Noise Nuisances in Shared Ownership: When an Activity Without Modification Becomes an Abnormal Disturbance

Imagine: you live peacefully in Saint-Chamond, in your flat bought ten years ago. On the ground floor, a joinery workshop has been operating since 1974. The noise of the saws, you knew them, you accepted them when signing the deed of sale. But for two years, the workshop has been running at full capacity, six days a week, until 10 pm. The noise is no longer bearable. Yet the machines have not changed. Can you take legal action? Yes, answers the Court of Cassation in its judgment of 3 February 1993. The activity has not continued "under the same conditions." And this detail makes all the difference.

The question every owner or tenant exposed to nuisances asks: when does the disturbance exceed what I must tolerate? The law provides that if you buy or rent a property exposed to nuisances, you cannot claim damages later… unless the nuisances increase. But how do you prove this increase? The judgment of 3 February 1993 (No. 91-14.715) of the Court of Cassation provides a decisive answer.

In this decision, the judges held that the mere development of a company's activity, without modification of the installations, can constitute an increase in nuisances within the meaning of Article L. 112-16 of the Construction and Housing Code. In concrete terms, if your neighbour's business starts working longer, more intensely, or with more customers, you can sue them for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance, even if their machines are the same as on the day of your purchase. Analysis.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

In Rive-de-Gier, in the Loire, a general engineering company has been operating a premises since 1974. In 1988, individuals buy flats in the adjoining building. Very quickly, they complain about the noise from compressors and jackhammers. The company retorts that it has not changed its installations since 1974. However, Article L. 112-16 of the Construction and Housing Code provides that "damage caused to occupants of a building by nuisances […] does not give rise to compensation when the notarial deed evidencing the alienation or lease […] mentions the existence of the nuisances […] and their nature and extent are identical to those existing previously." In other words: if the nuisances are the same as on the day of sale, the new owner cannot claim damages.

But the purchasers argue that the activity has intensified: the hours have extended, the number of employees has increased, and the noise level has risen. The company responds that the machines are the same, except for a compressor shelter. The Lyon Court of Appeal rules in favour of the owners. The company appeals to the Court of Cassation.

On 3 February 1993, the Court of Cassation dismisses the appeal. It approves the Court of Appeal for having held that "the activities causing the nuisances did not continue under the same conditions" and that "the development of the activity without modification of the existing installations led to an increase in nuisances." The key is therefore the evolution of the activity, not that of the equipment.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The Court of Cassation relies on Article L. 112-16 of the Construction and Housing Code. This text, little known to the general public, is nevertheless essential in any neighbourhood dispute relating to a pre-existing activity. It lays down a simple rule: if you buy or rent a property with full knowledge of the facts (mention in the deed), you cannot later seek compensation for the same nuisances. But the law adds a crucial exception: "unless the conditions under which these activities are carried out have been substantially modified."

In this case, the difficulty was that the installations (the machines) had hardly changed. The company therefore argued that there was no substantial modification. However, the Court of Appeal considered that the intensification of the activity (hours, staff, pace) constituted a modification of the conditions of exercise. The Court of Cassation validates this reasoning: the increase in nuisances can result from a simple development of the activity, without technical change.

This judgment is part of a consistent line of case law since the 1980s. The Court of Cassation has always interpreted Article L. 112-16 in a protective manner for victims of nuisances. It refuses a too strict reading that would require a modification of buildings or machines. What matters is the reality of the nuisances suffered by the neighbourhood. If these increase, the right to compensation revives.

Note that the burden of proof lies with the claimant (the owner or tenant who complains). They must demonstrate the increase in nuisances. In practice, this involves bailiff's reports, witness statements, noise measurements or neighbours' testimonies.

What This Changes for You — Concretely

If you are a landlord of a commercial premises let to a craftsman, and you receive complaints from neighbours, this decision concerns you. You are not automatically protected by the age of the activity. If your tenant increases their production, hours or staff, the nuisances may become "abnormal" and engage your liability as landlord (or that of the operator).

For a residential tenant suffering nuisances since moving in: do not give up. Even if the activity was known, you can act if it has intensified. For example, a café that starts playing amplified music until midnight when it previously closed at 8 pm. Or a car repair workshop that goes from 5 to 15 vehicles per day. The 1993 judgment allows you to prove this increase by any means.

For a purchaser: be vigilant when signing the deed. If the deed mentions nuisances, ask for their description to be precise (nature, hours, intensity). This will make it easier to demonstrate the modification of the conditions of exercise in case of aggravation. In Rive-de-Gier, a purchaser was thus able to obtain €5,000 in damages after proving that the neighbouring workshop had doubled its workload in two years.

Finally, if you operate a noisy activity: anticipate. Even without changing your machines, a simple increase in your turnover can expose you to legal action. Consider soundproofing your premises, limiting your hours, or negotiating agreements with the neighbourhood.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Have the nuisance state recorded as soon as you move in: Before moving in or acquiring, have a bailiff's report (approx. €200) made of existing noises and nuisances. This document will serve as a reference to prove any subsequent aggravation.
• Insist on a precise clause in the deed of sale or lease: Ask for an exact description of the nature, intensity and hours of the nuisances. Avoid vague phrases like "noisy activity."
• Keep a nuisance diary: Note dates, times, durations and descriptions of disturbances. Take videos, recordings (with legal caution) and gather neighbours' testimonies. In case of a trial, these elements are crucial.
• Attempt conciliation before suing: Contact the conciliator of justice (free) or engage in mediation. Often, a simple registered letter with a copy of the 1993 judgment is enough to get the operator to react. If mediation fails, you will have a solid case for court.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

The judgment of 3 February 1993 has been confirmed and clarified subsequently. In a judgment of 8 June 1994 (No. 92-19.764), the Court of Cassation held that a change of owner of the noisy activity does not in itself constitute a modification of the conditions of exercise, if the activity remains identical. Conversely, in a judgment of 13 March 2003 (No. 00-21.687), it held that an increase in the number of customers in a restaurant, without any change in installations, could characterise an increase in nuisances.

The trend is therefore consistent: judges protect occupants against the aggravation of disturbances, even when the activity is old. Since the ALUR law of 2014, abnormal neighbourhood disturbances are even better regulated, and mayors can intervene by municipal order. In Saint-Chamond, for example, an order set time limits for craft activities in mixed zones, relying on this case law.

For the future, we can expect courts to become increasingly sensitive to noise nuisances in dense urban environments. The rise of teleworking makes these issues more acute: a noise tolerated during the day becomes unbearable when you work from home. The 1993 case law provides a solid basis for asserting your rights.

Checklist Before Taking Action

• Have I checked whether the deed of sale or lease mentions the nuisances? If so, is the description precise? If not, you can more easily act.
• Can I prove an increase in nuisances? Gather evidence: bailiff's reports, recordings, testimonies, photos. Compare with the initial situation.
• What is the time limit for acting? The action for liability for neighbourhood disturbance is time-barred after 5 years from the day the disturbance manifested itself in a sufficiently characterised manner. Do not delay.
• Which court to seize? If the amount claimed is less than €10,000, it is the local court or the judge for protection disputes. Above that, it is the judicial court. In Saint-Étienne, the judicial court has jurisdiction over the area including Saint-Chamond and Rive-de-Gier.
• What amicable remedies are available before trial? Send a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt to the author of the nuisances, citing Article L. 112-16 and the 1993 judgment. Propose mediation. If nothing changes, you can contact the conciliator of justice.

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

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 →