Abnormal neighbourhood disturbance: can a builder be sued by a third party?

Imagine: you live in Concarneau, in a pretty house with a sea view. One morning, your neighbour starts construction work. Nothing exceptional, you think. But the weeks pass, and a blank wall rises, obstructing your panorama. Worse: the windows of his extension look directly into your home. You feel spied on, your privacy vanishes. What to do? Who to turn to? The neighbour who had it built? The architect? The builder?

This is the question a French property investment company (SCI) asked itself in Chambéry, after a construction created overlooking views onto its land. The company sued the builder on the grounds of abnormal neighbourhood disturbance. But the Court of Cassation put a stop to this strategy. In a judgment of 12 October 2005, it recalled that a third party cannot have more rights against the builder than against the project owner. This decision changes the game for owners and professionals.

So, what does this judgment actually mean? Should you give up any action against the company that built badly? Not necessarily, but you need to know the right procedures. I will explain everything, with concrete examples, so that you know exactly where you stand.

The facts: a story that happens every day

An SCI, owner of a plot of land in Chambéry, one day sees a building rising from the ground right next door. Problem: the windows of this new building look directly onto its plot. The SCI considers that these views create an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance — loss of privacy, depreciation of the property, feeling of being constantly watched. It therefore decides to sue not the owner of the neighbouring land (the project owner), but directly the company that built the building. Why? Probably because the builder is solvent, or because the SCI thinks his professional liability is easier to engage.

The builder, for his part, defends himself by arguing that he only carried out the plans provided to him. He is not the decision-maker, just the executor. The Chambéry Court of Appeal, hearing the dispute, dismissed the SCI's claim. Reason: the SCI did not prove that the views exceeded normal neighbourhood inconveniences. The SCI appealed to the Court of Cassation.

The Court of Cassation quashed the appeal judgment, but on a different ground: it criticised the Court of Appeal for having misapplied the principle of abnormal neighbourhood disturbance. However, it laid down an important limitation: the third party who acts against the builder does not have more rights than if he were acting against the project owner. In short, the SCI cannot circumvent the rules of Article L. 480-13 of the French Planning Code (which limits third-party actions against planning permissions) by directly suing the builder.

The reasoning of the court — analysed

To understand, we need to go back to the texts. Article 1240 of the French Civil Code (formerly 1382) provides that 'any act of a person which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it occurred to make reparation'. This is the principle of tort liability. Furthermore, the 'abnormal neighbourhood disturbance' is a judge-made concept: no one may cause to another a disturbance exceeding normal neighbourhood inconveniences. If this is the case, the victim can obtain compensation without having to prove fault.

In this case, the SCI was precisely relying on this abnormal disturbance. But the Court of Cassation recalled that this principle applies 'between neighbours' — that is, between owners of neighbouring properties. However, the builder is not a 'neighbour' in the legal sense: he is not the owner of the land. He is a service provider. Therefore, the SCI cannot claim from him on this basis more than it could obtain from the project owner (the neighbouring owner) via Article L. 480-13 of the French Planning Code.

This text allows a third party to challenge a planning permission or obtain the demolition of a non-compliant construction, but within very strict time limits (six months after the start of works). In this case, the SCI had not acted within that framework. By suing the builder, it was trying to circumvent this foreclosure (loss of the right to act). The Court of Cassation upheld a plea in bar: no question of widening the third party's rights by this means.

This is therefore a confirmation of previous case law: the builder is not a 'neighbour' liable for abnormal disturbance. His liability can only be engaged on the basis of fault (Article 1240), provided that the victim proves a personal fault of the builder (for example, a design error or non-compliance with professional standards).

What this changes for you — concretely

You are the owner of a house in Châteaulin and your neighbour is building an extension that blocks your view? You will not be able to sue the construction company directly for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance. However, you can act against the project owner (your neighbour) within six months of the start of works, on the basis of Article L. 480-13. After this period, you lose the possibility of requesting demolition.

You are a tenant and a neighbouring construction site is causing you excessive noise? Here again, your direct action against the builder will be limited. However, you can act against the site owner (the project owner) or against the builder if you prove fault (e.g., non-compliance with authorised working hours).

You are a buyer of a property and you discover after the sale that the builder did not properly comply with planning rules? Your main recourse is against the seller (latent defects warranty) or against the builder for fault, but not for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance if you are not a direct neighbour.

Concrete example: imagine that your land in Concarneau loses 20% of its value due to an illegal construction, i.e., €30,000. If you act within six months, you can obtain demolition or damages. If you exceed this period, you will no longer be able to obtain anything from the builder on the basis of abnormal disturbance, unless you prove a personal fault (which is more difficult).

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Act quickly: as soon as works start, check the compliance of the planning permission. If you notice an infringement, challenge it within two months of its display (judicial review) or within six months of the start of works (action for demolition under Article L. 480-13).
• Document everything: take dated photos, keep correspondence, have the disturbances recorded by a bailiff. Without evidence, it is difficult to prove the abnormality of the disturbance.
• Prioritise discussion: before starting proceedings, try conciliation or mediation. An amicable agreement can avoid costs and delays. For example, a compromise on the positioning of windows (blinds, frosted glass) can solve the problem.
• Consult a specialist lawyer: planning law and builder liability are technical. A professional will help you choose the right legal basis and meet mandatory deadlines. A quick 30-minute consultation can save you from losing your rights.

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

Further reading: related case law and developments

This 2005 judgment is part of a consistent line of the Court of Cassation. Already in 1991 (Civ. 3e, 4 December 1991, no. 90-15.364), the Court had held that the builder is not a neighbour and cannot be held liable for an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance unless there is personal fault. More recently, in 2018 (Civ. 3e, 11 October 2018, no. 17-20.813), it recalled that the third party's tort action against the builder is subject to the same limits as the action against the project owner.

The trend is therefore clear: judges want to prevent third parties from circumventing the strict rules of planning litigation by turning against the builder. This protects builders from late actions, but requires victims to react quickly. In the future, we can expect the case law to remain, unless there is a legislative change. The legislator could eventually relax the time limits, but nothing is planned so far.

Frequently asked questions

Can I sue the builder for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance if I bought the property after the construction?

No, because you are not a 'neighbour' at the time of construction. You can act against the seller for latent defects or against the builder for fault, but not on the basis of abnormal neighbourhood disturbance.

What are the time limits for acting against the builder on the basis of fault?

You have 5 years from the discovery of the damage (Article 2224 of the French Civil Code). But you must prove a personal fault of the builder, which is more difficult than abnormal disturbance.

What if I discover a planning infringement after the works are finished?

You can report the infringement to the town hall, which may start criminal proceedings. For a civil action, it is often too late if the six-month period has passed. Consult a lawyer quickly to explore remedies.

Can the builder be ordered to pay for abnormal disturbance if the project owner is insolvent?

No, because the principle is the same: the builder is not a neighbour. But you can act against him for fault (e.g., construction not in accordance with professional standards). In that case, his professional liability insurer may compensate you.

Should I bring an action against the project owner or the builder?

Ideally, both, but primarily against the project owner within six months. The builder can only be sued for fault. A lawyer will advise you on the best strategy for your situation.

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 →