An owner sees the construction of a block of flats wipe out the view she had of the Belledonne mountain range, and loses sunlight. The Court of Appeal awards her €25,000 for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance, holding that she could expect a building, but a less massive one. The Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil matters) quashed: the developer argued that several similar blocks already stood in that area, the most densely built-up in the municipality, and the Court of Appeal did not answer. The decision of 26 September 2024 precedes that of 27 March 2025 on dense urban areas; together they fix the first question a report on a loss of view must deal with.
The facts
A property-holding company built a block of flats near Grenoble. A neighbour sued it for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance (trouble anormal de voisinage): the building blocked the view she had of a mountain range, caused her a loss of sunlight and depreciated her property.
On 24 January 2023 the Grenoble Court of Appeal ordered the company to pay €25,000 for the loss of view. It held that the view from the house “had been radically altered” (translated from the French), having previously been open over tall trees with a glimpse of the mountains, and that while the neighbour must have been aware of the likelihood of a building on the neighbouring plot, which was buildable, “she could only expect less massive buildings preserving a more harmonious view than the present one”.
The decision
The Cour de cassation quashed (Cass. 3e civ., 26 September 2024, appeal no. 23-13.770), under article 455 of the French Code of Civil Procedure: every judgment must give reasons, and “a failure to answer submissions amounts to a failure to give reasons”.
The company had argued, with evidence, that the property lay “in the most densely built-up buildable zone of the municipality” and that “several blocks of flats, similar to the one built by the SCI, were already established in that area”, so that the neighbour could reasonably foresee the change of view. By ruling “without answering the SCI’s submissions”, the Court of Appeal failed to meet the requirements of the text. Six months later, on 27 March 2025, the same chamber would hold, this time on the merits, that the abnormality of the disturbance is assessed in the light of the surroundings and that the judge must consider whether the urbanisation of the zone does not exclude an abnormal disturbance.
What this changes for the valuation
The surroundings before the figure. A loss of view is compensable only if it exceeds the normal inconveniences of neighbourhood, which article 1253 of the French Civil Code, from the Law of 15 April 2024, has written into statute for facts after its entry into force. What is normal depends on the place: in a dense urban zone, in an area where comparable buildings already exist, one more block is foreseeable, and the resulting loss of view is not abnormal. The valuation report therefore begins by describing the surroundings: zoning under the local plan, permitted heights, existing buildings in the area with their bulk, date of construction and distance, and what the owner could foresee when buying.
What the 2024 decision adds. The Court of Appeal had reasoned on what the neighbour “could expect” to see built, without examining what was already built around her. The Cour de cassation’s test is factual: similar buildings already established in the area make the change of view foreseeable. A report that attaches a plan of the neighbourhood with the existing blocks, their heights and dates, answers that question before the judge asks it; a report that speaks only of the lost view leaves the other side to raise it.
Measuring the loss. Where the disturbance is abnormal, the loss of value is measured by comparison: sales of similar properties with and without an open view in the same area, price gaps observed for the same type of property according to aspect and facing buildings, and where possible references of properties that suffered a neighbouring construction, before and after. Loss of sunlight is measured by a shadow study at different seasons, which distinguishes a darkened living room from a few hours lost in winter. The €25,000 awarded on appeal rested on none of these measures in the reasons reported; that is also what makes such a figure fragile.
Loss of enjoyment alongside loss of value. The loss has two components that must not be confused: the loss of value of the property, suffered once, and the loss of amenity during occupation, assessed against the rental value. The report separates and dates them.
What the expert takes from it
- Before valuing a loss of view, it must be established that it is abnormal in the light of the surroundings: zoning, density, similar buildings already built.
- The judge must answer the argument about existing buildings; the report must therefore deal with it, with a plan and building heights.
- Loss of value is proved by comparable sales with and without a view; loss of sunlight by a shadow study.
- A figure without references, like the €25,000 quashed here, does not withstand challenge.
- Since the Law of 15 April 2024, article 1253 of the Civil Code codifies abnormal neighbourhood disturbance without changing the requirement of abnormality.
Further reading
The Property loss of value page describes the assignment, its timescale and its fee. The guide Neighbour building a block of flats: my house loses value and the glossary entries trouble anormal de voisinage and moins-value complement this article. On the same theme: Loss of view in a dense urban area: no abnormal disturbance and Nuisance and loss of view: not automatic. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
Is a neighbouring building depriving you of your view or sunlight?
I analyse the property's surroundings, the zoning and the existing buildings, then measure the loss of value by comparison, so that the claim rests on a demonstrated disturbance and a justified figure.
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).
