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 \u2014 plan local d’urbanisme<\/em> (local urban development plan, or PLU) zoning restrictions, taxe d’habitation<\/em> surcharges of up to 60%, and short-term rental caps \u2014 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<\/a> before any purchase can address.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The plan local d’urbanisme<\/em> (PLU) is the primary legal instrument through which French municipalities control land use. Under Article L151-9 of the Code de l’urbanisme<\/a>, the PLU regulation “d\u00e9limite les zones urbaines ou \u00e0 urbaniser et les zones naturelles ou agricoles et foresti\u00e8res \u00e0 prot\u00e9ger” (delimits urban zones, zones to be urbanised, and natural, agricultural or forest zones to be protected) and “peut \u00e9galement pr\u00e9voir l’interdiction de construire” (may also provide for a building prohibition). The same article authorises the PLU to “d\u00e9finir, en fonction des situations locales, les r\u00e8gles concernant la destination et la nature des constructions autoris\u00e9es” (define, depending on local circumstances, the rules governing the destination and nature of authorised constructions).<\/p>\n This is the statutory anchor for what has become a powerful municipal power: the ability to distinguish between a r\u00e9sidence principale<\/em> (primary residence) and a r\u00e9sidence secondaire<\/em> (second home) when granting or refusing building permits. The classification derives from Article L151-15<\/a>, which allows the PLU to “d\u00e9limiter, dans les zones urbaines ou \u00e0 urbaniser, des secteurs dans lesquels, en cas de r\u00e9alisation d’un programme de logements, un pourcentage de ce programme est affect\u00e9 \u00e0 des cat\u00e9gories de logements qu’il d\u00e9finit dans le respect des objectifs de mixit\u00e9 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u2014 sometimes only when applying for a permis de construire<\/a><\/em> (building permit) \u2014 that the construction is not authorised because the PLU limits new builds to r\u00e9sidences principales<\/em>. The PLU is a public document, available for inspection at the mairie<\/em> (town hall) and increasingly accessible online via the G\u00e9oportail de l’urbanisme<\/em>. However, the technical language, the cross-referencing between the written regulation and the zoning map, and the prevalence of local amendments (modifications simplifi\u00e9es<\/em> and r\u00e9visions all\u00e9g\u00e9es<\/em>) make self-interpretation hazardous for a non-French speaker.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>, the Court rejected a claim for nullity of sale based on erreur sur les qualit\u00e9s substantielles<\/em> (mistake as to the essential qualities of the thing sold), holding that “l’acqu\u00e9reur, qui n’ignorait aucune des donn\u00e9es juridiques r\u00e9gissant l’op\u00e9ration, connaissait le caract\u00e8re pr\u00e9caire ou limit\u00e9 dans le temps de la constructibilit\u00e9 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>, the Court quashed a ruling that had found the sellers liable for r\u00e9ticence dolosive<\/em> (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<\/em> (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 provoqu\u00e9e par la r\u00e9ticence dolosive \u00e9tant 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 \u2014 they can have genuine legal consequences.<\/p>\n In Cass. 3e civ., 9 November 2023, no. 22-21.314<\/a>, the Court provided further guidance on the standard for establishing dol<\/em> (fraud), holding that “le dol n’\u00e9tait constitu\u00e9 que par la dissimulation intentionnelle, par l’un des contractants, d’une information dont il savait le caract\u00e8re d\u00e9terminant 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.<\/p>\n The legislative framework that made municipal second-home bans possible was introduced progressively, most notably through the Loi ELAN<\/em> (No. 2018-1021 of 23 November 2018) and the Loi Climat et R\u00e9silience<\/em> (No. 2021-1104 of 22 August 2021), which strengthened municipal powers to regulate land use in the service of “mixit\u00e9 sociale” and environmental objectives. By late 2025 and into 2026, a growing number of communes had acted on these powers.<\/p>\n 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 \u00c9ric Fournier confirmed that of the remaining 12 hectares of building land, the vast majority is now reserved for primary residences. Surrounding communes \u2014 Les Houches, Servoz, Vallorcine \u2014 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 propri\u00e9t\u00e9<\/em> (title deed), with notaires<\/em> obliged to verify the buyer’s acceptance before the sale can proceed.<\/p>\n For a foreign buyer, the Royan model is particularly instructive. When a restriction is embedded in the title deed as a servitude conventionnelle<\/em> (contractual easement) or a restrictive covenant, it survives changes of ownership and cannot be lifted without amending the PLU \u2014 a process that requires municipal deliberation, public enquiry, and compliance with the projet d’am\u00e9nagement et de d\u00e9veloppement durables<\/em> (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<\/em> (administrative judge) reviews the PLU’s zoning choices only for erreur manifeste d’appr\u00e9ciation<\/em> (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 appr\u00e9ciation \u00e0 celle des auteurs du PLU” (it is not for the administrative judge to substitute his own assessment for that of the PLU’s authors).<\/p>\n 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<\/a> (published in the Bulletin), the Court addressed the interaction between a plan de pr\u00e9vention des risques naturels pr\u00e9visibles<\/em> (natural risk prevention plan, or PPRNP) and the PLU. The Court recalled that “le plan de pr\u00e9vention des risques naturels pr\u00e9visibles approuv\u00e9 vaut servitude d’utilit\u00e9 publique et est annex\u00e9 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<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n Alongside direct construction bans, municipalities in zones tendues<\/em> (tight housing markets) may impose a substantial surcharge on the taxe d’habitation<\/em> (housing tax) payable by second-home owners. While the taxe d’habitation<\/em> on primary residences was abolished between 2018 and 2023, it remains in full force for second homes. The surcharge adds a further layer.<\/p>\n The legal basis is Article 1407 ter of the Code g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des imp\u00f4ts (CGI)<\/a>, which provides: “Dans les communes mentionn\u00e9es au B du I de l’article 1406 bis, le conseil municipal peut, par une d\u00e9lib\u00e9ration prise dans les conditions pr\u00e9vues \u00e0 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 r\u00e9sidences secondaires due au titre des logements meubl\u00e9s” (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).<\/p>\n 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<\/em> (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<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n 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 C\u00f4tes-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.<\/p>\n For a foreign owner of a second home with an annual taxe d’habitation<\/em> base of \u20ac2,000, a 60% surcharge adds \u20ac1,200 per year \u2014 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<\/em> (ceiling rate) set under Article 1636 B septies CGI, but in practice, most communes applying the surcharge remain well below the ceiling.<\/p>\n 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 \u2014 a procedural requirement that can sometimes provide a temporal window of predictability.<\/p>\n The Cour de cassation has confirmed that challenges to tax assessments must be brought through the specific procedures of the Livre des proc\u00e9dures fiscales<\/em> (Tax Procedures Code), not through ordinary civil litigation. In Cass. 3e civ., 8 February 2023, no. 21-17.408<\/a>, 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<\/a>, the Court confirmed that disputes over undisclosed property defects \u2014 including regulatory restrictions \u2014 must be brought on the basis of either garantie des vices cach\u00e9s<\/em> (warranty against hidden defects) under Article 1641 of the Code civil or dol<\/em> 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 d\u00e9lai<\/em> (short period) required for a vice cach\u00e9<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>. The article, substantially reinforced by the Loi Le Meur<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n The declaration must state whether the furnished rental constitutes the owner’s r\u00e9sidence principale<\/em> (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 \u20ac20,000; failure to register attracts a fine of up to \u20ac10,000; exceeding the annual rental cap attracts a civil fine of up to \u20ac15,000, imposed by the president of the tribunal judiciaire<\/em> (judicial court) under the proc\u00e9dure acc\u00e9l\u00e9r\u00e9e au fond<\/em> (expedited proceedings on the merits), with the product of the fine payable to the commune.<\/p>\n In communes where a changement d’usage<\/em> (change of use) authorisation is already required under Articles L631-7 et seq. of the Code de la construction et de l’habitation \u2014 a regime that applies automatically in Paris and in communes within the petite couronne<\/em> (inner suburbs) that have opted in \u2014 the municipal council may additionally require prior authorisation for the rental of premises not designated for residential use as a meubl\u00e9 de tourisme<\/em>. 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<\/em> authorisation, (ii) a meubl\u00e9 de tourisme<\/em> registration number, (iii) compliance with the 120-day or 90-day cap, and (iv) compliance with any applicable r\u00e8glement de copropri\u00e9t\u00e9<\/a><\/em> (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<\/em> on co-ownership, as amended by the Loi Le Meur<\/em>.<\/p>\n The Loi Le Meur<\/em> 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 \u2014 which transmits declaration data to the commune “sans d\u00e9lai” (without delay) \u2014 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>, the Court held that “l’acqu\u00e9reur avait \u00e9t\u00e9 suffisamment inform\u00e9 par les pi\u00e8ces annex\u00e9es \u00e0 la promesse de vente” (the buyer had been sufficiently informed by the documents annexed to the preliminary sale agreement), rejecting a claim in dol<\/em>. 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<\/em> and the building’s maintenance log \u2014 both annexed to the promesse de vente<\/em> \u2014 provided sufficient notice. The decision illustrates a broader principle: French courts treat the dossier de diagnostics techniques<\/em> (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.<\/p>\nI. The New Regulatory Landscape: PLU Zoning and Second-Home Bans<\/h2>\n
A. The Plan Local d’Urbanisme<\/em> as a Restrictive Tool<\/h3>\n
B. From Chamonix to Cancale: How Towns Are Implementing Bans<\/h3>\n
II. Tax Surcharges and Short-Term Rental Caps: The Financial Dimension<\/h2>\n
A. The 60% Taxe d’Habitation<\/em> Surcharge on Second Homes<\/h3>\n
B. Meubl\u00e9s de Tourisme<\/em>: Registration, Caps and Penalties<\/h3>\n