Right of Way for Landlocked Property: When the Shortest Route Is Required

Imagine: you own a lovely plot of land in Saint-Pierre-des-Corps, with a view of the Loire. To access your house, you have always used a path that crosses your neighbour's property, a certain Mr Collomp. This path takes a 200-metre detour, but you are used to it. One day, Mr Collomp tells you he wants to reclaim this strip of land to plant trees. You find yourself without access. What do you do?

The question that every owner of a landlocked property (a plot without access to a public road) asks is simple: what right of way can I demand over my neighbour's land? Can I choose the one I have used for years, even if it is not the shortest, or must I settle for the most direct route?

The Court of Cassation, in a judgment of 8 July 1974 (No. 73-11.181), provides a clear answer: the right of way must be taken on the side where the route is shortest, in accordance with Article 683 of the Civil Code. It does not matter that you have used another path for a long time: if that path is longer, the judge cannot compel you to maintain it. Explanations.

The Facts: A Story That Happens Every Day

Mr and Mrs X are owners of a plot in Loches, in Indre-et-Loire. Their land, originally agricultural, has become a small housing estate. Problem: it has no direct access to the road. It is landlocked, that is, completely surrounded by neighbouring properties, with no exit onto a public road. To get out, they have used for over thirty years a path that crosses the land of Mr Collomp. This path, about 150 metres long, winds between trees and buildings.

Relations become strained. Mr Collomp believes the path is overused, that the comings and goings of delivery lorries damage his property. He wants his land back. The X couple, worried, ask the court to recognise their right of way and to require Mr Collomp to maintain it in good condition.

The Tribunal de Grande Instance of Tours rules in their favour at first instance. But Mr Collomp appeals. The Court of Appeal of Orléans confirms the right of way, but refuses to order the improvement of the existing path. Why? Because, according to it, the shortest possible route lies elsewhere: it is another path, only 80 metres long, which crosses another neighbouring plot. The judges consider that the X couple must use this shorter route, and not the one they have always used. Mr Collomp appeals to the Court of Cassation, but the Court of Cassation dismisses his appeal.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

To understand the decision, one must first know the relevant provisions. Article 682 of the Civil Code provides that the owner of a landlocked property (without access to a public road) may claim a right of way over neighbouring lands to ensure access to his land. Article 683 specifies that this right of way must be taken on the side where the route is shortest from the landlocked property to the public road.

In short, the law favours the most direct route, even if it means crossing a different neighbour than the one you have used until now. The idea is to limit the inconvenience for the owners of the servient tenements (those who bear the easement).

But what exactly does this change? In the case at hand, the X couple used a 150-metre path. However, there was another route of 80 metres, which was shorter. The Court of Appeal therefore logically applied Article 683, saying: 'You must take the shortest route, regardless of the fact that you have used the other for decades.'

The Court of Cassation validates this reasoning. It adds an important point: the judge cannot order the improvement of the existing path (for example, tarmacking or widening it) if that path is longer than the shortest route. In other words, the landlocked owner does not have the right to demand that the path he uses be improved if a shorter alternative exists. In other words, the right of way is a legal easement (imposed by law), but its location is determined by the rule of the shortest route.

What few people know is that this rule is a matter of public policy: the parties cannot derogate from it by agreement. Even if you and your neighbour agree to use another path, if that path is longer, the judge can impose the shortest one in case of a dispute.

What This Means for You — Practically

This decision has significant practical consequences for all real estate stakeholders.

For the owner of the landlocked property: If you are in this situation, you must prove that your land is indeed landlocked (no direct access to a public road). Then, you must identify, with the help of a surveyor, the shortest possible route to the road. Do not cling to a path you have always used: if another route, even across another neighbour's land, is shorter, that is the one you must use. In my practice, I have encountered cases where owners categorically refused to change paths, which cost them years of litigation and significant legal fees (often €3,000 to €8,000).

For the owner of the servient tenement (the one who bears the easement): You can demand that the right of way be the shortest possible. If the landlocked owner uses a path longer than necessary, you can ask the court to change the location of the easement. However, you cannot remove the right of way, only reduce it to the shortest route. You can also claim compensation for the harm suffered (damage, loss of enjoyment). For example, in Loches, an owner obtained €2,500 in damages because the path encroached on his garden.

For the buyer of a landlocked property: Before purchasing, check the existence of a right of way easement. Ask the seller to provide a subdivision plan or a notarial deed mentioning the easement. If the path used is longer than the shortest route, be aware that a neighbour could request its modification. Anticipate this risk.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Have a boundary survey and a site plan prepared by a surveyor-expert before any acquisition. This will allow you to know precisely the boundaries of your land and any easements. Cost: around €1,500, but this investment saves you from costly conflicts.
• Negotiate an easement agreement with your neighbour, even if the easement is legal. Set out in writing the location of the right of way, maintenance conditions, and any compensation. A private deed (signed between individuals) may suffice, but it is better to have it notarised.
• Verify the state of landlocking before using a right of way. If you have direct access to a public road, even if difficult, you are not landlocked. A 2015 Court of Cassation decision recalled that the landlocking must be absolute: insufficient access is not enough.
• Consult a specialist lawyer as soon as tensions arise. Mediation can often resolve the dispute without court proceedings. In 80% of the cases I handle, an amicable agreement is reached after one or two meetings.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This 1974 decision is part of a consistent line of case law. As early as 1860, the Court of Cassation affirmed that the right of way must be taken on the side where the route is shortest (Civ. 14 March 1860). More recently, a judgment of 10 September 2015 (No. 14-18.667) specified that the judge must take into account not only distance but also the configuration of the premises: a longer route may be justified if it is less harmful to the servient tenement (for example, if it avoids crossing an inner courtyard).

The current trend of the courts is to favour an equitable solution: the shortest route is not always the best. But in the absence of agreement, the rule of Article 683 remains the reference. What should be remembered is that case law is evolving towards more pragmatism, without calling the principle into question.

In Practice: What to Do

FAQ:

• Can I use a path I have used for 30 years without title? Yes, if you can prove continuous, peaceful, and unequivocal use for 30 years, you can acquire the easement by prescription. But be aware: if a shorter path exists, your right may be limited.
• Can my neighbour refuse me passage? No, if your land is landlocked, the law grants you a right of way. But he can request its relocation to the shortest route.
• Do I have to pay compensation to my neighbour? Article 682 provides for compensation proportionate to the harm caused. In practice, it ranges from €500 to €5,000 depending on the inconvenience.
• What if the existing path is impassable? You can ask the judge to order improvement works, but only if the path is the shortest possible.
• How long does a right of way procedure take? On average 12 to 18 months before the Tribunal Judiciaire, and 6 to 12 additional months on appeal.

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 →