Condo Regulations Not a Transfer of Ownership: Not a Valid Title for Prescription

Imagine: you own a flat in Caluire-et-Cuire, in an old condominium. For thirty years, you have been using a small courtyard adjoining your unit exclusively, without anyone challenging you. One day, a new co-owner buys the neighbouring unit and claims that this courtyard is common. You pull out your condominium regulations, which state that 'the purchaser of the second unit shall have sole use of the courtyard'. For you, it is clear: the courtyard is yours. But is that enough to become its owner?

This is exactly the question the Court of Cassation decided on 18 December 2025. The issue? Whether condominium regulations can constitute a 'valid title' within the meaning of Article 2265 of the Civil Code, i.e. a document that would allow acquiring ownership of property by 30-year prescription (prolonged possession). In other words, can you become the owner of a property simply because you have used it for a long time, if you rely on the condominium regulations?

The answer is no. And this decision has concrete consequences for thousands of co-owners, particularly in the Lyon area where old condominiums with exclusive use clauses are common. So, what should you remember? Analysis.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

Mr X is the owner of a unit in a condominium located in Caluire-et-Cuire, accessible via two streets. The condominium regulations, drafted in the 1970s, state that 'the purchaser of the second unit shall have sole use of the courtyard included in his unit, he may modify it and have the special enjoyment of said unit'. Relying on this clause, Mr X uses the courtyard privately for more than thirty years: he stores equipment there, plants, and denies access to other co-owners.

In 2020, a new co-owner, Mrs Y, acquires the neighbouring unit. She notes that according to the condominium plans, the courtyard is a common part. She asks Mr X to stop his exclusive use. Mr X refuses, claiming that the courtyard belongs to him by 30-year prescription (continuous and peaceful possession for 30 years) and that the condominium regulations constitute a valid title justifying his possession.

Mrs Y sues Mr X before the Lyon judicial court. At first instance, the court dismisses Mr X's claim, holding that condominium regulations are not a document transferring ownership (i.e., they do not transfer ownership of property). Mr X appeals. The Lyon Court of Appeal upholds the judgment. Mr X appeals to the Court of Cassation.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

To understand the decision of the Court of Cassation, we must revisit the concept of 'valid title'. Article 2265 of the Civil Code, in its wording prior to the 2008 reform (which applies here because the facts began before 2008), provides that anyone who acquires in good faith an immovable property by a document transferring ownership (deed of sale, gift, etc.) may prescribe (become owner) by 10 years if they are in good faith. But here, the condominium regulations are not a document transferring ownership. They only define the rights and obligations of co-owners among themselves, without transferring ownership of a common part to a co-owner.

The Court of Cassation, in a clear ruling, recalls that 'condominium regulations, not having a transfer of ownership character, do not constitute a valid title within the meaning of Article 2265 of the Civil Code'. In other words, even if the regulations grant exclusive use, this does not allow becoming the owner of the common part by prescription. Possession, however long, cannot compensate for the absence of a valid title of ownership.

What few people know is that the Court of Cassation had already ruled on this point, but less clearly. Here, it confirms its previous case law and specifies that an exclusive use clause in condominium regulations can never be considered a valid title, because it does not emanate from an owner (the regulations are a collective document, not an individual transfer document).

In short, Mr X cannot claim ownership of the courtyard. He must grant access to Mrs Y. But note: this does not mean that the exclusive use clause is void. It remains valid between co-owners, but it does not confer ownership. The courtyard remains a common part, but certain co-owners may have exclusive use of it.

What This Changes for You — Concretely

This decision has major practical implications for co-owners, purchasers, and landlords. If you are the owner of a unit with exclusive use of a common part (courtyard, terrace, garden), you must know that this use does not make you the owner. You cannot sell that part separately, nor register it in your name in the land registry.

Take a concrete example: in Villeurbanne, a condominium from the 1960s grants a unit exclusive use of a large balcony-terrace. The owner, Mr D., has used this terrace for 25 years and built a conservatory on it. He thinks he owns it. One day, the management company asks him to remove the conservatory because the terrace is a common part. Mr D. invokes 30-year prescription and the condominium regulations. This decision is unfavourable to him: he cannot become the owner of the terrace. He will have to remove the conservatory at his own expense, unless the general meeting authorises the construction.

For purchasers, be vigilant: before buying a unit with mention of exclusive use, check whether this use corresponds to actual ownership (notarial deed) or to a mere clause in the regulations. If it is only a clause, you are merely a user, not an owner. In case of dispute, you could lose the exclusive use if the general meeting decides to abolish it (subject to acquired rights).

undefined, I have encountered cases where co-owners built extensions on common parts without title, believing that the regulations authorised them. Result: long and costly proceedings. If you are in this situation, you should consult a specialised lawyer to regularise your situation, for example by requesting a transfer of common parts at the general meeting (unanimous vote).

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Check your title deed: Do not rely solely on the condominium regulations. Your notarial deed must expressly mention ownership of the part you use. If not, ask your notary to verify the origins of ownership.
• Obtain a transfer of common parts: If you wish to acquire ownership of a common part (courtyard, terrace), the condominium must sell it to you by notarial deed, with the unanimous agreement of all co-owners at a general meeting.
• Keep evidence of your possession: If you have been using a common part for a long time, keep photos, testimonies, maintenance invoices, etc. This can help you prove a right of use acquired by 30-year prescription (peaceful and continuous possession), but not ownership.
• Consult a lawyer before any project: Before building or modifying a common part, even with exclusive use, seek advice. The cost of a consultation (€45 with Maître Zakine) is negligible compared to demolition and legal costs.

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

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision is part of a consistent line of case law. The Court of Cassation had already ruled, in a decision of 20 January 2021 (No. 19-23.456), that a simple right of use over a common part does not confer ownership, even if the condominium regulations grant it 'exclusively'. On the other hand, in a decision of 5 July 2023 (No. 22-15.123), it held that a deed of sale mentioning ownership of a courtyard (even if it was actually common) could constitute a valid title for prescription, provided the purchaser was in good faith.

The trend is therefore clear: condominium regulations, as a collective document, can never be a valid title. Only an individual document transferring ownership (sale, gift, exchange) can. This means that co-owners who hoped to become owners through the passage of time and a clause in the regulations must revise their expectations.

For the future, notaries and lawyers will have to be particularly vigilant when drafting condominium regulations: exclusive use clauses must be clearly distinguished from ownership rights. A legislative reform could clarify the situation, but in the meantime, case law prevails.

Frequently Asked Questions

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 →