Short-Term Holiday Rentals in France: A Legal Guide for Foreign Property Owners Under the Loi Le Meur
Foreign nationals who purchase property in France often intend to offset costs by letting it as a holiday rental when they are not in residence. The legal landscape for this activity has been fundamentally reordered. France’s Loi Le Meur (Law no. 2024-1039 of 19 November 2024), commonly referred to as the “anti-Airbnb law,” entered into force on 21 November 2024 and represents the most significant tightening of short-term rental regulation in a decade. Its implementing framework became fully operational through 2025 and 2026, with the national registration deadline reaching on 20 May 2026. For non-resident owners—whether British, American, Australian, or from any other jurisdiction—the rules are materially different from those applicable to French residents letting their primary home. This article sets out the legal architecture, recent case law, and practical steps that foreign owners should understand before listing their French property on any short-term rental platform.
I. The Regulatory Framework: What Every Foreign Owner Must Know Before Letting
A. The Three Pillars of Short-Term Rental Compliance
The legal obligations governing a short-term letting in France operate on three independent but cumulative levels. Missing any one of them exposes the owner to sanctions that have been substantially increased since November 2024.
1. Change-of-Use Authorisation (changement d’usage). Under Article L. 631-7 of the Code de la construction et de l’habitation, in communes where the municipal council has adopted the authorisation regime, converting a residential dwelling into short-term tourist accommodation requires prior authorisation from the mairie. The law explicitly provides that “le fait de louer un local meublé à usage d’habitation en tant que meublé de tourisme […] constitue un changement d’usage” (“the fact of letting furnished residential premises as a furnished tourist accommodation constitutes a change of use”). This is the rule that most commonly surprises foreign owners, who assume that owning their property confers an automatic right to let it as they choose. It does not.
The obligation applies to all communes in a zone tendue—areas of housing shortage—which under the Loi Le Meur now covers far more territory than before, including many coastal, mountain, and peri-urban areas where foreign buyers concentrate their purchases. The maximum civil fine for an unauthorised change of use has been doubled to €100,000 per unlawfully converted unit under Article L. 651-2 of the same code, and the président du tribunal judiciaire may order the return of the property to residential use under a penalty of up to €1,000 per day per square metre.
2. National Registration. Since 20 May 2026, every meublé de tourisme offered for rent anywhere in France must be declared through the national téléservice operated by the single public body designated under Article L. 324-1-1 of the Code du tourisme. The declaration must indicate whether the property constitutes the owner’s primary residence. If the owner claims primary-residence status, they must provide proof, including a tax assessment notice (avis d’imposition) showing the property as their tax domicile. A false declaration attracts an administrative fine of up to €20,000. Failing to register at all attracts a fine of up to €10,000.
The national platform, Declaloc, was expected to be fully operational in late 2026. Until it is, registration must be effected at the mairie or through the commune’s own digital téléservice if one exists. The registration number must be displayed on all listing platforms. Since 20 May 2026, platforms such as Airbnb are legally required, under EU Regulation 2024/1028 on short-term accommodation rental data collection and sharing, to randomly verify registration numbers against national databases and to transmit monthly activity reports—including the number of nights booked and guest counts—to national and local authorities.
3. Co-ownership Compliance (copropriété). If the property is in a building governed by the statut de la copropriété (Law no. 65-557 of 10 July 1965), the owner must verify that the règlement de copropriété does not prohibit commercial activity. Many French apartment buildings contain a clause d’habitation bourgeoise—a provision restricting occupation exclusively to residential use—which courts have consistently held to encompass short-term tourist lettings. Under Article 26 of the 1965 Law, as amended by Article 6 of the Loi Le Meur, a general meeting of co-owners may now prohibit the letting of residential units other than primary residences as furnished tourist accommodation by a two-thirds majority of the votes of all co-owners, down from the previous requirement of unanimity.
This provision is currently under constitutional scrutiny. On 18 December 2025, the Third Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation referred to the Conseil constitutionnel a priority question of constitutionality (QPC) regarding whether this two-thirds majority rule disproportionately encroaches on the right of property and the freedom to conduct business, as guaranteed by Articles 2, 4, and 17 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 (Cass. 3e civ., 18 Dec. 2025, no. 25-40.030). The referring decision noted that the provision “est susceptible de constituer une entrave au droit de ce dernier d’user de son bien et, ainsi, de porter atteinte au droit de propriété” (“is liable to constitute an impediment to the right of the owner to use his property and thus to infringe the right of property”). The outcome of this referral will be determinative.
B. The Special Situation of Non-Resident Owners: Why the 120-Day Rule Does Not Apply
A common misconception among foreign buyers is that they can let their French property for up to 120 days per year (or 90 days in certain communes such as Paris, Lyon, Marseille, Bordeaux, and Nice, which have exercised the option under Article L. 324-1-1, IV, of the Code du tourisme to lower the cap). This cap applies exclusively to the letting of a primary residence (résidence principale), defined under Article 2 of the Law of 6 July 1989 as the dwelling occupied by the owner for at least eight months per year. For a non-resident who visits France a few weeks or months each year, the property is by definition a secondary residence (résidence secondaire), to which the 120-day allowance does not apply.
For the non-resident owner, the operative requirement is the changement d’usage authorisation described above. In high-demand communes—Paris is the most prominent example—this authorisation additionally requires compensation: the owner must convert an equivalent amount of non-residential floor space into housing. In practice, this makes obtaining a change-of-use authorisation for a secondary residence in Paris effectively impossible for most individual owners. The financial cost of the required compensation, typically between €1,000 and €3,000 per square metre in Paris, is prohibitive.
It is also essential to verify the position under the owner’s long-stay visa, where applicable. A visa de long séjour visiteur includes a signed undertaking not to engage in any professional activity in France. While managing one’s own property assets is generally considered distinct from professional activity, operating a registered furnished tourist accommodation with a SIRET number and, where income exceeds €23,000 per year, mandatory affiliation to the self-employed social security regime (sécurité sociale des indépendants), begins to resemble professional activity. Prefectures assess this on a case-by-case basis. The question should be addressed before the first letting, not at visa renewal time.
II. Litigation Risk and Judicial Enforcement: The Courts Have Drawn Firm Lines
A. Change-of-Use Violations: Municipalities Are Enforcing—and Winning
French municipalities have become significantly more active in pursuing illegal short-term rentals since the Loi Le Meur came into force. The judicial record confirms that owners and tenants alike face substantial financial exposure.
In a leading published decision, the Cour de cassation held that the letting of a furnished residential unit repeatedly for short periods to a transient clientele constitutes a change of use requiring prior authorisation under Article L. 631-7, and that the tenant who sub-lets in breach of this requirement is personally liable for the civil fine under Article L. 651-2. The Court stated that “est passible d’une condamnation au paiement d’une telle amende civile, le locataire qui sous-loue un local meublé destiné à l’habitation en méconnaissance des dispositions de l’article L. 631-7 précité” (“a tenant who sub-lets furnished residential premises in breach of the provisions of the aforesaid Article L. 631-7 is liable to pay such a civil fine”). An assurance given by the landlord in the lease that the sub-letting was lawful could not exonerate the tenant from personal liability (Cass. 3e civ., 15 Feb. 2023, no. 22-10.187, published in the Bulletin). The tenant in that case was fined €50,000.
Equally important, the Cour de cassation has confirmed that a classification decision as a meublé de tourisme under Article L. 324-1 of the Code du tourisme—the star-rating system operated by accredited bodies such as Gîtes de France—does not substitute for the change-of-use authorisation required under Article L. 631-7. The two regimes are legally independent and obtaining one does not relieve the owner of the obligation to obtain the other. As the Court put it: “une décision de classement en meublé de tourisme ne peut se substituer à l’autorisation de changement d’usage” (“a classification decision as a furnished tourist accommodation cannot substitute for the change-of-use authorisation”) (Cass. 3e civ., 27 Jun. 2024, no. 23-13.131, published in the Bulletin).
In a further decision, the Cour de cassation confirmed that an owner who gives his property for rent to a company knowing that it will be sub-let for short-term tourist accommodation can be personally liable for the civil fine. The owner had made a declaration falsely stating that the property was his primary residence, despite never having occupied it. The Court held that the owner had “donné en connaissance de cause son bien en location à une société qui le sous-louait pour des locations de courte durée à une clientèle de passage” (“knowingly given his property for rent to a company that was sub-letting it for short-term lettings to a transient clientele”). The Court also held, applying the constitutional principles of personal and individual liability of penalties, that the civil fine cannot be imposed in solidum: each party is individually liable for its own share (Cass. 3e civ., 13 Mar. 2025, no. 24-11.508).
B. Co-Ownership, Neighbourhood Nuisance, and Ancillary Risks
Even where the change-of-use authorisation has been obtained, short-term rental activity can generate litigation from the co-ownership association (syndicat des copropriétaires) and from neighbours.
The Cour de cassation has upheld the power of the juge des référés (interim relief judge) to order the cessation of a short-term rental activity operated from a co-owned building pending a decision on the merits, where the activity constitutes a trouble manifestement illicite (manifestly unlawful disturbance). In one case, a société civile immobilière (SCI) had subdivided its lot into three studios and let them on a short-term furnished basis. The co-ownership association obtained an injunction requiring the activity to cease, which the Cour de cassation upheld, ruling that “la gravité des faits constatés justifiait qu’il soit mis fin au trouble manifestement illicite” (“the seriousness of the established facts justified putting an end to the manifestly unlawful disturbance”) (Cass. 3e civ., 25 May 2023, no. 22-17.926).
On the distinct ground of trouble anormal de voisinage (abnormal neighbourhood disturbance), which is a no-fault liability principle rooted in Article 544 of the Code civil, a person who suffers excessive nuisance—including noise from short-term occupants—has a right to damages. The Cour de cassation has confirmed that this right subsists even if the nuisance has ceased by the time the court rules: “la personne qui subit un tel dommage a droit à réparation, quand bien même il aurait cessé à la date à laquelle le juge statue” (“the person who suffers such damage has a right to reparation, even if it has ceased by the time the court rules”) (Cass. 3e civ., 14 Nov. 2024, no. 23-20.880).
The principle also applies in the context of property sales. Where a buyer discovers post-completion that the property is affected by noise nuisance that the seller failed to disclose, the sale may be annulled on the grounds of dol (fraudulent misrepresentation) or erreur sur les qualités substantielles (error as to the essential qualities of the thing sold). In a decision of 8 January 2026, the Cour de cassation addressed a case where buyers had discovered, after acquiring a house, that it was affected by severe noise from an adjacent commercial premises. The Court ruled on the limits of recoverable damages: while the sale could be annulled and the price returned, the seller could not be ordered—under the rules on restitution following annulment—to reimburse costs he had not personally received, such as notarial fees. Damages for loss of a chance of a capital gain on resale were also set aside for insufficient characterisation (Cass. 3e civ., 8 Jan. 2026, no. 23-23.861).
For foreign buyers specifically, one additional protective mechanism merits attention: the diagnostic de performance énergétique (DPE, energy performance certificate). Under Article 1641 of the Code civil, a seller warrants the property against hidden defects rendering it unfit for its intended use. However, a professionally drafted acte authentique de vente (notarial deed) will almost invariably contain a clause excluding the warranty against hidden defects, and French courts routinely uphold these clauses against non-professional sellers. The DPE, although legally classified as informative only and not contractually binding, can give rise to a claim against the diagnostician for loss of a chance to negotiate a lower price. In a decision of 17 October 2024, the Cour de cassation confirmed that where a DPE was erroneous (incorrect roof insulation data), the diagnostician was liable for the buyer’s loss of a chance, but not for the full cost of remedial works, because the DPE “n’a, à la différence des autres documents constituant le dossier de diagnostic technique, qu’une valeur informative” (“has, unlike the other documents in the diagnostic file, only an informative value”) (Cass. 3e civ., 17 Oct. 2024, no. 22-22.882).
This is relevant to the short-term rental context because, since 1 January 2025, properties rated G under the DPE scale may no longer be let as furnished tourist accommodation, and from 2028 the minimum will rise to E. An owner who purchased a property without understanding the legal significance of its energy class may find themselves unable to let it lawfully.
III. Taxation: A Summary Overview
While this article does not provide tax advice—which must be obtained from a qualified expert-comptable or avocat fiscaliste—foreign owners should be aware of the following structural points. Short-term rental income from a French property is taxable in France regardless of the owner’s country of residence, under the principles of territoriality in the France-UK, France-US, and France-Australia double taxation treaties. Non-resident landlords are taxed at a minimum rate of 20% on annual rental income up to €29,315 and 30% above that threshold, plus social charges at 17.2% (7.5% for EU/EEA/UK residents). The tax regime was tightened by the 2026 Finance Law (Law no. 2026-103 of 19 February 2026): the micro-BIC flat-rate allowance was reduced from 50% to 30% for unclassified furnished lettings (revenue ceiling €15,000) and from 71% to 50% for classified meublés de tourisme (revenue ceiling €77,700). Additionally, depreciation deductions previously claimed under the régime réel are now recaptured on sale, increasing the taxable capital gain.
An important threshold: if annual short-term rental receipts across the owner’s French household exceed €23,000, the owner leaves the passive income regime and enters the self-employed social security regime (sécurité sociale des indépendants), with contributions payable in addition to income tax and social charges. Non-resident owners who use a management company should ensure their contractual arrangements clearly allocate tax compliance responsibilities.
Conclusion
The French legislature and judiciary have unmistakably signalled that the era of unregulated short-term holiday letting is over. For foreign property owners, the key points are these: (i) the 120-day letting allowance does not apply to secondary residences; (ii) change-of-use authorisation is required in all zones tendues, and in Paris and several other cities is effectively unobtainable for secondary residences without prohibitive compensation; (iii) national registration became mandatory on 20 May 2026 and failure to register attracts fines of up to €10,000, rising to €20,000 for false declarations; (iv) the maximum fine for unauthorised change of use is €100,000 per unit, with additional daily penalties of up to €1,000 per square metre; (v) co-ownership associations may now prohibit short-term letting by a two-thirds majority, subject to the pending constitutional review; and (vi) municipalities now have access to platform data through EU-wide reporting obligations, making detection of illegal lettings systematic rather than complaint-driven. Before listing a French property on any short-term rental platform, a foreign owner should obtain a legal audit of the three cumulative compliance requirements—change of use, registration, and co-ownership—and seek independent tax advice on the applicable regime.
For more information on French real estate law as it affects international buyers and owners, visit our real estate law practice page.