Easement lawyer in Paris: access, views, pipes, neighbours.

An easement (servitude) is a burden imposed on one plot of land (the servient land) for the benefit of another (the dominant land), as defined in Article 637 of the Civil Code. It does not burden a person but a property: it passes with the property and binds successive owners without any new consent being needed. The most common easements are the right of way in cases of enclavement (Article 682), the easement of view (Articles 678 and 679), the easement for the flow of water (Article 640), party walls (Article 653 et seq.) and the easement for pipes. Easements may arise from the natural situation of the land, from obligations imposed by law or from agreements between owners (Article 639). An easement may be continuous (exercised without human intervention, such as a window or a drain) or discontinuous (a footpath, a right to draw water). It may be apparent (marked by a visible structure) or non-apparent. This dual classification governs how it can be acquired: only continuous and apparent easements can be acquired by thirty-year limitation under Article 690 of the Civil Code.

Article 690 of the Civil Code opens acquisition by thirty-year limitation to continuous and apparent easements only. Both conditions are cumulative. The continuous character means that exercising the easement does not require repeated human intervention: a channelled flow of water, a window, a view or a drain are continuous. The apparent character means an external, visible manifestation: an opening, a pipe, a wall, a piping structure. Proof of thirty years' standing rests on consistent evidence: dated photographs, successive cadastral plans, notarial deeds mentioning the structures, statements from neighbours who knew the earlier situation, tax returns, planning permissions, maintenance invoices. Possession must be peaceful, public, unequivocal and continuous. A physical break, such as blocking up a window for several years, interrupts the limitation period. The Third Civil Chamber has made clear that an initial administrative irregularity (absence of permission, failure to make a declaration) does not prevent limitation (Cass. 3e civ., 21 April 2022, No. 21-12.240, FS-B, published in the Bulletin).

Article 678 of the Civil Code requires a distance of 1.90 metres between a direct view (window, balcony, projection) and the neighbour's land. Article 679 of the Civil Code requires a distance of 0.60 metres for oblique views. A direct view looks out perpendicular to the facade, so that the neighbour is visible without turning the head. An oblique view requires an angle, the neighbour being visible only by turning. The distance is measured from the outer face of the wall in which the opening is made to the boundary of the neighbouring land. Failure to comply is sanctioned: the neighbour may demand that the opening be blocked with a fixed frosted-glass frame, sometimes demolition. The Third Civil Chamber has affirmed the strength of the right of the dominant land in the case of oblique views (Cass. 3e civ., 3 July 1973, No. 72-10.877, published in the Bulletin). The exception provided for in Article 678 allows a direct view at less than 1.90 metres where the neighbouring land is already burdened by a right of way that prevents any building: the view then causes it no building-related harm.

An easement may be created by written agreement between owners (Article 686 of the Civil Code). A notarial deed is not required on pain of nullity, but it is very strongly recommended for two reasons. First, registration with the land registry (service de publicité foncière) requires a notarial deed: without registration, the easement cannot be enforced against third parties, in particular successive buyers. Second, a notarial deed provides legal certainty: a reliable date, precise identification of the plots by cadastral references, a full description of the route and of how the easement is exercised. An easement created by a simple private agreement is valid between the parties, but often loses its effect when the property changes hands. A notarial deed avoids that fragility. For easements acquired by thirty-year limitation, the absence of an initial deed is made up for by judicial recognition: the court records acquisition by limitation, and the judgment, once registered with the land registry, has an effect equivalent to a notarial deed. The firm systematically recommends a notarial deed for newly granted easements.

Article 690 of the Civil Code allows a continuous and apparent easement to be acquired by thirty years' possession. Acquisitive limitation is a strong institution of civil law: it turns a prolonged factual situation into a right. Four conditions must be met. The easement must be continuous (use without repeated human intervention). It must be apparent (marked by a visible structure). Possession must have been exercised for thirty years without physical interruption. It must be peaceful, public and unequivocal. The period runs from the first act of physical use, generally the putting in place of the structure. The Third Civil Chamber has confirmed that administrative irregularity does not break the limitation period: a window opened without permission can give rise to an easement of view acquired by thirty-year limitation (Cass. 3e civ., 21 April 2022, No. 21-12.240). The same applies to the channelled flow of rainwater (Cass. 3e civ., 12 September 2019, No. 18-12.876). The neighbour may interrupt the limitation period by legal action or by a physical act restoring the previous state of affairs.

Article 682 of the Civil Code requires the owner of the dominant land (the one claiming access) to pay compensation to the owner of the servient land (the one bearing the right of way). The compensation is proportionate to the harm suffered by the land crossed: loss of enjoyment, depreciation of the land, constraints arising from the exercise of the easement. Article 685 specifies that the claim for compensation is subject to limitation, and that the right of way may continue even if the claim for compensation is no longer admissible. The amount is calculated by expert assessment, sometimes a joint one by a surveyor and a property valuer. In practice, compensation ranges from €5,000 for a limited pedestrian right of way to €30,000 for a 4-metre right of way suitable for vehicles crossing a garden. Settled case law excludes compensation where the enclavement originates in the division of a single plot: an owner who voluntarily encloses their land is not entitled to impose compensation on the rest of the original division. The firm systematically negotiates the amount before any litigation: a settlement at 70 per cent of the initial valuation quickly closes the case and avoids judicial uncertainty.

Article 701 of the Civil Code forbids the owner of the servient land from unilaterally moving the exercise of the easement to a place different from the one originally assigned. Moving it is therefore not a right of the servient land: it requires the agreement of the dominant land. Article 701 does, however, provide an exception: if the original assignment has become more burdensome for the servient land, or prevents beneficial repairs being made there, the owner of the servient land may offer the owner of the other land a place that is equally convenient for the exercise of their rights, and the latter cannot refuse. This exception is strictly circumscribed: the convenience must be equivalent, the move must not impair the use of the dominant land, and the costs of the move are borne by the servient land requesting it. Failing amicable agreement, the court decides. Proof of equivalent convenience rests on the surveyor's assessment, which compares the old and new routes in terms of length, gradient, practicability and cost of use. The practical rule: the servient land that wants to move the easement must propose a documented and compensated new route, otherwise the move fails.

No. Article 702 of the Civil Code forbids the holder of the easement from making any change that aggravates the condition of the servient land. The rule protects the burdened owner against abusive use. Aggravation may result from more intensive use of the right of way (for example commercial use where the passage was residential), from a change of use of the dominant land, from a de facto widening of the route or from the introduction of pipes not provided for. The Court of Cassation has laid down a strict principle for pipes: a right of way confers the right to run pipes through the subsoil of the route of the easement only if the title creating that easement so provides (our translation) (Cass. 3e civ., 14 June 2018, No. 17-20.280, FS-P+B+I, published in the Bulletin). Any extension beyond the title requires an amendment or the agreement of the servient land. The same decision recalls that the creation, on the dominant land, of a new development such as a subdivision or a planned development zone (ZAC) may lead to an aggravation of the contractual easement, which the judge must examine. Aggravation is sanctioned by cessation, sometimes subject to a daily penalty, and by an award of damages covering the period of aggravation.

Article 703 of the Civil Code provides that easements cease when things are in such a state that they can no longer be used. This extinction by impossibility is not final, however: the easement revives if things are restored so that it can be used again, unless thirty years have already elapsed (Articles 704 and 707). Genuine extinction may result from several causes. Thirty years of non-use (Article 706) extinguishes an easement that has not been exercised for thirty years. Merger (the dominant and servient land coming into the same hands, Article 705) also extinguishes the easement. Express renunciation by the dominant land, formalised by notarial deed, is another route. So is the arrival of the term agreed in the title, where the easement is temporary. Loss of usefulness, under Article 685-1, applies when a right of way arising from enclavement has ceased to be necessary (for example through the creation of a new public road serving the dominant land). In practice, extinction by non-use is proved by the absence of any physical trace of use for thirty years: photographs, plans, testimony, the state of the structures. It is established by court-appointed expert assessment and approval by the court. Buying out the easement opens a negotiated route: the servient land buys the easement from the dominant land, which agrees to release it.

An old window overlooking neighbouring land may benefit from an easement of view acquired by thirty-year limitation (Article 690). If the neighbour raises a wall within the legal distance (1.90 metres for a direct view, 0.60 metres for an oblique view), they infringe your real right. The Third Civil Chamber has held that the owner of a dominant land, beneficiary of an easement, is entitled to obtain the demolition of a wall built within the legal distance of the windows through which the easement is exercised, in order to maintain, for the benefit of their property, the fullness of the real right attached to it (our translation) (Cass. 3e civ., 3 July 1973, No. 72-10.877, published in the Bulletin). The steps to follow: have the state of things recorded by a court commissioner before and after the construction, gather proof of the age of the window (photographs, statements, old deeds), send a formal notice, then issue a writ of summons for demolition. The court assesses the physical existence of the easement of view acquired by limitation and the extent of the infringement, and orders partial or total demolition of the wall, sometimes subject to a daily penalty. The success of the action rests on the strength of the proof of limitation: the chronology must be documented step by step.

Yes. An easement is owed to the land, not to the person (Article 686 of the Civil Code). It follows the property through every transfer: sale, gift, inheritance, division. The buyer of dominant land continues to benefit from the easement, and the buyer of servient land remains bound to bear it. This rule is both protective and risky. It is protective for the dominant land, which does not lose its rights through a mere change of owner of the servient land. It is risky for the buyer of servient land who was unaware of the easement at the time of purchase: they remain bound, unless they can prove that the seller breached their duty to inform. The practical rule for the buyer: require the full mortgage register extract, read the old deeds, have the notary check the easements and, in case of doubt, require a contractual statement from the seller. For the seller, transparency is mandatory: concealing the existence of an easement is fraudulent concealment or a defect of consent, which may justify annulment of the sale or damages. If the easement is not mentioned in the sale deed but exists by an earlier registered title or by limitation, the buyer remains bound, but may take action against the seller or the notary for failure to inform.

The loss suffered by the servient land in the case of an unlawful easement (intrusive view, unauthorised passage, pipe outside the title) is quantified under several heads. Loss of enjoyment corresponds to the loss of normal use of the property: inability to build a terrace because of an intrusive view, loss of privacy, interference with use. Financial loss corresponds to the fall in market value of the property: a flat with an intrusive neighbouring view sells for less, sometimes 5 to 15 per cent less. Loss of peace covers specific nuisances (noise, repeated passage). Non-material loss, more marginal, covers the psychological suffering linked to the neighbourhood conflict. Assessment is made by court-appointed expert assessment, sometimes a joint one (property valuer and surveyor). The court has sovereign discretion, but generally aligns with the range proposed. For a Paris flat worth €600,000 affected by an unlawful view, the depreciation may reach €30,000 to €60,000. Loss of enjoyment is added, generally put at between €100 and €300 per month for the duration of the irregularity. The firm builds a precise costed note before the hearing to structure the claim and anticipate the opposing party's objections. The strength of the figure rests on documentation: quotes for restoration, market comparables, independent property valuation.

The judicial court of Paris has jurisdiction over easement disputes concerning buildings and land located in Paris. Subject-matter jurisdiction lies with the judicial court (without any financial ceiling), in accordance with Articles L. 211-3 et seq. of the Code of Judicial Organisation (Code de l'organisation judiciaire). The civil division handles real estate cases, with a chamber dedicated to neighbourhood disputes. Territorial jurisdiction follows from Article 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure: in real property matters, the court of the place where the property is situated has jurisdiction. For a Paris property, that is therefore the judicial court of Paris (Parvis du Tribunal de Paris, 75017). Representation by a lawyer is mandatory for actions on the merits. An appeal is brought before the Paris Court of Appeal within one month of service of the judgment. Easement disputes are excluded from the jurisdiction of the proximity judge (proximity chamber): the real nature of the right and its technical complexity require the judicial court. The firm regularly pleads before these courts and knows the specialised chambers, their criteria of examination and their timetables. This familiarity makes it possible to steer the pre-trial phase and to calibrate the procedural timetable precisely.