Common Courtyard Easement: When is the Balance of Burdens Lawful?

Imagine: you own a plot of land in Martigues, with a view of the Étang de Berre. One day, your neighbour builds a building and, to comply with building line rules, his only solution is to lean on your land to create a common courtyard. Result: your land is burdened with an easement (a charge limiting your right of ownership) prohibiting building on part of it, while your neighbour obtains a considerable advantage. Is this fair? The question every owner facing an unequal easement asks: can an easement that mainly benefits the other party be challenged?

This decision of the Court of Cassation of 5 February 1980 clearly answers: yes, an easement can impose very unequal burdens, provided its location is dictated by technical or regulatory constraints, and compensation is provided. In other words, it is not the equality of burdens that matters, but the objective necessity of the easement. In this article, we will dissect this case, understand the judges' reasoning, and give you practical advice to avoid or manage this type of dispute.

Whether you are a landlord in Aix-en-Provence, a buyer of a property in a co-ownership, or a private individual, this case law concerns you. Common courtyard easements are frequent in dense urban areas of southern France, where every square metre counts. So, how should you react if you are in this situation? Follow the guide.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

Let's go back to 1969. Mr. André Y. and his brother Albert own a plot of land in Aix-en-Provence, in the city centre. They wish to build a building of ground floor plus five storeys, with open views. But local planning rules require a setback from the public road. As a result, the only possible location for their construction encroaches on the neighbouring plot, owned by Miss Z. To allow the project, a "common courtyard" must be created on part of Miss Z's land, which entails an easement prohibiting building on that area. In short, Miss Z can no longer build on that part of her land, while the Y. brothers can access it and enjoy views.

Miss Z disagrees. She takes the matter to court to contest this easement, arguing that the burden is disproportionate: her land is burdened, while the neighbours derive all the benefit. On 22 April 1970, the summary judge (the judge ruling urgently) orders the creation of the common courtyard easement, on the ground that it is indispensable for the project and that the planning rules leave no other choice. Miss Z appeals. The Court of Appeal confirms the order in 1978. It considers the easement necessary and its location the only possible one given the building line constraints. Miss Z then appeals to the Court of Cassation.

Before the Court of Cassation, she argues that the lower courts did not seek a fair balance between the interests of the parties, as required by Article 682 of the Civil Code (which deals with easements for enclosure or necessity). She argues that the burden is very unequal and that the Court of Appeal should have found a less unbalanced solution. But the Court of Cassation dismisses her appeal on 5 February 1980.

The Court's Reasoning — Dissected

The Court of Cassation validates the reasoning of the Court of Appeal. For the Court, the lower courts properly verified two essential points: first, the necessity of the easement (it was indispensable to comply with planning rules); second, the impossibility of choosing another location (the location was constrained). The fact that the burdens are very unequal is of little importance, provided the easement is imposed by an objective necessity and gives rise to compensation (Article 682 of the Civil Code provides that the easement is financially compensated). In other words, it is not the balance of burdens that prevails, but the technical and regulatory reality.

To understand clearly: Article 682 of the Civil Code provides that "the owner whose land is landlocked and who has no access to the public road may claim a right of way over the lands of his neighbours." Here, it is not exactly a landlocked situation, but the same principle of necessity applies: the planned construction could not be carried out without the easement. The judges therefore applied a "balance of interests" logic: on one side, Miss Z's right of ownership; on the other, the Y. brothers' right to build. The solution chosen is the one that best preserves both, with compensation.

However, note: this decision does not mean that all unequal easements are valid. Judges always verify whether the easement is truly indispensable and whether its location is the least harmful possible. undefined, I have encountered cases where the easement was successfully contested because the applicant did not demonstrate this necessity. For example, if another location was possible (even less convenient), the easement could be refused or reduced.

What few people know is that this 1980 decision remains a constant reference: it is cited in many subsequent rulings on common courtyard and right of way easements. It confirms that the judge has broad discretion to reconcile interests, but is not required to seek perfect equality of burdens.

What This Changes for You — Practically

For landlords: if you rent a property burdened with a common courtyard easement, you must inform the tenant of the existence of this charge. In case of non-compliance, the tenant could complain of a disturbance of enjoyment. For example, if the neighbour uses the courtyard to store materials while the lease prohibits nuisances, you must act.

For buyers: before buying a property in Aix-en-Provence, check the title deed to detect any easements. If a common courtyard easement exists, it may reduce the buildability of the land. Ask the seller for a notarial certificate specifying the nature and location of the easement. If in doubt, consult a surveyor.

For co-owners: if your co-ownership is burdened with a common courtyard easement in favour of a neighbour, know that the charge must be divided among all co-owners proportionally to their shares. Check the co-ownership regulations. If the easement has not been compensated, you may claim damages.

Let's take a concrete example: in Martigues, a buildable plot of 500 m² is worth about €200,000. If an easement prohibiting building covers 100 m², the land value decreases by 20%, i.e., €40,000. Compensation must cover this loss. If it is insufficient, challenge it.

If you are in this situation, you should: 1) check whether the easement is registered in the land registry and the land register; 2) consult a lawyer to assess the fairness of the compensation; 3) negotiate with the beneficiary if the easement is no longer necessary (e.g., if planning rules have changed).

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Anticipate easements before buying: ask the seller for a declaration on the existence of easements and have the title deed verified by a notary. A cadastral extract is not enough.
• Negotiate clear compensation: if you are the owner of the servient tenement (the one bearing the easement), have the loss of value estimated by a property expert before signing any agreement. Compensation must be set out in a written document.
• Verify the necessity of the easement: if you are the beneficiary, ensure the easement is truly indispensable. Otherwise, it risks being annulled for abuse of right.
• Use mediation: before going to court, try conciliation with the neighbour. An amicable agreement is often faster and less costly. The local court of Aix-en-Provence offers free mediation sessions.

Further Analysis: Related Case Law and Developments

This 1980 decision is part of a consistent line of the Court of Cassation. For example, a ruling of 3 March 1978 (No. 76-14.352) had already held that a right of way could be imposed even if it caused significant harm to the servient tenement, provided it was necessary. Conversely, a more recent ruling of 12 September 2019 (No. 18-19.904) clarified that if the beneficiary of the easement does not use it in accordance with its purpose, the owner of the servient tenement may request the removal of the charge.

The current trend of the courts is to protect the right of ownership, but recognising that planning constraints may justify significant interferences. Judges are increasingly attentive to compensation: it must be proportionate to the actual harm. If you believe the compensation is insufficient, do not hesitate to challenge it.

For the future, with urban densification in southern France, common courtyard easements are likely to multiply. Property developers must integrate this dimension from the design stage. Owners, on their part, must be vigilant when buying land or a building.

What You Absolutely Must Remember

FAQ:

• Can I refuse a common courtyard easement on my land? No, if it is necessary and you are compensated. You can challenge the location or the amount of compensation.
• What if the easement is no longer used? You can request its removal if it is no longer necessary. File a claim with the judicial court of Aix-en-Provence.
• What is the deadline to challenge an easement? You have 5 years from the court decision or the signing of the deed. After this period, the easement is prescribed.
• What is the cost of proceedings? Expect between €1,500 and €5,000 in lawyer's fees, plus expert costs (€500 to €1,000).
• Can I negotiate compensation? Yes, before the judge fixes the amount. An amicable agreement is preferable.

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 →