Owners sell the part of their land that fronts the road and keep the rest, which is now landlocked (enclave). Years later, the buyer of the landlocked plots claims a right of way over a neighbour’s land. In a reported decision of 20 November 2025, the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil and commercial matters) holds that a plot landlocked by the division of a single property that was not landlocked gets access only over the plots of that property, even if the plots were landlocked before being brought together and even if the landlocked land has since been resold. The rule designates the land that will bear the right of way, and therefore the land whose depreciation has to be quantified.
The facts
By two deeds of 9 April and 24 July 1999, two co-purchasers bought five plots. The single property thus formed reached the public road through one of them. On 7 March 2013 they sold two of those plots, including the one that provided access. One of the sellers, who remained the owner of the other three plots, now landlocked, sold them to a company on 25 August 2017.
The company sued the owner of a neighbouring plot, which was not part of that property, to have the route (assiette) of a right of way fixed over his land. The neighbour replied that the landlocked state resulted from the division carried out by the 2013 sale. On 11 April 2024 the Bordeaux Court of Appeal dismissed the claim.
In support of its appeal, the company argued that the landlocked state pre-existed the bringing together of the plots, since two of the landlocked plots and the access plot had belonged to different owners until 1999. It added that the buyer of a landlocked plot resold without the seller ever having claimed a right of way may rely on articles 682 and 683 of the French Civil Code, without article 684 being raised against it.
The decision
The Cour de cassation dismissed the appeal (Cass. 3e civ., 20 November 2025, appeal no. 24-17.240, reported). It started from article 684, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code: if the landlocked state results from the division of a property following a sale, an exchange, a partition or “any other contract”, the right of way may be claimed only over the land that was the subject of those deeds.
It drew the rule from it: “Where the landlocked state of certain plots is the direct consequence of the division of a single property which was not then landlocked, a right of way can be established only over the plots of the divided property, regardless of whether the division has the effect of recreating a landlocked state of certain plots which pre-existed the formation of that single property” (translated from the French). It added that “the fact that the plots which have become landlocked are subsequently sold, without a right of way over the plots resulting from the division having first been recognised or arranged, does not preclude the application of article 684 of the Civil Code”.
Having found that the landlocked state was the direct consequence of the 2013 sale, the Court of Appeal rightly inferred, despite the 2017 purchase, “that the right of way giving them access could be established only over the plots resulting from the divided property”. The neighbour, outside the divided property, therefore does not have to bear the right of way, which can be sought only over the plots sold in 2013. The company was ordered to pay him €3,000 under article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The decision does not examine paragraph 2 of article 684, which reverts to article 682 where no sufficient right of way can be established over the divided land. The rule also has a case-law exception, restated by another reported ruling a few weeks earlier: where the route of the right of way has been determined by thirty years’ continuous use, article 684 ceases to apply, even if the path lies on land unconnected with the division (Cass. 3e civ., 2 October 2025, no. 24-12.678, discussed in Landlocked plot: thirty-year use sets the route despite division). The two decisions fit together: the division designates the land that owes the right of way, unless use has already fixed the route, a situation the decision of 20 November does not mention.
What this changes for valuation
The law designates the land that bears the right of way, the valuer quantifies that burden. The indemnity under article 682, proportionate to the harm the right of way may cause, is owed by the landlocked owner to the owner of the servient land (fonds servant), the land the right of way crosses. It is also owed where the right of way is established over the divided property under article 684, unless the owners of the servient land waived it in the deed (Cass. 3e civ., 15 October 2013, no. 12-19.563, reported); the decision of 20 November does not deal with the indemnity. Its amount depends on the route: footprint of the path, depreciation of the plot cut or bordered, nuisance, loss of privacy, upkeep. By moving the right of way onto the plots resulting from the division, the decision changes the land to be valued and, barring a waiver, the recipient of the indemnity; where several properties use the same passage, each owes its own, as the article on the indemnity owed by each plot given access explains.
A division without arranged access weighs on value. The 2017 buyer can seek access only over the plots resulting from the division, which have belonged to third parties since 2013. The cost, the uncertainty and the time needed to obtain access are part of the market value of the landlocked plot; the valuer measures them from the available references and the cost of the path to be created. Conversely, an easement created in the division deed, with its route and its indemnity, protects the value of both parts.
One limit: compulsory purchase. Article 684 covers divisions arising from a contract: it does not apply to a plot landlocked by the division of a property through a compulsory purchase (expropriation) for public purposes (Cass. 3e civ., 28 January 2021, no. 19-21.089, reported). The right of way is then claimed under article 682, over the neighbouring land, in return for an indemnity; the loss of value of the landlocked remainder is compensated in the compulsory purchase proceedings, as the articles on the easement refused by the expropriated owner and on the garage landlocked by the taking show.
What the valuer takes from it
- Where the division of a single property that was not landlocked directly creates the landlocked state, access is taken only over the plots of that property, whatever the state of the plots before they were brought together.
- The resale of the landlocked plots without arranged access does not take the buyer outside that rule.
- The indemnity is quantified on the servient land designated by the law, according to the route retained: footprint, depreciation, nuisance.
- The deeds that formed the property and the division deed are read before any valuation of a landlocked plot.
Further reading
The Property loss of value page describes the assignment, its timescale and its fee. The guide on leaving a family joint ownership describes partition, one of the deeds covered by article 684. The glossary entries moins-value, préjudice immobilier and valeur vénale complement this article. On the exception based on use: Landlocked plot: thirty-year use sets the route despite division. On the same theme: Landlocked land in France: one right-of-way indemnity per user and Encroachment: demolition is due, and the strip of land has a price. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
A plot landlocked after a division, a right of way to fix and to quantify?
I establish the value of the plot with and without arranged access, and the loss of value of the land crossed according to the route retained, footprint, nuisance, depreciation, for an agreement between neighbours or for the court.
Free quote, by email or by phone. No commitment before the quote is accepted. Fees are never linked to the value of the property (Charte de l’expertise, Title I, §2.1).
