Breach of the PLU: When can a neighbour sue you for non-compliance with planning rules?

You own a beautiful stone house in Uzès, with an open view over gardens. One morning, your neighbour starts building an extra storey that will block your view and encroach on the set-back margins required by the Local Urban Plan (PLU). You are furious: this is clearly illegal, isn't it? So you can have him condemned, claim damages? Not so simple. The Court of Cassation, in a judgment of 23 November 1982, laid down a formidable condition: to take action, it is not enough that the planning rules are breached; you must also suffer personal harm directly linked to those breaches. In other words, if the construction could have been built in the same way while complying with the rules (an identical volume, for example), you will get nothing. This decision, often unknown to the general public, is nonetheless applied every day by the courts, from Nîmes to Pont-Saint-Esprit. So, concretely, how do you know if you are entitled to act? This article explains everything.

The facts: a story like many that occur every day

Imagine a residential area in Pont-Saint-Esprit. Mr and Mrs Dupont (names are fictitious) have lived in a house with a garden for twenty years. Their neighbour, Mr Martin, decides to build a multi-unit residence on adjoining land. The works partially comply with the PLU, but not entirely: the height exceeds the authorised limit by 0.80 metres, and the distance from the boundary is 2 metres less than the regulations require. The Duponts bring a claim before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Nîmes, seeking demolition of the non-compliant parts and €15,000 in damages for loss of view and sunlight. At first instance, the court rules in their favour: it finds the breaches and considers the harm obvious. Mr Martin appeals. The Nîmes Court of Appeal partially confirms but reduces the damages to €5,000, considering that the harm is not so serious. Mr Martin appeals to the Court of Cassation. He argues that the Duponts have not proved that their harm was directly caused by the breaches. After all, even if the construction complied with the PLU, an almost identical building could have been erected, with similar consequences for the view and light. The Court of Cassation rules in his favour: it quashes the appeal judgment and refers the case to another court, requiring it to verify the direct causal link between the breaches and the alleged harm.

The reasoning of the court — analysed

The Court of Cassation relies on 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 make reparation." In planning matters, a breach of an administrative regulation (such as the PLU) constitutes a fault. But that fault must have caused damage. The core of the reasoning is as follows: the mere fact that a building does not comply with the rules is not enough to establish compensable harm for the neighbour. The harm suffered (loss of view, overshadowing, diminution in property value) must be in a direct causal relationship with the specific breaches, and not with the mere presence of the building. In other words, if the same building, with the same dimensions and appearance, could have been built in compliance with the PLU (for example, by slightly modifying its siting or height), then the neighbour cannot claim compensation for nuisances that would have existed anyway. This reasoning is a confirmation of previous case law: the Court of Cassation is not innovating, it is clarifying. It rejects the Duponts' claim because the Court of Appeal did not consider whether possible compliance with the planning rules by the Martin residence would have allowed a substantially identical volume. In short, the trial judges must compare the actual project with what would have been legally possible. If the two are close, there is no compensable harm.

What this means for you — concretely

If you are a landlord: you rent out a flat in Uzès, and a neighbouring building is constructed exceeding the permitted heights. Your tenants complain about losing light. You could take action against the builder, but beware: if the building could have been authorised with a legal height of 12 metres instead of the 13 metres built, and the height difference is not the main cause of the shadow (for example, the shadow would be almost identical with 12 metres), your harm is likely to be deemed non-existent or minimal. undefined, I have come across cases where owners lost their lawsuits for failing to demonstrate this direct link. If you are a buyer: before purchasing a property, check neighbouring constructions and the PLU. If a project is underway, know that you will not be able to claim against the builder for visual nuisances if the project broadly complies with the regulations. If you are a co-owner: in a co-ownership in Pont-Saint-Esprit, if another co-owner carries out works without authorisation, you can act on the basis of the co-ownership rules, but for harm related to planning, the same rules apply.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Consult the PLU before any property purchase. Go to the town hall or the website of your commune (Uzès, Pont-Saint-Esprit, etc.) to find out the rules applicable to the neighbouring land. This will save you from nasty surprises.
• Have a sunlight and overlooking study carried out by an expert. If a neighbouring project worries you, a consultancy can model the impact of legal and illegal constructions. This report will be crucial to prove the causal link.
• Act quickly: the time limit to challenge a building permit is two months from the date of display on site. After this period, you can no longer attack the permit itself, only breaches observed during the works.
• Prefer mediation before trial. A bailiff's report and a discussion with your neighbour can resolve the problem without legal costs. If you take legal action, prepare solid evidence: photos, measurements, witness statements.

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

Further reading: related case law and developments

This 1982 decision is part of a consistent line. Already in 1971 (Cass. 3e civ., 22 June 1971, No. 70-10.344), the Court of Cassation required that the harm be directly linked to the breach of planning regulations. More recently, in a judgment of 15 September 2016 (No. 15-20.282), it recalled that "the alleged harm must be in direct relation to the breaches committed." The trend is therefore stable: judges are strict on proof of harm. This means that the courts, particularly in Nîmes, frequently reject claims from individuals who complain of a PLU breach without demonstrating specific damage. For the future, we can expect this requirement to strengthen, with increasingly detailed expert reports to compare the actual project with the legal project.

What you absolutely must remember

Here is a checklist to know if you can take action:
1. Have you identified a breach of the PLU or another planning regulation? (e.g., excessive height, non-compliance with set-back margins)
2. Does this breach cause you personal harm? (loss of view, sunlight, property value)
3. Is this harm directly linked to the breach, and not to the construction itself? (if the building had been compliant, would you have suffered the same harm?)
If the answer to question 3 is "yes", your chances of success are low. Otherwise, you can consider legal action. But beware: expert and legal fees can be high (often several thousand euros). It is better to consult a lawyer lawyer before starting proceedings.

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