Lapsed planning permission: seller not liable if challenge arises after sale

Imagine: you have just bought a plot of land in Valbonne, in the hinterland of Grasse, with a valid planning permission in due form. You signed before the notary, paid the price, and are preparing to lay the first stone. Suddenly, a neighbour challenges the permission in court, and the court declares it lapsed with retroactive effect. Your dream collapses. But who is responsible? The seller, who gave you a supposedly valid permission?

This is exactly the question that arose in a recent case decided by the Court of Cassation (judgment of 16 March 2023, No. 21-19.460). A story that could happen to any buyer or seller on the Côte d'Azur, where the right to build is often a source of litigation.

The judges' answer is clear: the conformity of the property is assessed at the time of the sale. If the permission is valid on that day, the seller has not breached their obligation of delivery (the obligation to deliver a property conforming to the contractual specifications). It does not matter that a subsequent challenge retroactively annuls it. Analysis.

The facts: a story that happens every day

Mr and Mrs Dupont (fictitious names) own a building plot in Juan-les-Pins, in the municipality of Antibes. In 2015, they obtained planning permission for a villa with a swimming pool. Tired of the project, they decide to sell the plot in 2017. The buyer, Mr Martin, signs the deed on 15 June 2017. The planning permission is mentioned in the deed, and a certificate from the mayor attests that no challenge is pending and that the permission is not lapsed.

However, a neighbour, Mr Leroy, challenged the permission as early as 2016. The administrative court dismissed his claim in 2018. Mr Leroy appealed, and in 2020, the administrative court of appeal annulled the permission for lapsing (the permission had become lapsed before the sale because work had not started within the legal time limits). This annulment has retroactive effect: the permission is deemed never to have existed.

Mr Martin, who was unable to build, sues the sellers for breach of the obligation of delivery (Article 1604 of the Civil Code: the seller must deliver a thing conforming to the contract specifications). He claims damages (financial compensation) for the loss suffered. The sellers argue that on the day of the sale, the permission was valid: no challenge had succeeded, and the mayor's certificate proved it. The Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal rules in their favour. Mr Martin appeals to the Court of Cassation.

The reasoning of the court — dissected

The Court of Cassation had to decide a delicate question: at what point is the conformity of the sold property assessed? Logically, it is at the time of delivery, i.e., the day of the sale. But when the permission is annulled retroactively, can it be considered that the seller delivered a non-conforming property from the outset?

The Court answers no, by a judgment of dismissal (it confirms the Court of Appeal's decision). It relies on Article 1604 of the Civil Code (obligation of delivery). It clarifies that conformity is assessed at the time of delivery of the property. However, on the day of the sale, no challenge to the permission had succeeded, and a mayor's certificate established that it was not lapsed. The seller therefore properly performed their obligation. The subsequent lapsing, even retroactive, does not change this assessment.

What few people know is that the Court of Cassation here clearly distinguishes the obligation of delivery from the obligation of warranty (warranty against hidden defects or warranty of eviction). The seller is not required to guarantee the buyer against future legal risks, unless they knew of them and concealed them. In this case, the sellers were unaware of the challenge (the neighbour had brought a claim, but the administrative court had dismissed it before the sale).

In other words, the Court applies a common-sense rule: a seller cannot be blamed for what they could not foresee. In short, if you sell a property with a permission that is valid at the time, you are not responsible if a judge annuls it years later.

What this changes for you — practically

For the buyer: You must be even more vigilant before buying. Do not rely solely on the mayor's certificate. Check the history of the permission: when was it granted? Did work start? Were there any challenges, even if dismissed? If the permission is old (more than two years without work starting), it may be lapsed. In that case, demand a warranty in the deed or negotiate a price reduction. Concrete example: in Juan-les-Pins, a plot with a 2018 permission that has not been implemented may be risky. If you buy it in 2025, the permission is probably lapsed, even if no one has challenged it.

For the seller: You are protected if you provide a permission that is apparently valid. But beware: if you are aware of a challenge (even if unsuccessful), you must inform the buyer. Otherwise, you could be sued for fraud (deceit) or breach of the duty to inform (Article 1112-1 of the Civil Code). undefined, I have seen cases where sellers concealed an administrative challenge: they had to compensate the buyer for the loss in value of the land.

For the notary: Their role is crucial. They must verify the validity of the permission and obtain a recent planning certificate. If the permission is lapsed, they must inform the parties and refuse to execute the deed. Their liability could be engaged in case of negligence.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Have an administrative audit carried out before buying: Do not settle for the mayor's certificate. Consult a lawyer specialising in planning law or a surveyor to verify the validity of the permission, the challenge deadlines, and the absence of lapsing. Expect to pay between €500 and €1,500, an investment far less than the cost of a lawsuit.
• Include a warranty clause in the deed of sale: If you are a buyer, negotiate a clause by which the seller undertakes to compensate you if the permission is annulled within 5 years. This clause is rare but possible if the seller is a professional.
• Keep all supporting documents: For the seller, keep the mayor's certificate, evidence of commencement of works (photos, invoices), and proof that no challenge was pending. This will protect you in case of subsequent dispute.
• If in doubt, postpone the sale: If a challenge is pending (even if dismissed at first instance), wait for the final decision. A sale under the suspensive condition of obtaining a permission free of all challenges is possible, but complex.

Further study: related case law and developments

This judgment is part of a constant trend of the Court of Cassation: it protects legal certainty in transactions. The same logic is found in a judgment of 10 September 2014 (No. 13-20.293) where the Court held that the seller was not required to guarantee the buyer against an administrative easement (planning constraint) that had not yet been published on the day of the sale.

Conversely, if the seller was aware of a risk (for example, a pending challenge or a hidden defect), their liability may be engaged on the basis of fraud or the warranty against hidden defects (Articles 1641 et seq. of the Civil Code). The line is therefore fine. This 2023 decision reassures sellers in good faith, but does not exempt them from their duty to inform.

For the future, buyers will need to be extra cautious, especially in high-pressure areas like the Alpes-Maritimes (06), where litigation over planning permissions is frequent. One solution could be to generalise building damage insurance or to take out a specific guarantee with an insurer.

Checklist before taking action

• Before buying a plot with permission: Check the date of the permission, the actual commencement of works (photos, statements), the absence of challenges (consult the administrative court), and obtain a recent planning certificate.
• If a challenge is pending: Do not sign without a suspensive clause. Require that the sale be conditional on obtaining a final permission.
• If lapsing is discovered after purchase: Check whether the seller knew of the risk. If so, you can sue them for fraud (5 years from discovery). Otherwise, you will bear the loss alone.
• For the seller: Provide a complete file to the buyer and have them sign an acknowledgment of the status of the permission. Keep a copy of the mayor's certificate.
• Consult a lawyer: Before any property transaction involving planning permission, a 30-minute consultation can save you years of litigation.

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 →