French Second-Home Restrictions 2026: Municipal Bans, Surtaxes and Short-Term Rental Caps — A Legal Guide for Foreign Buyers

French towns are increasingly wielding new planning powers to curb second-home ownership. From the Alpine resort of Chamonix to the Breton fishing village of Cancale, municipal councils are deploying a range of legal instruments — plan local d’urbanisme (local urban development plan, or PLU) zoning restrictions, taxe d’habitation surcharges of up to 60%, and short-term rental caps — to reserve housing stock for permanent residents. For foreign buyers accustomed to open property markets, this evolving regulatory landscape presents practical and legal risks that careful due diligence before any purchase can address.

This article examines the French legal framework underpinning these restrictions, the remedies available to buyers who discover restrictions after purchase, and the practical steps a foreign purchaser should take to protect their investment. The analysis draws on the most recent legislation, the case law of the Cour de cassation, and the administrative jurisprudence that defines the boundaries of municipal planning power.

I. The New Regulatory Landscape: PLU Zoning and Second-Home Bans

A. The Plan Local d’Urbanisme as a Restrictive Tool

The plan local d’urbanisme (PLU) is the primary legal instrument through which French municipalities control land use. Under Article L151-9 of the Code de l’urbanisme, the PLU regulation “délimite les zones urbaines ou à urbaniser et les zones naturelles ou agricoles et forestières à protéger” (delimits urban zones, zones to be urbanised, and natural, agricultural or forest zones to be protected) and “peut également prévoir l’interdiction de construire” (may also provide for a building prohibition). The same article authorises the PLU to “définir, en fonction des situations locales, les règles concernant la destination et la nature des constructions autorisées” (define, depending on local circumstances, the rules governing the destination and nature of authorised constructions).

This is the statutory anchor for what has become a powerful municipal power: the ability to distinguish between a résidence principale (primary residence) and a résidence secondaire (second home) when granting or refusing building permits. The classification derives from Article L151-15, which allows the PLU to “délimiter, dans les zones urbaines ou à urbaniser, des secteurs dans lesquels, en cas de réalisation d’un programme de logements, un pourcentage de ce programme est affecté à des catégories de logements qu’il définit dans le respect des objectifs de mixité sociale” (delimit, in urban or urbanisable zones, sectors in which a percentage of any housing programme is allocated to categories of housing it defines, in accordance with social mix objectives). While this provision was originally conceived for social housing quotas, municipalities have adapted the logic to prioritise primary residences over second homes by conditioning the “destination” of new constructions.

For a foreign buyer, the practical consequence is significant: a building plot that is zoned for “habitation” (residential use) may nonetheless be restricted to primary-residence use only. The buyer who purchases with the intention of building a holiday home may discover — sometimes only when applying for a permis de construire (building permit) — that the construction is not authorised because the PLU limits new builds to résidences principales. The PLU is a public document, available for inspection at the mairie (town hall) and increasingly accessible online via the Géoportail de l’urbanisme. However, the technical language, the cross-referencing between the written regulation and the zoning map, and the prevalence of local amendments (modifications simplifiées and révisions allégées) make self-interpretation hazardous for a non-French speaker.

The Cour de cassation has consistently held that a buyer who purchases property without verifying the applicable PLU rules bears the risk of restricted constructibility, provided the buyer was in a position to obtain the relevant information. In Cass. 3e civ., 22 June 2023, no. 22-12.407, the Court rejected a claim for nullity of sale based on erreur sur les qualités substantielles (mistake as to the essential qualities of the thing sold), holding that “l’acquéreur, qui n’ignorait aucune des données juridiques régissant l’opération, connaissait le caractère précaire ou limité dans le temps de la constructibilité du terrain acquis” (the buyer, who was not unaware of any of the legal data governing the transaction, knew that the constructibility of the acquired land was precarious or time-limited). The decision underscores that a foreign buyer cannot plead ignorance of French planning law if the relevant documents were available or annexed to the sale deed.

The Cour de cassation has also addressed the related issue of a seller’s duty to disclose urban planning restrictions. In Cass. 3e civ., 4 July 2024, no. 23-11.532, the Court quashed a ruling that had found the sellers liable for réticence dolosive (fraudulent non-disclosure) regarding the non-constructible zoning of the property. The Court noted that the buyer had declared in the acte authentique de vente (notarial deed of sale) that he knew the property perfectly and had obtained all necessary urban planning information from the competent authorities. The decision is notable for its apparent tension: the Court simultaneously recalled that “l’erreur provoquée par la réticence dolosive étant toujours excusable” (an error induced by fraudulent non-disclosure is always excusable), while also recognising that a contractual clause in which the buyer affirms knowledge of the urban planning rules can limit the scope of the seller’s duty. The practical lesson is that these clauses, standard in French sale deeds, are not merely boilerplate — they can have genuine legal consequences.

In Cass. 3e civ., 9 November 2023, no. 22-21.314, the Court provided further guidance on the standard for establishing dol (fraud), holding that “le dol n’était constitué que par la dissimulation intentionnelle, par l’un des contractants, d’une information dont il savait le caractère déterminant pour l’autre partie” (fraud is constituted only by the intentional concealment, by one contracting party, of information whose decisive character for the other party he knew). Where the buyer had multiple visits and was given the keys four days before the sale, the Court found no intentional concealment and dismissed the claim. For a foreign buyer, these decisions highlight a structural asymmetry: the French legal system expects the buyer to be proactive in investigating the property’s legal status, and the seller’s duty to volunteer information, while real, is narrower than in some common-law jurisdictions.

B. From Chamonix to Cancale: How Towns Are Implementing Bans

The legislative framework that made municipal second-home bans possible was introduced progressively, most notably through the Loi ELAN (No. 2018-1021 of 23 November 2018) and the Loi Climat et Résilience (No. 2021-1104 of 22 August 2021), which strengthened municipal powers to regulate land use in the service of “mixité sociale” and environmental objectives. By late 2025 and into 2026, a growing number of communes had acted on these powers.

Chamonix-Mont-Blanc, where 70% of housing stock consists of second homes or holiday rentals, was the first to adopt an express ban on new second-home construction. Mayor Éric Fournier confirmed that of the remaining 12 hectares of building land, the vast majority is now reserved for primary residences. Surrounding communes — Les Houches, Servoz, Vallorcine — adopted similar measures. In Brittany, the seaside town of Cancale (44% second homes) introduced a ban covering most of the town outside the historic centre, applicable to new builds, demolitions with reconstruction, and garden-land subdivisions. In Corsica, Bonifacio adopted comparable measures. The Basque coastal agglomeration of Biarritz, Bayonne, Anglet, Bidart and Boucau agreed to reserve 1,000 hectares of urban land for primary residences. Royan, in Charente-Maritime, went further by requiring that the primary-residence restriction be permanently inscribed in each property’s titre de propriété (title deed), with notaires obliged to verify the buyer’s acceptance before the sale can proceed.

For a foreign buyer, the Royan model is particularly instructive. When a restriction is embedded in the title deed as a servitude conventionnelle (contractual easement) or a restrictive covenant, it survives changes of ownership and cannot be lifted without amending the PLU — a process that requires municipal deliberation, public enquiry, and compliance with the projet d’aménagement et de développement durables (PADD, the sustainable development and planning project) under Article L151-5 of the Code de l’urbanisme. Challenging such a restriction through the French administrative courts is possible but burdensome; the juge administratif (administrative judge) reviews the PLU’s zoning choices only for erreur manifeste d’appréciation (manifest error of assessment), a standard that affords considerable deference to municipal planning authorities. The administrative courts have consistently held that “il n’appartient pas au juge administratif de substituer son appréciation à celle des auteurs du PLU” (it is not for the administrative judge to substitute his own assessment for that of the PLU’s authors).

The Cour de cassation has addressed the consequences of failing to verify PLU restrictions before purchase in another decision that is relevant to this context. In Cass. 3e civ., 19 February 2026, no. 24-10.524 (published in the Bulletin), the Court addressed the interaction between a plan de prévention des risques naturels prévisibles (natural risk prevention plan, or PPRNP) and the PLU. The Court recalled that “le plan de prévention des risques naturels prévisibles approuvé vaut servitude d’utilité publique et est annexé au plan local d’urbanisme” (the approved natural risk prevention plan constitutes a public-interest easement and is annexed to the local urban development plan). This principle extends by analogy to other public-law restrictions annexed to the PLU: any restriction that appears in the annexes to the PLU is binding on the property and, by operation of Article L152-7 of the Code de l’urbanisme, is enforceable against subsequent owners.

II. Tax Surcharges and Short-Term Rental Caps: The Financial Dimension

A. The 60% Taxe d’Habitation Surcharge on Second Homes

Alongside direct construction bans, municipalities in zones tendues (tight housing markets) may impose a substantial surcharge on the taxe d’habitation (housing tax) payable by second-home owners. While the taxe d’habitation on primary residences was abolished between 2018 and 2023, it remains in full force for second homes. The surcharge adds a further layer.

The legal basis is Article 1407 ter of the Code général des impôts (CGI), which provides: “Dans les communes mentionnées au B du I de l’article 1406 bis, le conseil municipal peut, par une délibération prise dans les conditions prévues à l’article 1639 A bis, majorer d’un pourcentage compris entre 5 % et 60 % la part lui revenant de la cotisation de taxe d’habitation sur les résidences secondaires due au titre des logements meublés” (In the communes referred to in B of I of Article 1406 bis, the municipal council may, by a deliberation adopted under the conditions set out in Article 1639 A bis, increase by a percentage between 5% and 60% the share accruing to it of the taxe d’habitation on second homes due in respect of furnished dwellings).

The communes eligible to impose this surcharge are those listed by decree as belonging to a zone d’urbanisation continue de plus de 50 000 habitants (continuous urbanisation zone of more than 50,000 inhabitants) where there is a significant imbalance between housing supply and demand, characterised by high rents, high purchase prices, or a high proportion of non-primary residences. The eligibility list, established under Article 1406 bis CGI, has expanded significantly since 2023 and now covers several thousand communes, including many in the popular coastal and mountain regions where foreign second-home buyers concentrate.

A cluster of towns along the Charente-Maritime coast, including Royan, was among the first to apply the full 60% surcharge. Saint-Cast-le-Guildo in the Côtes-d’Armor department initially adopted the surcharge as well, but suspended it following protests from local second-home owners, some of whom reportedly accused councillors who work as local artisans of “biting the hand that feeds them.” This episode illustrates the political tension that surrounds the surtax, but for a foreign buyer, relying on political pushback is not a risk-management strategy.

For a foreign owner of a second home with an annual taxe d’habitation base of €2,000, a 60% surcharge adds €1,200 per year — a recurrent cost that can materially alter the economics of ownership over a decade. The surcharge applies regardless of the owner’s nationality or tax residence; it is attached to the dwelling, not the person. Article 1407 ter specifies that the total tax rate, including the surcharge, may not exceed the taux plafond (ceiling rate) set under Article 1636 B septies CGI, but in practice, most communes applying the surcharge remain well below the ceiling.

Three limited exemptions exist under Article 1407 ter, II CGI: (i) persons who must maintain a separate dwelling near their place of work for professional reasons; (ii) persons residing in a care institution who previously occupied the dwelling as their primary residence; and (iii) persons who, for reasons beyond their control, cannot use the dwelling as their primary residence. None of these exemptions applies to the ordinary second-home owner. A foreign buyer who purchases a second home in a commune that subsequently adopts the surcharge has no statutory right to a refund or exemption, though the municipal deliberation must be adopted before 1 October of the year preceding the tax year to take effect — a procedural requirement that can sometimes provide a temporal window of predictability.

The Cour de cassation has confirmed that challenges to tax assessments must be brought through the specific procedures of the Livre des procédures fiscales (Tax Procedures Code), not through ordinary civil litigation. In Cass. 3e civ., 8 February 2023, no. 21-17.408, the Court addressed a case where buyers sought damages for undisclosed tax liabilities and held that the civil courts could not bypass the specialised tax dispute resolution framework. And in Cass. 3e civ., 18 January 2023, no. 21-24.266, the Court confirmed that disputes over undisclosed property defects — including regulatory restrictions — must be brought on the basis of either garantie des vices cachés (warranty against hidden defects) under Article 1641 of the Code civil or dol under Article 1137, each with its own strict conditions and time limits. A foreign buyer who discovers an undisclosed PLU restriction after purchase must therefore act within the bref délai (short period) required for a vice caché action under Article 1648 of the Code civil, a period that French courts assess on a case-by-case basis but that rarely exceeds two years from discovery.

B. Meublés de Tourisme: Registration, Caps and Penalties

For foreign buyers who intend to rent out their French property as a short-term holiday let, a parallel regulatory regime applies under Article L324-1-1 of the Code du tourisme. The article, substantially reinforced by the Loi Le Meur of 19 November 2024 (No. 2024-1039) and its March 2026 implementing decrees, imposes a mandatory prior declaration via a national online platform operated by the single public body referred to in Article L324-2-1.

The declaration must state whether the furnished rental constitutes the owner’s résidence principale (primary residence). If it does, the rental is capped at 120 days per calendar year, and the commune may, by reasoned deliberation, reduce the cap to 90 days. The commune may also demand that the owner provide the number of rental days within one month of the year-end. False declarations attract an administrative fine of up to €20,000; failure to register attracts a fine of up to €10,000; exceeding the annual rental cap attracts a civil fine of up to €15,000, imposed by the president of the tribunal judiciaire (judicial court) under the procédure accélérée au fond (expedited proceedings on the merits), with the product of the fine payable to the commune.

In communes where a changement d’usage (change of use) authorisation is already required under Articles L631-7 et seq. of the Code de la construction et de l’habitation — a regime that applies automatically in Paris and in communes within the petite couronne (inner suburbs) that have opted in — the municipal council may additionally require prior authorisation for the rental of premises not designated for residential use as a meublé de tourisme. This layered authorisation system means that in a commune such as Paris, a foreign owner wishing to let a property on Airbnb or similar platforms may need (i) a changement d’usage authorisation, (ii) a meublé de tourisme registration number, (iii) compliance with the 120-day or 90-day cap, and (iv) compliance with any applicable règlement de copropriété (co-ownership regulations), which may independently prohibit short-term rentals under the reinforced provisions of Article 9-2 of the Loi du 10 juillet 1965 on co-ownership, as amended by the Loi Le Meur.

The Loi Le Meur also introduced a mechanism under which the mayor may suspend the validity of a registration number and issue an injunction to digital short-term rental platforms to remove or deactivate a listing when the premises are subject to a safety or insalubrity order under Articles L511-11 or L511-19 of the Code de la construction et de l’habitation. This power, coupled with the new registration platform’s data-sharing functionality — which transmits declaration data to the commune “sans délai” (without delay) — means that local authorities now have both the information and the enforcement tools to police the short-term rental market with a degree of efficiency that did not exist before 2025.

The Court of cassation’s consistent approach to pre-contractual information obligations reinforces the need for proactive buyer investigation. In Cass. 3e civ., 13 July 2023, no. 22-15.816, the Court held that “l’acquéreur avait été suffisamment informé par les pièces annexées à la promesse de vente” (the buyer had been sufficiently informed by the documents annexed to the preliminary sale agreement), rejecting a claim in dol. The buyer in that case had argued that the seller presented the apartment as “luxury” and “high-end renovated” without disclosing thermal and acoustic deficiencies, but the Court found that the diagnostic SRU and the building’s maintenance log — both annexed to the promesse de vente — provided sufficient notice. The decision illustrates a broader principle: French courts treat the dossier de diagnostics techniques (technical survey pack) and its annexes as the primary source of the buyer’s information, and a buyer who fails to read or understand them cannot later claim that the seller withheld material information that was, in fact, contained in those annexes.

In Cass. 3e civ., 16 March 2023, no. 21-23.702, the Court addressed claims brought alternatively on the basis of dol and rescision pour lésion (rescission for lesion) in the context of a sale affected by undisclosed planning restrictions. While the specific facts did not give rise to liability, the Court’s willingness to examine the intersection of planning law and contractual remedies confirms that urban planning defects are actionable in the civil courts, provided the claimant can establish the specific elements required by each cause of action. The burden of proof, however, remains on the buyer.

Conclusion

The convergence of municipal PLU restrictions, taxe d’habitation surcharges, and short-term rental regulation represents a structural shift in the French property market. What was once a straightforward acquisition — buying a house in a French village or a flat in a coastal resort — now requires navigating a multi-layered regulatory framework that varies, sometimes dramatically, from commune to commune. The Cour de cassation’s case law consistently places the primary information-gathering burden on the buyer, while offering remedies when the seller has actively and knowingly concealed a material defect that was not discoverable through reasonable diligence.

For a foreign buyer, the prudent course is to obtain, before signing a compromis de vente (preliminary sale agreement), (i) a certificat d’urbanisme (urban planning certificate) from the mairie confirming the applicable zoning and any restrictions on the destination of new constructions; (ii) written confirmation from the commune of whether the property is located in a zone tendue subject to the taxe d’habitation surcharge; (iii) the current règlement de copropriété if the property forms part of a co-ownership; and (iv) a review of any municipal deliberation limiting short-term rentals or imposing a primary-residence obligation. The compromis de vente should include conditions suspensives (suspensive conditions) that allow the buyer to withdraw if the planning and tax enquiries reveal restrictions that fundamentally alter the intended use of the property. These conditions must be drafted with precision: a generic reference to “urban planning rules” will not suffice to protect a buyer whose specific concern is the prohibition of second-home use.

The case law of the Cour de cassation demonstrates that French courts will enforce the information actually provided to the buyer in the sale documentation, and will not readily relieve a buyer of the consequences of inadequate pre-purchase investigation merely because the buyer is foreign or unfamiliar with the French legal system. Professional assistance — from a notaire, who is obliged to verify the legal status of the property, and from an avocat (lawyer) specialising in French real estate law, who can advise on the strategic drafting of suspensive conditions and identify risks that the notaire’s standard verification may not cover — is accordingly a practical necessity for any foreign buyer entering this increasingly regulated market.