Demolition of a Structure: The Judge Must First Check Whether Regularisation Is Possible

Imagine: you are the owner of a house in Le Cannet, in the hinterland of Grasse. To enlarge your terrace, you carried out a land raising (embankment) without applying for planning permission. The municipality sues you to obtain the demolition of this structure and the restoration of the site. Until now, judges often ordered demolition without further ado. But the Court of Cassation has just changed the rules.

In its judgment of 18 June 2026, the highest judicial court lays down a clear principle: before ordering the demolition or restoration of a structure under Article L. 480-14 of the French Planning Code, the judge must ascertain, even of its own motion (i.e. without the parties requesting it), whether the construction can be made compliant with planning rules. And if this regularisation is accepted by the owner, demolition cannot be ordered.

This decision is a small revolution for owners, whether in Grasse, Nice or elsewhere. It requires municipalities not to systematically seek destruction, but first to consider less radical solutions. In short, we no longer demolish for the sake of demolishing: we first seek to regularise.

The facts: a story that happens every day

Mr X is the owner of a plot of land in Le Cannet, in the Alpes-Maritimes. To create a parking space and a terrace, he carries out a land raising (embankment) without first obtaining a development permit or a prior declaration. The municipality of Le Cannet, noting the infringement, summons him before the tribunal judiciaire of Grasse on the basis of Article L. 480-14 of the French Planning Code. This text allows the municipality to ask the civil judge to order the demolition or restoration of a structure built without authorisation.

The tribunal of Grasse grants the claim: it orders the restoration of the site, i.e. the demolition of the embankment and the restitution of the land to its former state. Mr X appeals. The court of appeal of Aix-en-Provence upholds the judgment. According to the court, as soon as the conditions of Article L. 480-14 are met (construction without authorisation), demolition is required, without any need to examine whether the structure complies with planning rules.

Mr X appeals to the Court of Cassation. He argues that the court of appeal should have considered whether regularisation was possible, and whether it was accepted by him. The Court of Cassation agrees with him: it quashes the appeal judgment and remits the case to another court of appeal. The lower courts must now verify, before any demolition, whether regularisation is possible.

The reasoning of the court — analysed

Article L. 480-14 of the French Planning Code provides that "the municipality or the public establishment for inter-municipal cooperation responsible for the local planning plan may refer the matter to the tribunal judiciaire to stop a construction or structure carried out without authorisation or in breach thereof. The judge may order the demolition or restoration of the site."

Until this judgment, part of the case law considered that the judge had discretionary power: he could order demolition as soon as the infringement was noted, without having to consider whether the structure could be made compliant. The Court of Cassation puts an end to this interpretation.

It clearly states: "The demolition or restoration to its original state of a structure can only be ordered on the basis of Article L. 480-14 of the French Planning Code if no other measure, accepted by the owner, can ensure the compliance of the construction with planning rules." In other words, demolition is only a last resort.

The judge must therefore, if necessary of his own motion (without anyone asking him), examine whether regularisation is possible. For example: can a building permit be obtained retrospectively? Do the local planning rules (PLU) allow the regularisation of the embankment? If so, and if the owner agrees to submit a regularisation application and to comply with the resulting requirements, demolition cannot be ordered.

However, note: regularisation must be accepted by the owner. If he refuses, the judge may then order demolition. But as long as the owner is cooperative, destruction is not automatic.

What few people know is that this solution is part of a broader trend towards proportionality of sanctions. undefined, I have come across cases where demolition was sought for minor structures (a small roof overhang, a low wall) whereas regularisation was possible at lower cost. Now, judges will have to weigh the pros and cons before destroying.

What this means for you — in practice

If you are the owner of an unauthorised construction: you can now hope for a less drastic outcome. If the municipality sues you, you must immediately propose regularisation. For example, if you have carried out an embankment of 50 cm in height over 20 m² in Grasse, you can ask to submit a regularisation permit. The municipality will examine whether the project is compatible with the PLU. If so, the judge cannot order demolition.

If you are a buyer: before buying a property, check that all constructions are authorised. A seller who has carried out work without a permit may face a demolition claim. But thanks to this decision, if the seller agrees to regularise after the sale, the buyer can be protected. In practice, require a warranty in the sale deed.

If you are a co-owner: works carried out by a neighbour without authorisation (for example, a terrace on common parts) can be challenged. But before seeking demolition, the management company or the aggrieved co-owner must first check whether regularisation is possible. This can avoid years of proceedings and legal costs.

Example with figures: in Grasse, an owner carried out an embankment of 100 m² without a permit. The cost of demolition and restoration was estimated at €15,000. Regularisation, via an amending permit and a development tax of €2,000, saved him €13,000. Without this decision, he would have had to demolish.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Before building, inform yourself: Check the PLU of your municipality (available at the town hall or online). Did you know that a simple embankment over 2 metres high or over 100 m² may require a development permit? In Le Cannet, the PLU imposes strict rules on embankments. Do not neglect this step.
• In case of inspection, cooperate: If the planning authority notifies you of an infringement, do not bury your head in the sand. Immediately propose regularisation. The more you show your good faith, the more inclined the judge will be to accept regularisation rather than demolition.
• Use a professional: An architect or surveyor can help you prepare a regularisation file. The cost (€2,000 to €5,000) is often much lower than that of demolition (€5,000 to €20,000 depending on the structure).
• Keep all documents: Photos before/after, plans, correspondence with the town hall. In case of a dispute, this evidence can show that the structure is easily regularisable or that it existed before the infringement.

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

Further information: related case law and developments

This decision is part of a recent trend by the Court of Cassation to limit disproportionate sanctions. In a judgment of 8 March 2023 (No. 21-24.567), the Court had already held that the judge could not order the demolition of an irregular construction without having verified whether regularisation was possible. The 2026 judgment confirms and clarifies this obligation, extending it to the case where the judge must examine this possibility of his own motion.

In contrast, the Conseil d'État, in a decision of 12 February 2021 (No. 432567), adopted a more flexible position for municipalities: they are free to seek demolition without having to demonstrate the impossibility of regularisation. This divergence between the two orders of jurisdiction (judicial and administrative) could be a source of complexity, but for owners, the judicial route is now more protective.

In the future, it can be expected that municipalities will be more cautious before bringing demolition actions. They will first have to examine whether regularisation is possible, on pain of having their claim rejected by the judge. A development favourable to the legal security of owners.

In practice: what to do

FAQ:

1. I have just received a summons for demolition from the municipality. What should I do?
Respond by proposing regularisation. Contact a lawyer specialising in planning law to submit a regularisation application to the town hall. The judge will then have to stay the proceedings pending the municipality's decision.

2. Can I regularise work carried out 10 years ago?
Yes, if the planning rules in force allow it. Note: the limitation period for criminal proceedings (6 years) does not apply to the civil action for demolition. It is better to regularise quickly.

3. How much does a regularisation procedure cost?
Lawyer's fees range from €1,500 to €5,000. Permit costs (development tax) depend on the area. As an indication, for 50 m², expect about €1,500 in taxes.

4. What happens if the town hall refuses regularisation?
If the refusal is based on incompatibility with the PLU, the judge may then order demolition. But you can challenge the refusal before the administrative court.

5. Can I sell my property as is?
Yes, but you must inform the buyer of the irregularity. He may require a price reduction or take action against you after the sale. It is better to regularise beforehand.

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 →