Abnormal Neighbourhood Disturbance: When the Construction of a Taller Building Does Not Justify Compensation

Imagine: you own a flat with a clear view of the port of Toulon. Every morning, the sun comes into your home. But one day, a developer announces the construction of a six-storey building right opposite. Your view disappears, your flat darkens. Are you entitled to compensation? Not so fast. The French Supreme Court, in a decision of 11 February 1976 (No. 74-13.718), reminded that not every neighbourhood disturbance is compensable. It must be abnormal.

This decision, handed down nearly fifty years ago, remains a reference point on abnormal neighbourhood disturbance. It concerns owners of a building in Toulon who claimed they were prejudiced by the construction of a taller commercial building across the street. Result: the judges considered that the loss of sunlight and the depreciation of the building were not serious enough to warrant compensation. Why? Because the district was old, the streets narrow, and commercial activity intense.

So, what can you do if you are in the same situation? This decision helps you understand when a neighbourhood disturbance is "normal" and when it becomes "abnormal". We will now break this down with concrete examples in Six-Fours-les-Plages and Toulon.

The Facts: A Story That Happens Every Day

In this case, the owners of a building in the centre of Toulon, on a narrow shopping street, saw a new building go up opposite theirs. This new building, used for commercial purposes, was taller than theirs. Direct consequence: the lower floors of their building lost part of their sunlight. For these owners, this was a definite harm: less light, an obstructed view, and, in their view, a decrease in the value of their property.

They therefore sued the construction company for compensation for their loss. Their claim? To obtain damages for the neighbourhood disturbance suffered. The company, for its part, argued that the construction complied with the town planning plan and that the loss of sunlight was a normal inconvenience in a dense district.

The case was brought before the Court of Appeal, then before the Court of Cassation. The trial judges (those who examine the facts) dismissed the claim. For them, the disturbance was not "abnormal". The Court of Cassation upheld this reasoning. It held that the trial judges could, without contradicting themselves, consider that the loss of sunlight was a normal damage in an old district with narrow streets, and that the depreciation in market value was not proven.

The Reasoning of the Court — Explained

The legal basis of this case is Article 1240 of the Civil Code (formerly 1382), which provides that "any act of a person which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it occurred to repair it." Applied to neighbourhood relations, this means that an owner who causes a disturbance exceeding the normal inconveniences of neighbourhood must compensate for the harm.

But what is a normal inconvenience? That is where the decision is crucial. The judges sovereignly held that, in this dense and commercial district of Toulon, losing a bit of sun was an ordinary inconvenience. They noted two elements: on the one hand, the loss of amenity (the loss of pleasure linked to the reduction in sunlight) was normal given the urban context; on the other hand, the depreciation in market value (the decrease in sale price) was not proven.

The Court of Cassation did not rehear the case: it only verified that the trial judges had properly reasoned their decision. And they had. It therefore dismissed the owners' appeal. This decision is neither a reversal nor an evolution: it confirms a consistent case law according to which not every disturbance is compensable; it must be abnormal.

What This Changes for You — Practically

If you are an owner in Six-Fours-les-Plages or Toulon, and you suffer a loss of sunlight due to a neighbouring construction, this decision directly concerns you. It teaches you that you will not be automatically compensated. To obtain compensation, you must prove that the disturbance is abnormal — that is, it exceeds what a reasonable neighbour can accept.

Take a concrete example: an owner in Toulon sees his flat lose 30% of its brightness. If the district is old and the streets narrow, the court might consider this loss normal. On the other hand, if you lose all light in winter, or if you are in a residential suburban district, the disturbance could be deemed abnormal. The difference can represent several thousand euros in compensation.

For tenants, the situation is different: they can take action against their landlord for disturbance of enjoyment, but the same logic applies. For buyers, check the sunlight before purchasing, especially in city centres. Finally, co-owners should know that the construction of a taller building opposite can be challenged if the planning permission is illegal, but on the substance of the disturbance, this decision limits their chances.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Before buying, check the Local Town Planning Plan (PLU): Visit the town hall to check the rules on height and distance of neighbouring constructions. In Six-Fours-les-Plages, the PLU is available online. This will save you from surprises.
• Commission a sunlight study: If you fear that a construction project will cause you to lose light, hire an expert to assess the impact. This can serve as evidence in case of a dispute.
• Consult a lawyer as soon as a planning permission is notified: You have two months to challenge a planning permission. Do not miss the deadline. A lawyer specialising in planning law can advise you quickly.
• Document the disturbance: Take photos, videos, note the hours of sunlight before and after. The more evidence you have, the easier it will be to demonstrate the abnormality of the disturbance.

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

Going Deeper: Related Case Law and Developments

This 1976 decision is part of a line of decisions defining abnormal neighbourhood disturbance. For example, the Court of Cassation has held that repeated noise nuisances (decision of 19 November 1986) or unbearable odours (decision of 8 June 1994) can constitute abnormal disturbance. But for sunlight, the trend is more restrictive. Judges often consider that loss of light is an inherent inconvenience of city life, unless it is extreme.

Since 1976, the notion of abnormal disturbance has evolved: courts take into account criteria such as intensity, duration, frequency of the disturbance, and the local context. In the suburban areas of Six-Fours-les-Plages, where constructions are less dense, a loss of sunlight could be deemed more serious than in the centre of Toulon. This decision therefore remains relevant, but each case is unique.

In Practice: What to Do

1. Identify the disturbance: Loss of sunlight, obstructed view, noise, odours? Note everything.
2. Check whether it is normal or abnormal: Compare with the neighbourhood. In a dense district, tolerance is greater.
3. Gather evidence: Photos, witness statements, bailiff's report if necessary.
4. Consult a lawyer: Before taking legal action, have your chances assessed. A 30-minute consultation can save you from an expensive procedure.
5. Send a formal notice to the neighbour: Send a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt to request an amicable solution. Often, an agreement is possible.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of procedure — and often much more. Book an appointment →