A gable wall reduces the distance between an extended villa and the neighbouring block of flats from 7.58 to 4 metres. The Court of Appeal finds an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance (trouble anormal de voisinage), owing to the restricted view from the balconies, and awards the neighbouring flat owners between €16,100 and €19,480 for the depreciation of their properties. On 27 March 2025, the Cour de cassation (French supreme court for civil and commercial matters) quashes the ruling: the court had to examine, as it had been asked to, whether the urbanisation of the area ruled out the abnormal character of the disturbance. For the valuation, the urban context is described before the loss of value is quantified.
The facts
On 2 July 2001, the owner of a villa obtained planning permission (permis de construire) to extend it; after the applications to annul it were dismissed, he filed a notice of commencement of works (déclaration d’ouverture de chantier) on 30 August 2010.
The owner of a flat in the neighbouring building argued that the construction did not comply with the permission and that she suffered, in particular, a loss of sunlight and a loss of view. On 15 September 2011, she sued the owner of the villa for the demolition of certain constructions. Other flat owners in the same building, after an expert appraisal ordered in summary proceedings (référé), brought the same claim against the two owners of the villa.
On 27 July 2023, the Montpellier Court of Appeal noted that the distance between the two buildings, originally 7.58 metres, had been reduced to 4 metres by the construction of the gable wall, that this construction “significantly” restricted the view the neighbours had enjoyed from their balcony, and that “it is indisputable that this restriction affects the conditions of enjoyment and the property value of their properties” (translated from the French, as are all quotations below). It held the abnormal disturbance established and ordered the owners of the villa to pay, for depreciation, €16,100 to a couple, then €17,270, €17,710 and €19,480 to the three other owners.
The owners of the villa appealed. They criticised the Court of Appeal for finding a disturbance without examining, as they had invited it to, “whether the very high urban density of the area in which the buildings concerned are located did not rule out the abnormal character of the disturbance”.
The decision
The Cour de cassation partially quashes the ruling (Cass. 3e civ., 27 March 2025, appeal no. 23-21.076, unreported). It rules on the basis of the “principle that no one may cause another an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance” and holds: “By so deciding, without examining, as it had been asked to do, whether the urbanisation of the area in which the buildings stood was not such as to rule out the existence of an abnormal disturbance, the Court of Appeal did not give a legal basis to its decision.”
The quashing covers what the ruling held about the restriction of the view, the four orders to pay for depreciation and the allocation of litigation costs (dépens and article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure); the case is sent back to the Nîmes Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal’s findings, as the decision reports them, concerned the lost view and its effects; they did not answer the question of the surroundings, although it had been raised. The Cour de cassation does not state, however, that a loss of view is normal in a dense neighbourhood, nor that urbanisation rules out the disturbance here, and it does not rule on the amount of the depreciation: it is for the Nîmes Court of Appeal to answer. Not published in the Bulletin, the decision censures insufficient findings (manque de base légale, lack of legal basis: the facts found do not allow the application of the rule to be checked) rather than laying down a new rule.
The decision, given in a dispute begun in 2011, rules on the basis of the case-law principle alone, without citing article 1253 of the French Civil Code; that principle has been set out there since Law no. 2024-346 of 15 April 2024, and the article still turns on abnormality.
The decision extends that of 26 September 2024 (appeal no. 23-13.770), discussed in Loss of view: the judge must look at the buildings already there: the same chamber then quashed, for failure to answer the parties’ submissions (a party’s argument had been left unanswered), an award that left aside the similar blocks of flats already standing in the area. In 2025, the Court relies directly on the abnormal disturbance rule rather than on a procedural rule. Conversely, where the trial judges have examined the surroundings and rejected the disturbance in an area destined to be built up, the Cour de cassation defers to their assessment (Cass. 3e civ., 9 November 2023, appeal no. 22-15.403: Loss of view in France: not automatically a neighbour nuisance).
What this changes for valuation
The context is documented before the figure. A report that only describes the lost view leaves the court’s first question unanswered. It therefore sets out the surroundings: rules of the local planning plan (PLU), built density, size and position of the neighbouring buildings, changes an informed buyer could anticipate. Characterising the disturbance is for the court; the report provides the facts, whether produced by the claimant or in defence.
The disturbance is measured. Distances before and after, here 7.58 then 4 metres, height of the wall, orientation of the openings, rooms and balconies affected. These measurements turn a felt inconvenience into a verifiable fact.
The loss of value (moins-value) is shown by comparison, in the same urban fabric. The valuer establishes the market value of the property without the disturbance, then with it; the difference is the depreciation (Charte de l’expertise en évaluation immobilière, the French property valuation charter, 6th edition, November 2025, Title III, § 1.1 and ch. 2; EVS 1 of the European Valuation Standards 2025). Sales of comparable flats in the area, with and without a close facing building, show what the local market paid for an open view, given how precarious it is in a built-up area; a flat percentage says nothing of this.
Depreciation and temporary disturbances are kept apart. Depreciation is a loss suffered once. Site nuisance or loss of enjoyment over a period is quantified separately, by reference to the rental value; the question of a disturbance that has stopped is dealt with in Neighbourhood nuisance that has stopped: compensation still due.
What the valuer takes from it
- On the basis of abnormal neighbourhood disturbance, a loss of view is compensated only if the disturbance is abnormal; where the question is raised, the court must examine whether the urbanisation of the area rules out that abnormality.
- The report describes the surroundings (zoning, density, building sizes) and measures the disturbance before any figure, for the claimant as for the defendant; characterising the disturbance remains for the court.
- Depreciation is proved by comparable sales in the same area, with and without a close facing building, not by a flat percentage.
- The decision, unreported, requires the context to be examined without deciding the outcome.
Further reading
The Property loss of value page describes the assignment and its fee. The guide My neighbour is building a block of flats: will my house lose value? and the glossary entries trouble anormal de voisinage, moins-value and méthode par comparaison complement this article. On a related question: Neighbourhood nuisance that has stopped: compensation still due. On the same theme: New building next door: valuing the loss on your French house and Claiming loss of enjoyment and devaluation of a French home. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
Is a neighbouring building reducing your view?
I measure the disturbance (distances, heights, shadow studies), place it in the urbanisation of the area and put a figure on the loss of value with comparable sales. The report can be used by the claimant or in defence, for a neighbour, a developer or an insurer.
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).
