View onto neighbouring land: the exception that confirms the 1.90 metre rule

Imagine yourself in Saint-Vincent-de-Tyrosse, in this family home you've just acquired. You want to enlarge a window to enjoy the southern light, but your neighbour objects: according to them, your opening would be too close to their property. Who is right? The law is clear: direct views (i.e., openings that allow direct viewing into the neighbour's property) are prohibited within 1.90 metres of the boundary line.

But here's the thing, as often in law, there are exceptions. And it's precisely one of these exceptions that the Court of Cassation clarified in this 2005 decision. A clarification that can change everything for your renovation project or for your peace and quiet if you're the concerned neighbour.

This case, which could concern any property owner in the jurisdiction of Mont-de-Marsan, from Tarnos to Saint-Vincent-de-Tyrosse, answers a crucial question: when can one derogate from this 1.90 metre rule? The answer is more subtle than it appears, and it relies on a little-known legal concept: the right of way easement.

The facts: a story that happens every day

The story begins with Mr X, owner of a house in Tarnos, in a residential area where plots are relatively close to each other. Like many in the region, he wants to improve his living comfort by creating a new opening in his façade wall. This window would overlook the land of his neighbour, Mrs Y, with whom relations are already strained.

Mrs Y firmly opposes this project. She invokes Article 678 of the Civil Code, which prohibits direct views within 1.90 metres of the boundary line. According to her, this new window would infringe upon her privacy and peaceful enjoyment of her property. Mr X, for his part, argues for an exception: his land would benefit from a right of way easement (a right to cross another's property) over Mrs Y's land.

The conflict escalates and ends up before the court. Mr X argues that this right of way easement, even if it exists for the benefit of another property (that of Mrs Z, a third owner in the neighbourhood), should allow him to have his view. After all, Mrs Y's land is already burdened with an easement, why couldn't he benefit from it indirectly?

The first instance judges and then the court of appeal rule in favour of Mrs Y. But Mr X doesn't give up and files an appeal to the Court of Cassation. This is where the case takes an interesting turn: the Court of Cassation will have to decide a point of principle. Does the exception provided for in Article 678 apply when the right of way easement exists for the benefit of another property, or only when it exists for the benefit of the property enjoying the view?

The court's reasoning — analysed

The Court of Cassation, in its judgment of 23 February 2005, adopts a clear and restrictive position. The judges first recall the general principle: Article 678 of the Civil Code prohibits direct views within 1.90 metres of the boundary of the neighbouring property. This rule aims to protect the privacy and tranquillity of property owners.

But they then specify the exception: this only applies when the property onto which the view is exercised is burdened with a right of way easement for the benefit of the property enjoying the view. In other words, to be able to have a view within 1.90 metres, it's not enough that the neighbouring land is subject to a right of way easement in general. This easement must exist specifically for the benefit of your own property.

In the present case, the Court finds that Mrs Y's land is indeed burdened with a right of way easement, but that this easement benefits Mrs Z's property, not Mr X's. The condition is therefore not met. In short, you cannot rely on an easement that benefits another to justify your view.

This reasoning fits within a logic of protecting property rights. The Court recalls that exceptions to rules protecting privacy must be interpreted strictly. If one too easily allowed close views on the pretext of existing easements, it would significantly weaken the protection of property owners against prying eyes.

But what exactly does this change compared to what one might have thought before this decision? Some property owners mistakenly believed that the mere existence of a right of way easement on the neighbouring land was enough to justify a close view. The Court of Cassation puts an end to this confusion: there must be a direct link between the easement and the property wanting to have the view.

What this means for you — concretely

If you're a property owner in Saint-Vincent-de-Tyrosse considering works, this decision has direct implications. Imagine you own a semi-detached house with land on which there exists a right of way easement. Before creating a new window within 1.90 metres, you must check whether this easement benefits your property or another's.

undefined, I've encountered cases where property owners have undertaken costly works (€5,000 to €15,000 depending on the scale) without checking this precise point. Result: obligation to wall up the opening, legal proceedings, and sometimes even damages to the neighbour. A nightmare that can last months, even years.

For tenants, the situation is different but just as important. If your landlord creates an unlawful view, you could suffer the consequences: deteriorated relations with the neighbour, proceedings that could lead to modification of your accommodation, or even reduced comfort. How to react? First by checking the legality of existing or planned openings.

Purchasers must be particularly vigilant. Before buying a property, have it checked whether existing views respect legal distances. A competent notary in the jurisdiction of Mont-de-Marsan can advise you on this point. If you discover after acquisition that a view is unlawful, you could be forced to remove it, with the costs that implies.

For co-owners, the question also arises during works on common parts. A general meeting decision authorising a façade modification must take this case law into account. However, be careful: co-ownership authorisation does not equal authorisation vis-à-vis external neighbours.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Check the existence and beneficiary of easements before any opening creation project. Consult your title deed and possibly a land surveyor to establish a precise plan of easements affecting your land and neighbouring ones.
• Measure distances precisely between your planned opening and the boundary line. Don't forget that the 1.90 metre distance is measured perpendicular to the boundary, not diagonally. A tape measure isn't always enough: call in a professional for critical measurements.
• Obtain your neighbour's written agreement if you're considering a derogation. Even if an easement exists in your favour, an amicable agreement avoids many conflicts. This agreement should be precise, dated, signed, and ideally countersigned by a notary for greater security.
• Consult a specialised lawyer at the first doubt. A 30-minute consultation (€45 at my practice) can save you thousands of euros in unnecessary works or legal proceedings. What few people know: some neighbourhood disputes can last over 3 years and cost up to €10,000 in legal fees.

Deep dive: related case law and developments

This 2005 decision fits within consistent case law of the Court of Cassation. Already in 1997 (judgment no. 95-15.123), the high court had recalled the strict character of the exception provided for in Article 678. It had notably specified that the right of way easement must be "real and current", not merely theoretical or potential.

More recently, in 2018, the Court of Cassation (judgment no. 17-19.312) confirmed this orientation by refusing to extend the exception to easements other than right of way. In other words, a water drawing easement (right to draw water) or water drainage easement does not justify a view within 1.90 metres.

The trend of the courts is therefore clear: strengthened protection of privacy, restrictive interpretation of exceptions. For the future, this means that property owners wishing to have close views will need to be increasingly rigorous in respecting legal conditions. Judges are less and less tolerant of approximations or attempts to circumvent rules.

What does this mean concretely? Neighbourhood disputes related to views risk multiplying, especially in urbanised areas like Tarnos or Saint-Vincent-de-Tyrosse where plots are often small. Prevention and prior legal advice become essential.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Is an oblique view subject to the same rules?
A: No. Oblique views (which don't allow direct viewing into the neighbour's property) are governed by Article 679 of the Civil Code and aren't subject to the minimum 1.90 metre distance, provided they respect certain height and orientation rules.

Q: What to do if my neighbour has created an unlawful view?
A: You can first attempt amicable mediation. If this fails, you can apply to the judicial court to have the unlawfulness established and obtain removal of the view, possibly with damages for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance.

Q: Are the rules the same for agricultural buildings?
A: No, rules can differ for agricultural buildings, particularly regarding openings necessary for the operation. One should consult local planning rules and the departmental health regulations.

Q: Can an unlawfully created view be regularised?
A: Yes, in some cases, by amicable agreement with the neighbour or by thirty-year prescription (if the view has existed for over 30 years without challenge). But this regularisation isn't automatic and often requires legal proceedings.

Before this decision / After this decision
- Before: Some thought any right of way easement justified a close view
- After: Only a right of way easement for the direct benefit of the concerned property justifies a derogation
- Before: Confusion over interpretation of the exception
- After: Strict clarification by the Court of Cassation

Find yourself 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 →