Abnormal neighbourhood disturbance (trouble anormal de voisinage)

Living next to other people means putting up with certain inconveniences: the noise of a school, the shade of a tree, the sight of a building. The law does not compensate these ordinary annoyances. It does compensate the abnormal disturbance, the one that exceeds what everyone must tolerate from their neighbours given the place and the time. Liability then arises without any need to prove fault: causing the disturbance is enough.

For property valuation, trouble anormal de voisinage (abnormal neighbourhood disturbance, the French equivalent of nuisance) is mostly relied on for loss of view, sunlight or privacy caused by a neighbouring building, and for lasting nuisances: noise, smells, dust, traffic. The owner then claims compensation for the loss of value of the property and for the inconvenience suffered.

Where the rule comes from

Long a creation of case law, on the basis of article 544 of the French Civil Code, the principle that no one may cause another an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance has appeared since the Law of 15 April 2024 in article 1253 of the Civil Code: the owner, tenant, occupier or operator who is at the origin of a disturbance exceeding the normal inconveniences of neighbourhood is strictly liable for the resulting damage. The text makes an exception for pre-existing activities carried on in accordance with the regulations.

Abnormality is assessed in concrete terms. The Cour de cassation (French supreme court for civil and commercial matters) refused compensation for a loss of view caused by houses built on the boundary in a housing estate (9 November 2023, appeal no. 22-15.403), and required in 2025 that the context of a dense urban area be examined.

In a valuation report

I do not rule on abnormality, which is for the judge, but I provide its measure. I describe the disturbance precisely: height and distance of the building, hours of sunlight lost, overlooking created, noise levels where measured. I then assess the value of the property before and after, looking for sales of properties exposed to a similar inconvenience in the same area, and explaining the difference. The report also states what the local market regards as normal: in a dense town centre, a building 8 metres away does not have the same effect as in a suburban housing estate.

Example

A house with a west-facing terrace in SAINT-BRIEUC loses its late-afternoon sunlight after a four-storey building is erected 9 metres away. I record a loss of three hours of summer sunshine on the terrace and in the living room. From four sales of comparable houses with and without significant overlooking, I quantify the loss of value at 7 % of a value of €320,000, that is €22,400. The court will decide whether, in this densifying district, the disturbance exceeds the normal inconveniences of neighbourhood.

Not to be confused with

A breach of planning rules, which falls to the administrative courts and does not necessarily amount to an abnormal disturbance, and the rules on windows and views in articles 678 et seq. of the French Civil Code, which set minimum distances without prejudging abnormality.