When a public body compulsorily purchases only part of a plot, the strip it takes often has a use of its own, a road, a car park, which is not that of the plot it is detached from. Should it be valued as road land or as land intended for housing? In a reported decision of 6 March 2025, the Third Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil and commercial matters) answers: classification is assessed on the whole plot; the Court then approves calculating compensation on the area of the taking alone.
The facts
A metropolitan authority compulsorily purchased (expropriation) part of a plot belonging to an SCI (société civile immobilière, a French property-holding company). The plot is zoned AU1 (a future development zone), which earmarks it for housing; the strip taken, according to the appeal, citing the Court of Appeal’s findings, is used exclusively as a road.
By a decision of 7 September 2023, the Court of Appeal set the principal compensation (indemnité principale) and the reinvestment allowance (indemnité de remploi, for the costs of buying replacement property) payable to the SCI; the Cour de cassation’s decision does not state the amounts. According to its reasoning as reproduced in the appeal, it held that the make-up of the plot as a whole had to be taken into account, rejected the comparables put forward by the authority, plots devoted entirely to roads and parking, and found that this was “a plot located in a privileged situation, intended to become buildable in the short term once the hydrological study has been carried out”, which “must be valued at a figure close to that of land in a UM zone” (translated from the French), an urban zone already open to building. Compensation was calculated on the area of the taking.
The authority appealed. In its view, in a partial taking, “the classification of the taking is assessed on the scale of the land from which it comes, but the valuation of the compensation must be carried out on the scale of the taking” (article L. 322-2 of the French Expropriation Code, Code de l’expropriation pour cause d’utilité publique). It relied on article L. 321-1, under which compensation covers the whole of the direct, material and certain loss: since the strip served exclusively as a road, the road and car park references it had proposed could not be set aside.
The decision
The Cour de cassation dismissed the appeal (Cass. 3e civ., 6 March 2025, appeal no. 23-22.427, reported decision).
It first recalled the two texts. Under article L. 322-2, property is valued at the date of the first-instance decision, but only its actual use one year before the opening of the public inquiry preceding the declaration of public utility counts. That text reserves the rules specific to building land (articles L. 322-3 to L. 322-6) and the derogating reference dates it provides for. Under article L. 321-1, “the compensation awarded covers the whole of the direct, material and certain loss caused by the expropriation”.
It then stated the rule (point 7), restated in substance in the headnote: “In the event of partial expropriation, the classification, at the reference date, of the expropriated land and any privileged situation are assessed, at that same date, with regard to the entire plot from which the taking was detached, and not according to the taking alone, which results from the expropriation.”
Finally, it approved the Court of Appeal which, “having correctly stated that the configuration to be taken into account was that of the plot as a whole and not that of the taking”, and having found that the partly expropriated plot was intended for housing because of its AU1 zoning, and not for road and parking use alone, “sovereignly selected the comparables that appeared to it the most appropriate, and calculated, accordingly, the compensation due to the SCI on the basis of the area of the taking alone”.
The decision does not itself classify the land and approves no price: it sets the scale at which classification is assessed and leaves the choice of references to the trial judges.
What this changes for valuation
Two scales for two questions. The report classifies the plot as it stood before the taking, with its zoning, utilities and intended use, at the reference date: building land or not within the meaning of article L. 322-3, privileged situation or not. The decision uses the latter concept without defining it. The unit price that follows applies to the area of the strip, and to it alone. The strip’s own characteristics, including its road use, play no part in the classification: the strip results from the compulsory purchase.
The reference date applies to the whole plot. Zoning, utilities and actual use are read at that date for the original plot. It is in principle set one year before the public inquiry, but derogating dates exist, in particular for land subject to the urban pre-emption right. In an area earmarked for a comprehensive development scheme, such as a ZAC (zone d’aménagement concerté, a planned development zone), utility capacity is also assessed across the whole area, as held in a 2019 decision on a partial compulsory purchase in a ZAC.
References follow the plot’s intended use. The report selects comparables subject to equivalent planning rules, a requirement already laid down for the pre-emption price. Their selection lies within the judge’s sovereign assessment: each reference is therefore described (date, area, zoning, utilities) and adjusted. Here, the Court of Appeal retained a value close to that of UM-zone land for a plot buildable only after a hydrological study; the report quantifies the gap between land buildable now and land buildable later. The method is comparison (Charte de l’expertise en évaluation immobilière, the French property valuation charter, 6th edition, November 2025, Title III, ch. 2), applied to expropriation compensation (Title III, § 1.20).
Only the strip is paid as principal compensation. Classifying the whole plot does not mean compensating it in full. The loss of value of the part retained falls under depreciation of the remainder, quantified as the difference between its value before and after the taking; where it stems from the loss of an access, it can be repaired in kind, by an easement, only with the owner’s consent (a refused easement still leaves depreciation). Two other questions have their own rulings: decontamination deducted but not carried out and lost rental income claimed on appeal.
What the valuer takes from it
- In a partial compulsory purchase, classification and any privileged situation are assessed on the whole plot, at the reference date, and not according to the use of the strip alone.
- Comparables are chosen according to the intended use of the whole plot and described one by one.
- The unit price applies to the area of the strip alone; the loss of value of the rest is quantified separately, as depreciation of the remainder.
- The report reconstructs the original plot, with its zoning and utilities, at the reference date.
Further reading
The Compulsory purchase and pre-emption page describes the assignment, its timescale and its fee. The guide Compulsory purchase of my business premises: what compensation? and the glossary entries date de référence, comparable and indemnité principale complement this article. On other points of compensation: Decontamination deducted but not done: owner may seek an expert and Compulsory purchase: lost rental income can be claimed on appeal. On the same theme: Compulsory purchase in a ZAC: who must prove the utilities? and Compulsory purchase: comparables from public databases are enough. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
Is only part of your land being compulsorily purchased?
I establish the classification of the whole plot at the reference date, select comparables that match its intended use, then quantify the compensation on the area taken and, where relevant, the depreciation of the remainder, for the expropriation judge or an amicable negotiation.
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).
