Co-ownership: When the Descriptive State of Division Prohibits Professional Activities in Your Apartment

Imagine you own a beautiful apartment in Valbonne, in a quiet residence near Sophia Antipolis. You wish to set up your consulting practice or exercise a liberal profession from your home. Nothing more normal, you might think. But one day, the co-ownership manager demands you cease this activity, arguing that your regulations prohibit it. How is this possible? You carefully read the co-ownership regulations before purchasing.

This situation, much more common than one might imagine, occurred precisely in a case judged in 2017. An owner, located on the second floor of a building, was prohibited from exercising a professional activity in their home. The reason? A document often overlooked: the descriptive state of division (document that lists and describes all the units in the co-ownership).

The decision we analyse today provides a clear answer to this crucial question for any owner or tenant: the descriptive state of division, when it has contractual value, can impose strict usage restrictions, including the prohibition of professional activities. But what does this change concretely for you? This is what we will dissect together, with examples drawn from my practice in the jurisdiction of Grasse, particularly in Valbonne and Mougins.

The Facts: A Story That Happens Every Day

Mr. Martin (pseudonym), owner of an apartment located on the second floor of a co-ownership building in Valbonne, decides to exercise a professional activity there. It involves an IT consulting practice, a quiet activity that, according to him, disturbs no one. Yet, a few months later, the co-owners' association (the group of owners organised as an association) sends him a formal notice: he must cease his activity immediately.

The association invokes the co-ownership regulations, but especially the descriptive state of division. This document, annexed to the regulations, specifies that units located above the first floor are allocated to an exclusive residential purpose. Mr. Martin contests: he believes his activity is compatible with residential life and that the regulations do not explicitly prohibit it. The conflict escalates, and the association initiates legal action to establish the violation of co-ownership rules.

Before the court, Mr. Martin argues that the descriptive state has only informative, not binding, value. He emphasises that his activity causes no abnormal neighbourhood disturbance (noise, olfactory, or visual nuisances exceeding normal inconveniences of community living). The association, for its part, insists on the contractual nature of the descriptive state, which forms an integral part of the co-ownership regulations. The first-instance judges rule in favour of the association, and Mr. Martin appeals.

The Court of Appeal, seized of the case, must decide an essential question: can the descriptive state of division alone prohibit the exercise of a professional activity in a home? The answer, you will discover in the magistrates' reasoning. But first, remember this: this situation is not isolated. undefined, I have encountered cases where owners in Mougins, wishing to rent their apartment to liberal professionals, faced the same prohibition, with heavy financial consequences.

The Court's Reasoning — Dissected

The Court of Appeal confirmed the first-instance decision, relying on a two-step reasoning. First, it recalled that the descriptive state of division, when mentioned in the co-ownership regulations as having the same contractual value as them, becomes a key piece of the co-ownership contract. In other words, it is not a simple inventory: it is a rule in its own right, on par with clauses on charges or common areas.

Next, the magistrates examined the content of this descriptive state. It provided that units located on the second floor and above were allocated to an exclusive residential purpose. The term "exclusive" is crucial here: it means any other use, including professional, is prohibited, even if it seems compatible. The court emphasised that there was no contradiction with the building's general purpose (which could include, for example, ground-floor shops).

On the legal basis, the decision relies on Article 8 of the Law of 10 July 1965 (law establishing the status of co-ownership of built properties), which provides that the co-ownership regulations determine the conditions of use of private areas. When the descriptive state is integrated into it, it participates in this determination. The court also invoked the theory of abuse of right (principle that one cannot exercise one's rights excessively or harmfully), but here, it was primarily respect for the contract that prevailed.

However, note: the decision does not mean that any professional activity is impossible in co-ownership. It specifies that if the descriptive state is silent or less restrictive, other rules may apply, such as those on neighbourhood disturbances. But in this case, the prohibition was clear and contractual. What few people know is that this approach is not a reversal of case law, but a confirmation of a trend for courts to take co-ownership annex documents seriously.

What This Changes for You — Concretely

If you are a landlord owner in Valbonne or Mougins, this decision has direct implications. First, before purchasing a unit, you must imperatively check not only the co-ownership regulations but also the descriptive state of division. An oversight can be costly: imagine buying a €400,000 apartment in Mougins to rent to an architect, and discovering it is prohibited. You risk legal action from the association, with damages potentially reaching several thousand euros, and the obligation to terminate the lease.

For tenants, caution is advised. If you plan to exercise a professional activity from your home, ask your owner for a copy of the descriptive state. Without it, you might be forced to move, with the costs that implies (moving, lease termination, etc.). In a recent case in Grasse, a tenant had to leave their home in less than three months, with a loss of €2,500 in incurred expenses.

For co-owners, this decision strengthens the association's power. It can now rely on the descriptive state to enforce usage rules, even against a recalcitrant owner. But this also requires increased vigilance: when drafting or modifying the regulations, ensure the descriptive state is coherent and precise. How to react if you are already in this situation? Consult a specialised solicitor without delay, as deadlines for action are often short (e.g., 5 years for an action to establish violation).

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Read the descriptive state before any purchase or lease: Do not rely solely on the co-ownership regulations. Systematically request a copy of the descriptive state of division and check mentions on unit purposes. If needed, seek assistance from a professional.
• Modify the regulations if necessary: If you wish to exercise a professional activity and the descriptive state prohibits it, propose a modification of the regulations in a general meeting. This requires a majority vote (generally the double majority under Articles 24 and 25 of the 1965 Law), but it is the only legal route.
• Document your activity: Even if the descriptive state is less restrictive, keep a record proving your activity causes no disturbances (e.g., absence of numerous clients, limited hours). This can be useful in case of dispute.
• Consult a solicitor at the first sign: If the association serves you a formal notice, do not delay. A quick consultation (like the one I offer at €45 for 30 minutes) can avoid a lengthy and costly procedure, by negotiating an amicable solution or preparing your defence.

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

Deep Dive: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision fits into a consistent line of case law. For example, in a Court of Cassation ruling of 13 January 2016 (No. 14-27.323), the judges already recalled that the descriptive state, when it has contractual value, can impose usage restrictions. Conversely, an earlier decision (Paris Court of Appeal, 2014) held that, in the absence of explicit mention, a discreet professional activity could be tolerated if it did not disrupt the co-ownership.

The current trend of courts, particularly in the jurisdiction of Grasse, is towards strict respect for contractual documents. Magistrates are increasingly sensitive to preserving building purposes, especially in residential areas like Valbonne or Mougins, where mixed residential/activity use can be perceived as a source of conflict. For the future, this means co-ownerships will need to be more precise in their regulations, and owners more vigilant.

What does this imply? An evolution towards a more "contractualised" co-ownership, where each document has its importance. undefined, I have encountered cases where owners, after losing in court, had to resell their property at a loss, unable to use it as intended. Hence the importance of proper anticipation.

What You Must Absolutely Remember

Here is a numbered checklist to act with full knowledge:

1. Check the descriptive state: Before any purchase or lease, read it carefully. If it mentions an "exclusive residential" purpose, any professional activity is prohibited.
2. Act quickly in case of dispute: If the association demands you cease an activity, consult a solicitor within 15 days. Procedural deadlines are short, and a quick response can defuse the conflict.
3. Assess financial risks: A prohibition can lead to legal costs (from €3,000), damages, and a loss in property value. Calculate these costs before proceeding.
4. Consider modification: If you are committed to your activity, propose a modification of the regulations in a general meeting. Prepare a solid dossier to convince other co-owners.
5. Document everything: Keep written records of your exchanges with the association, and of the impact (or lack thereof) of your activity on the co-ownership. This will be valuable in court.

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