A foreign buyer touring the French market sooner or later meets an advertisement that looks like a pricing error: a spacious Paris flat or a stone house in the Dordogne offered at 40 to 60 per cent below comparable full-ownership prices, with one line of small print explaining the discount. The seller is selling only the nue-propriété (bare ownership), while a third person, often an elderly parent, keeps the usufruit (the lifelong right to live in the property or collect its rents). This arrangement, called démembrement de propriété (split ownership), is one of the oldest institutions of French property law and one of the most attractive entry points for international buyers with patient capital. It is also a minefield of misunderstandings about who pays for the roof, who pays the property tax, whether the occupier can be removed, and what happens when hidden burdens surface years later. This guide explains, for non-resident and foreign buyers, how the price of each half is measured, what the authenticated deed must contain, how running costs and works are divided, and how to exit cleanly, with the practical specifics of Paris and the Ile-de-France. For an overview of cross-border property assistance in the capital, see our Paris real estate law practice for international owners.

I. Buying into split ownership: price, deed, and what you actually own

A. The discount and how it is measured

Split ownership divides full ownership into two complementary rights that coexist over the same building. Under Article 578 of the Civil Code, “L’usufruit est le droit de jouir des choses dont un autre a la propriété, comme le propriétaire lui-même, mais à la charge d’en conserver la substance.” In plain English: an usufruct is the right to enjoy property owned by another, as the owner would, subject to preserving its substance. The usufruitier (usufructuary) lives in the home or lets it and keeps the rents; the nu-propriétaire (bare owner) holds the walls, waits, and becomes full owner automatically when the usufruct ends, most often on the usufructuary’s death, without any further deed or payment. Nothing is shared: each right has its own owner, its own value, and its own buyer pool.

The first question every foreign buyer asks is how large the discount should be, and French law answers with an official measuring stick. For transfer duties and land-publicity tax, Article 669 of the General Tax Code values each half as a fraction of the full-ownership price according to the usufructuary’s age: 10 per cent for bare ownership when the usufructuary is under 21, rising step by step to 90 per cent when the usufructuary is over 91, with the usufruct taking the mirror share. In plain English: the younger the occupier, the longer your wait is deemed to be, and the cheaper your bare-ownership share. For a fixed-term usufruct, the same article values each ten-year period at 23 per cent of full value, regardless of age. These fractions govern taxation, and market practice uses them as the starting point for negotiation, but a buyer should never confuse the tax scale with the market price: a second-hand bare-ownership interest with a healthy 70-year-old usufructuary routinely trades at a deeper discount than the 60 per cent scale value, because the buyer cannot live in the flat, cannot freely resell, and bears the illiquidity risk alone.

Three practical consequences follow for the negotiation. First, the deed should state the price allocated to each right separately, because the statute itself organises simultaneous transactions: under Article 621 of the Civil Code, where usufruct and bare ownership are sold together, the price is divided between them according to their respective values unless the parties agree to carry the usufruct over onto the price. In plain English: each half has its own price, and the parties may instead agree that the usufruct attaches to the money rather than the bricks. Second, verify the usufructuary’s exact age and identity from civil-status documents, not from the estate agent’s brochure: a five-year error around a scale threshold moves the tax value by ten points of the full price. Third, budget financing realistically: French banks lend reluctantly against bare ownership alone, since the collateral cannot be occupied or easily repossessed, so most foreign buyers of split interests pay cash or secure the loan against other assets. In Paris, where full-ownership prices per square metre are the highest in France, the absolute euro discount on a bare-ownership flat can look spectacular; resist the temptation to treat it as a bargain without pricing the wait, the charges discussed below, and the restricted resale market.

The purchase itself follows the ordinary French conveyancing ritual, with two split-specific additions. The sale must be executed before a notaire (the public officer who conveys French property) in an acte authentique (authenticated deed) and published at the land-publicity service, failing which your bare-ownership right is unenforceable against third parties. Insist that the deed identifies the origin of the split, reproduces the exact scope of the usufructuary’s rights, allocates the price between the two rights, and records the inventory and condition report discussed in the next section. A recent ruling of the Third Civil Chamber shows why the paper trail matters: on 6 March 2025 (no. 24-12.122, official decision), the Court recalled that lawfully formed agreements may be revoked by mutual consent and censured judges who had treated a later authentic deed selling only the usufruct as fictitious instead of examining whether the parties had deliberately reshaped their deal. In plain English: a later notarial deed can validly redraw the boundary between the two halves, so every deed in the chain must be read, and the last authentic one generally governs.

B. Living with the usufructuary: use, leases, and the inventory

Buying bare ownership means accepting a cohabitation at distance: someone else enjoys the property, and you cannot shorten their right. The statute protects the usufructuary first. Under Article 621 of the Civil Code, “La vente du bien grevé d’usufruit, sans l’accord de l’usufruitier, ne modifie pas le droit de ce dernier, qui continue à jouir de son usufruit sur le bien s’il n’y a pas expressément renoncé.” In plain English: selling the encumbered property without the usufructuary’s agreement changes nothing for them; they keep enjoying the property unless they expressly waived the right. A buyer who acquires from the bare owner steps into the bare owner’s shoes and waits; a buyer who acquires from both at once reunites full ownership immediately. Never sign a preliminary agreement that promises vacant possession at completion unless the usufructuary is a party to it and waives the right in the deed.

The usufructuary’s powers over tenants deserve close attention from investors. Under Article 595 of the Civil Code, the usufructuary may occupy the premises personally, grant leases to others, and even sell or give away the usufruct itself. In plain English: the usufruct is a marketable asset, and its holder chooses who lives in your future home. Leases granted by the usufructuary alone bind the bare owner after the usufruct ends only within a nine-year framework: leases longer than nine years survive merely for the current nine-year period running at extinction, and short leases renewed too early can be cut short. Before buying, therefore, demand every current lease, check its duration and renewal dates, and have the deed cap the usufructuary’s future letting powers or require your consent for any lease exceeding nine years. A usufructuary in financial difficulty may also encumber the usufruct: on 15 May 2019 (no. 18-12.779, official decision), the First Civil Chamber allowed a creditor to seize, by saisie-attribution (garnishment), the portion of an auction price representing the usufruct’s value. In plain English: the usufruct has a price that creditors can grab, which is good news for the usufructuary’s lenders and a warning for buyers about forced-sale scenarios. Conversely, the usufructuary is shielded from the bare owner’s creditors: on 13 June 2019 (no. 18-17.347, official decision), the same Chamber held that a judge cannot, at the request of a co-owner’s personal creditor, order the auction of full ownership against the usufructuary’s will. In plain English: nobody’s bank can sell the whole building over the usufructuary’s head to satisfy someone else’s debt.

The usufructuary’s identity and lifespan are the two variables that price your investment, and the case law holds surprises on both. First, a usufruct given away does not restart the clock: on 5 January 2023 (no. 21-13.966, official decision), the First Civil Chamber ruled that where a life usufruct already constituted is donated, it ends on the donor’s death, not the donee’s. In plain English: receiving someone’s usufruct as a gift does not buy you that person’s life expectancy; the measuring life remains the original holder’s. Second, the usufructuary must take the property as it stands but only after paperwork: under Article 600 of the Civil Code, enjoyment begins only after an inventory of the movables and a condition report of the buildings, drawn up with the owner present or duly summoned. In plain English: no handover without a documented snapshot of the property’s condition. Foreign buyers should treat this report like the check-in inventory of a demanding landlord: commission an independent surveyor, photograph everything, and annex the report to the deed, because it will decide, decades later, whether deterioration counts as normal wear or as damage the usufructuary’s estate must pay for.

II. Money and risk after completion: works, charges, taxes, and exit

A. Who pays for the roof, the charges, and the tax

The division of running costs is the issue that generates most litigation between the two halves, and the statute draws the line with deceptive simplicity. Under Article 605 of the Civil Code, “L’usufruitier n’est tenu qu’aux réparations d’entretien.” In plain English: the usufructuary owes only routine maintenance. Major structural works stay with the bare owner, unless the usufructuary’s neglect of maintenance caused them. The closed list of major works appears in Article 606 of the Civil Code: “Les grosses réparations sont celles des gros murs et des voûtes, le rétablissement des poutres et des couvertures entières.” In plain English: major works means load-bearing walls and vaults, and the full replacement of beams and entire roofs. Dykes, retaining walls and boundary walls in their entirety complete the list, and everything else is deemed maintenance. The courts read this list strictly: on 12 June 2012 (no. 11-11.424, official decision), the Commercial Chamber confirmed that Article 606 lists major works exhaustively and that only maintenance neglect since the usufruct began can shift a major bill onto the usufructuary. In plain English: if it is not on the short list, the occupier pays; if it is, the bare owner pays, with one narrow exception for damage the occupier let happen.

Three corollaries matter enormously in practice. First, money the usufructuary spends improving the property is lost money at extinction: under Article 599 of the Civil Code, the usufructuary “ne peut, à la cessation de l’usufruit, réclamer aucune indemnité pour les améliorations qu’il prétendrait avoir faites, encore que la valeur de la chose en fût augmentée.” In plain English: at the end of the usufruct, no compensation is owed for improvements, even if they increased the property’s value. Removable ornaments may be taken away subject to restoring the premises, but a new kitchen or a renovated bathroom stays with the walls for free. Second, day-to-day building bills follow enjoyment: the usufructuary pays current co-ownership charges and the courts enforce this directly against them, as the Third Civil Chamber confirmed on 8 February 2011 (no. 10-11.065, official decision), upholding an order that the usufructuary pay the syndic more than six thousand euros whose principle and amount were not seriously disputable. In plain English: the managing agent sues the occupier, not the distant bare owner, for routine charges. Exceptional levies for major works voted by the general meeting, however, fall on the bare owner under the same logic as Article 605. Third, the property tax follows the same principle by statute: under Article 1400 of the General Tax Code, where a building is encumbered with a usufruct, the taxe foncière (local property tax) is assessed in the usufructuary’s name. In plain English: the occupier, not the bare owner, receives the annual property-tax bill.

Extraordinary public charges imposed during the usufruct are shared by a clever statutory mechanism. Under Article 609 of the Civil Code, the bare owner advances them while the usufructuary reimburses the interest, and where the usufructuary advances them, the capital is refunded at extinction. In plain English: capital to the bare owner, interest to the occupier. The default division is only a default: French notarial practice confirms that the constitutive deed may redistribute works and charges by agreement, and foreign buyers should negotiate this clause as hard as the price. Useful reallocations include capping the bare owner’s exposure to voted major works above a threshold, requiring the usufructuary’s prior consent for any works campaign, and providing that whoever votes for non-urgent improvements bears them. In Paris and the Ile-de-France, this negotiation is not academic: facade restorations, elevator replacements and energy-renovation programmes in Haussmann-era co-ownerships routinely produce five-figure calls per lot, and a bare owner who accepted the statutory default without a cap can be called to fund works they neither voted for nor benefit from during the usufructuary’s lifetime. Keep a French correspondence address and a SEPA account, have every general-meeting notice reviewed promptly, and challenge irregular votes within the two-month deadline rather than discovering the levy years later. Our Paris real estate team for cross-border owners reviews these cost-sharing clauses before exchange.

B. Exit, hidden burdens, and the traps that cancel sales

Every split ends, and the statute lists the exits: under Article 617 of the Civil Code, “L’usufruit s’éteint : Par la mort de l’usufruitier ; Par l’expiration du temps pour lequel il a été accordé ; Par la consolidation ou la réunion sur la même tête, des deux qualités d’usufruitier et de propriétaire ; Par le non-usage du droit pendant trente ans ; Par la perte totale de la chose sur laquelle l’usufruit est établi.” In plain English: the usufruct ends with the usufructuary’s death, expiry of its term, merger of both halves in one person, thirty years of non-use, or total destruction of the property. Corporate usufructs are capped: under Article 619 of the Civil Code, a usufruct granted to a non-individual lasts only thirty years. In plain English: companies cannot hold perpetual enjoyment rights. At extinction the bare owner becomes full owner by operation of law, with no deed, no consent and no additional price, which is precisely why patient buyers accept the wait. Before that day, the bare owner may resell the bare interest, but should expect a second discount: the buyer pool for occupied bare ownership is narrow, bridging lenders are scarce, and each successive buyer reprices the remaining life expectancy.

The most dangerous trap for buyers is not the wait but what the seller failed to declare. French sale law guarantees the buyer against undisclosed burdens: under Article 1638 of the Civil Code, a buyer who discovers an undeclared non-apparent encumbrance so significant that they would presumably not have bought had they known “peut demander la résiliation du contrat, si mieux il n’aime se contenter d’une indemnité.” In plain English: they may claim termination of the contract, or settle for damages instead. The parties may modulate the guarantee by agreement under Article 1627 of the Civil Code, but standard “as-is” wording does not erase a burden the seller knew and hid. The leading recent illustration arose from a split-ownership resale: on 13 February 2025 (no. 23-17.636, official decision), buyers who had purchased a house from bare owners and a usufructuary together discovered an undeclared wastewater network beneath the dwelling and sued for termination of the sale under the hidden-charges guarantee. In plain English: even where sellers split the price between themselves correctly, they answer together for what none of them disclosed. Foreign buyers should therefore commission drainage, easement and underground-network searches before signing, require the deed to list every known servitude with its publication reference, and refuse clauses that waive the guarantee while the seller withholds the very information the waiver would cover.

Rural property adds a preemption trap that has actually annulled split sales. Parties sometimes attempt to sidestep the agricultural land agency’s preemption right by selling the usufruct to one person and the bare ownership to another in the same deed, presenting the operation as two exempt split transfers rather than one full-ownership sale. On 31 May 2018 (no. 16-25.829, official decision), the Third Civil Chamber endorsed the annulment of exactly such a simultaneous sale, holding that the deed transferred both rights at once and therefore the full ownership in a single operation, triggering the agency’s public-policy preemption prerogatives. In plain English: selling both halves together, even to different buyers, counts as selling the whole, and the rural preemption right applies in full. Foreign buyers of vineyards, farms or rural houses with split structures must therefore verify that the land agency was properly notified with an offer-equivalent notice, not merely informed of an supposedly exempt operation, and should calendar the agency’s response time before committing funds. Combined with the tenant-farmer and municipal preemption rights examined in our earlier guides, this ruling confirms a simple rule for the countryside: any deed that economically reconstitutes full ownership in one stroke must pass through every applicable preemption check, whatever labels the parties stick on each half.

Conclusion

Buying French property in split ownership exchanges immediate enjoyment for price, and the exchange is fair only when each term is measured. The tax scale of Article 669 prices the wait but the market reprices it deeper; the authentic deed fixes each half and its price; the usufructuary leases, maintains and pays the routine bills while the bare owner funds the structure and the property tax stays with the occupier; improvements enrich the walls for free; and extinction reunites full ownership without further payment. Around this core, three court-tested warnings protect the foreign buyer: verify every lease and every usufruct chain before signing, because donation does not restart the measuring life and creditors can seize the usufruct’s value; search for hidden networks and servitudes before completion, because the 2025 case law lets a deceived buyer unwind the whole sale; and treat any simultaneous transfer of both halves, especially in the countryside, as a full-ownership sale subject to preemption. Organise the file with the same discipline as a full-price purchase, surveyor’s inventory, age verified, leases capped, works clause negotiated, searches completed, and the discounted half becomes what it promises to be: time converted into equity.