Works Without Planning Permission: Can the Landlord Be Convicted for the Acts of His Tenant?

Imagine: you are the owner of a flat in Besançon, which you have been renting out for years. One day, you receive a letter from the court: you are being prosecuted for lack of planning permission (a prior administrative authorisation for certain works). Your tenant had works carried out without telling you, and you are the one being attacked. Unfair, isn't it? Yet that is exactly what happened to a landlord in a case decided by the Court of Cassation in 1992. Fortunately for him, the highest court set the record straight.

This decision answers a crucial question: who can be criminally prosecuted for works carried out without planning permission? Is it always the owner of the land, or the person who ordered and executed the works? The answer is not so simple, and it has direct consequences for thousands of landlords in France.

In the case at hand, a landlord had been fined 54,000 francs (approximately €8,230) by the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal, solely on the ground that he was the owner of the property where his tenant had carried out works without planning permission. The Court of Cassation quashed this judgment, ruling that the lower courts had not verified whether the landlord was the "beneficiary" of the works or "responsible for their execution".

The facts: a story that happens every day

Mr Serge Y., owner of a building in Ornans, had let his property. His tenant, without informing him, undertook construction works requiring planning permission (an authorisation issued by the town hall for major projects). Neither the tenant nor the landlord had applied for this permission. The building site was discovered, and criminal proceedings were initiated.

Before the criminal court, the landlord was convicted for lack of planning permission, on the basis of Article L. 480-4 of the Town Planning Code (the text that penalises town planning offences). He appealed. The Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, relying on a simple reasoning: "the owner of the land, even if he has not personally executed the works, is responsible for offences committed on his land".

Mr Y. then appealed to the Court of Cassation. His argument: he is neither the user of the land (the person occupying the land), nor the beneficiary of the works (the person who benefits from them), nor the contractor, nor a person responsible for execution. Therefore, he cannot be convicted for acts committed by his tenant without his consent.

The reasoning of the court — dissected

The Court of Cassation ruled in favour of Mr Y. It quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal with reference to Article L. 480-4, paragraph 2, of the Town Planning Code. This text is clear: the penalties provided (fine, etc.) can only be imposed against "users of the land", "beneficiaries of the works", "contractors" or "other persons responsible for execution".

In other words: if you are the owner but you do not live in the dwelling (you are not a "user of the land"), you did not order the works (you are not the "beneficiary"), you did not participate in their execution (you are not a "contractor") and you were not negligent in allowing them to happen (you are not "responsible" on another ground), then you cannot be criminally convicted.

The Court of Appeal had nevertheless stated that the owner was responsible "even if he did not personally execute the works". The Court of Cassation held that this reasoning was insufficient: it was necessary to establish that Mr Y. was a beneficiary or otherwise responsible. However, the lower courts had not done so. The judgment was therefore quashed for "lack of legal basis" (insufficient legal grounds).

This decision is not a reversal, but a confirmation: the Court of Cassation strictly interprets the conditions of Article L. 480-4. It protects good-faith owners from automatic convictions. However, beware: if the owner had been informed of the works and had tolerated them, he could have been considered "responsible" and thus convicted.

What this means for you — practically

For landlord owners: you cannot be criminally convicted for works without planning permission carried out by your tenant without your knowledge. However, if you gave your explicit consent or turned a blind eye, you could be considered a "beneficiary" (because the works increase the value of your property) or "responsible". Example: in Besançon, a landlord was convicted because he had signed a commercial lease with a clause authorising the works, without checking the permissions. He had therefore accepted the works.

For tenants: you are directly responsible for the works you have carried out. If you carry out works without planning permission, you will be prosecuted as a "user of the land" or "beneficiary". The fine can be up to €120,000 and the court may order demolition at your expense. In Ornans, a tenant had to pay €15,000 for demolition after building a conservatory without permission.

For purchasers: before buying a property, check that all previous works have been the subject of planning permissions. If works were carried out without permission by the previous owner, you could inherit the criminal prosecution and demolition orders. A purchaser in Besançon had to demolish a garage he had just bought because the seller had not declared it.

For co-owners: if a co-owner carries out works without planning permission in his private parts, the management company can report it to the town hall. The co-owner will be personally prosecuted, not the co-ownership.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Include a clause in your lease: formally prohibit the tenant from carrying out any works without your prior written consent, and require him to obtain all necessary administrative authorisations. This protects you and acts as a deterrent.
• Check previous works before buying: ask the seller for a declaration on oath that all works have been declared. Consult the town planning department of the town hall to obtain an operational town planning certificate.
• Report any suspicious building work promptly: if you are the owner and you discover works in progress at your tenant's without your consent, send him a formal notice (by registered letter) to stop the works, and inform the town hall. This proves your good faith.
• Consult a specialist lawyer as soon as threats arise: if you receive a letter from the town hall or the public prosecutor, do not respond alone. A lawyer can demonstrate that you are not the beneficiary or the responsible person. The cost of a consultation is negligible compared to a fine or demolition.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This 1992 decision has been confirmed by subsequent judgments. For example, in a Court of Cassation decision of 12 March 2003 (No. 02-84.123), the high court held that the owner who had allowed his tenant to carry out works without planning permission for several years without reacting was "responsible" because he had implicitly accepted the works. He was therefore jointly convicted with the tenant.

Conversely, a decision of 8 June 2010 (No. 09-86.321) acquitted an owner who had immediately challenged the works as soon as he discovered them, by sending a letter to the tenant and the town hall. The trend is therefore clear: the good faith of the owner is exonerating, but inaction or tacit consent engages his liability.

Since 2022, a new law has strengthened sanctions for town planning offences, but it has not changed the principle of personal liability. Owners must therefore remain vigilant, but they are not hostages.

Checklist before taking action

• Am I being prosecuted for works without planning permission? → Check whether the works were carried out by a tenant, whether you were aware of them, and whether you benefited from them.
• Did I give my written or verbal consent? → If yes, you are probably a "beneficiary" or "responsible". Consult a lawyer.
• Did I immediately challenge the works? → Gather evidence (letters, photos, statements) to demonstrate your opposition.
• Is the tenant still in occupation? → If yes, you can initiate proceedings to terminate the lease for lack of authorisation.
• Has a planning permission been applied for after the fact? → Regularisation is sometimes possible, but it does not put an end to criminal proceedings. It may reduce the penalty.

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 →