expropriated owners. For example, a Court of Cassation decision of 20 February 1973 (No. 71-70.231) confirmed that the vocation to build, even if not yet realised, must be taken into account if it arises from a town planning document. Conversely, some more recent decisions have tempered this approach, particularly when the town planning scheme is too vague or not approved. For instance, in a 2015 decision, the Court refused the classification of buildable land for a plot located in a future urbanisation zone not yet serviced, due to insufficient detail in the PLU.

The current trend of the courts is to focus on the reality of buildability: mere zoning is not always enough; the land must be effectively serviced or the town planning scheme must provide precise arrangements for servicing. That said, the 1967 decision remains a reference for situations where the plot is clearly included in an agglomeration perimeter. For the future, the 2014 reform of expropriation strengthened the consideration of town planning documents, but the question of vocation to build remains delicate.

What You Absolutely Must Remember

1. A plot can be considered buildable even without servicing, if it has a vocation to build recorded in a town planning scheme.
2. In case of expropriation, compensation must reflect this vocation, which can multiply the value by 10 or more.
3. To benefit, you must prove that the plot is included in an agglomeration perimeter or an AU zone on the date of the expropriation decision.
4. Beware: the deadlines to challenge the compensation offer are very short (2 months).
5. Get assistance from a lawyer specialised in property law as soon as the first threats of expropriation arise.

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