Two reported rulings from autumn 2025 draw the line between two rules on landlocked land. The first, in article 684 of the Civil Code: when the enclosure results from the division of a property, the right of way can only be claimed over the land that came out of that division. The second, in article 685: the route of the right of way is determined by thirty years’ continuous use. On 20 November 2025 the Court applies the first strictly, even if the plots were already landlocked before being brought together, and even if they were resold afterwards without any access being arranged. On 2 October 2025 it lets the second prevail: a path used for thirty years over land unconnected with the division fixes the route, and article 684 no longer applies. In both cases the servient land changes, and with it the person who owes the indemnity and its amount.
Landlocked by a division: access is taken over the divided land
In 1999 a couple bring together by two purchases five plots forming a single property, served by one of them. In 2013 they sell the two plots giving access to the public road and keep the other three, now landlocked. In 2017 they sell those three plots to a company, which sues a neighbour unconnected with the whole story to obtain a right of way over his land. The Bordeaux Court of Appeal refuses: the enclosure comes from the 2013 sale, and the right of way is taken over the plots sold then.
The Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil matters) dismissed the appeal (Cass. 3e civ., 20 November 2025, no. 24-17.240, reported). “Where the landlocked state of certain plots is the direct consequence of the division of a single property which was not 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.” And “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”. The neighbour is out of the case; the 2017 buyer must turn to the plots sold in 2013.
Thirty years’ use: the prescribed route prevails over the division
An owner reaches the public road by a path crossing her neighbours’ plot, used for decades. They object. The Bordeaux Court of Appeal holds that the enclosure results from a division and that the right of way must therefore be created over the land that came out of that division, belonging to another neighbour, whatever the thirty-year use of the path; it appoints a consultant to fix the route and that neighbour’s loss.
The Cour de cassation quashed the judgment (Cass. 3e civ., 2 October 2025, no. 24-12.678, reported): “the determination of the route of a right of way by thirty years’ continuous use renders the provisions of article 684 of the Civil Code inapplicable, so that, if the landlocked state of a property results from a division, the route of the right of way giving it access is that acquired by thirty-year prescription, even if it lies on land not resulting from the division”. It also quashed for failure to examine the evidence produced on thirty years’ use. Remittal to the Toulouse Court of Appeal.
What this changes for valuation
The law designates the servient land, the valuer quantifies what it loses. The indemnity owed by the landlocked plot is proportionate to the harm the right of way causes to the land crossed: footprint of the path, depreciation of the plot cut or bordered, operating nuisance, loss of privacy, upkeep. The amount therefore depends entirely on the route retained. A five-metre passage along a boundary, across a meadow, does not cost what a passage through a garden in front of a house costs. The two rulings move the route from one property to another; they move the indemnity and its debtor with it, as the article on the indemnity owed by each plot given access had already shown from another angle.
Selling by dividing, without arranging access, destroys value. The 2013 seller transferred the access plots and kept the landlocked plots without reserving a right of way. Four years later he sold them to a company that discovers it must obtain its access from the 2013 buyers, not from the most convenient neighbour. A landlocked plot without arranged access sells at a discount reflecting the cost, the uncertainty and the time of obtaining access; an easement created in the division deed, with its route and its indemnity, preserves the value of both parts. A valuer assessing land that came out of a division checks the division deed first.
Thirty years’ use, a proof to document. The second ruling also quashes because the Court of Appeal had not examined the evidence on the use of the path: witness statements, official reports, old deeds, cadastral plans. Thirty years’ use is proved by dated documents; a valuer visiting the site records the condition of the path, its visible age, the works, old aerial photographs, and attaches them to the report.
The consultant’s mission. The Bordeaux Court of Appeal had instructed a consultant to find the best route and determine the servient owner’s loss. That is a standard mission for a valuer: compare the possible routes, the shortest and least damaging under article 683, quantify for each the depreciation of the land crossed, and present a table allowing the judge to choose. The quashing puts that mission on another property, with another route and another figure.
For the buyer of a landlocked plot. Before buying, one must know where the enclosure comes from: a recent division, in which case access is taken over the sister plots, whoever owns them now; or long use, in which case the route is the one always taken. The answer governs the cost of obtaining access, and therefore the price.
What the valuer takes from it
- Where the enclosure results from the division of a property, access is taken over the plots resulting from the division, even if the enclosure pre-existed the bringing together of the plots and even after resale.
- Thirty years’ continuous use fixes the route of the right of way and sets aside the division rule, even over land unconnected with the division.
- The indemnity is quantified on the servient land designated by the law: footprint, depreciation, nuisance, according to the route retained.
- A division without an arranged easement depreciates the landlocked plots; the division deed is read before any valuation.
- Thirty years’ use is proved by dated documents, which the report gathers.
Further reading
The Property loss of value page describes the assignment, its timescale and its fee. The glossary entries moins-value, perte de jouissance and préjudice immobilier complement this article. On the same theme: Right of way for a landlocked plot: one indemnity per dominant estate and Compulsory purchase: the refused easement does not erase the depreciation. The decisions are available on Légifrance: no. 24-17.240 and no. 24-12.678.
What next
A landlocked plot, a right of way to fix, and an indemnity to quantify for the land crossed?
I establish the loss of value of the servient land according to the route retained, footprint, nuisance, depreciation, and the value of the plot once accessible, 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).
