In 1999 a prefectoral order declares of public utility a protection zone around a drinking-water catchment in the Marne. Owners of plots within the close protection zone apply in 2017 to the expropriation judge for the indemnity provided by the Public Health Code. Too late, says the Reims Court of Appeal: the triggering event is the creation of the zone, and the four-year limitation on claims against public bodies has run. On 11 September 2025 the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil matters) quashed that ruling in a reported decision: unlike the immediate zone, the close protection zone does not by itself make plots unbuildable; the limitation runs from the first day of the year following that in which the owners knew, or ought to have known, of the restrictions on use affecting them. For the valuer, the ruling says at what date to value a loss whose cause is old and whose effect is recent.
The facts
By order of 8 November 1999 the prefect of the Marne declares of public utility the creation of a protection zone around a water catchment on several plots of a commune. A planning certificate of 14 January 2008 mentions to the owners the existence of an easement attached to water protection. On 3 May 2016 a letter from the town hall notifies them that all construction on their plots is prohibited; in 2017 the planning document classifies them as a natural zone.
On 17 March 2017 the owners apply to the expropriation judge for an indemnity for the creation of the close protection zone. The Reims Court of Appeal, on 7 February 2023, declares the claim inadmissible as time-barred: the triggering event of the loss is the creation of the catchment easement in 1999, which limits the right of ownership, and not the later unbuildability.
The decision
The third civil chamber quashed the judgment (Cass. 3e civ., 11 September 2025, no. 23-14.398, reported), under articles 1 and 3 of the Act of 31 December 1968 on the limitation of claims against public bodies and former articles L. 20 and L. 20-1 of the Public Health Code. Around the abstraction point, the declaration of public utility “determines a close protection zone within which any installation liable to harm the quality of the water directly or indirectly may be prohibited or regulated, and indemnities may be owed to the owners or occupiers of land within that zone following measures taken to protect that water”.
Hence the rule: “the creation of a close protection zone not automatically entailing, unlike an immediate protection zone, the unbuildability of the plots concerned, the starting point of the four-year limitation of the claim for indemnities owed to the owners or occupiers of those plots is the first day of the year following that in which they knew or ought to have known of the restrictions on use resulting from the public utility easement affecting them”. Remittal to the Amiens Court of Appeal.
What this changes for valuation
Three zones, three effects on value. The immediate zone is acquired outright by the public body and fenced: that is an expropriation. The close zone is a public utility easement: activities, buildings, deposits, spreading and boreholes are prohibited or regulated by the order and the prescriptions implementing it; the indemnity repairs the direct, material and certain loss that results. The distant zone generally carries only recommendations and gives rise to no indemnity. The valuer begins by reading the order and its annexes, plot by plot, to know in which zone the property lies and what is really prohibited there.
The loss of value is measured when the restriction materialises. Land classified as buildable in 1999, then hit by a building ban in 2016 and classified as a natural zone in 2017, loses its building-land value at that point, not in 1999. The ruling aligns the start of limitation with knowledge of the restrictions; the valuation follows the same logic: value of the land with its possible uses before the restriction, value after, at the date it takes effect, with the references of that date. For farmland, the loss of value lies in the prohibited crops, the constraints on spreading and storage, the extra operating cost, and is measured by comparison with unencumbered land.
A planning certificate is not a notice of loss. The Court of Appeal had retained the 2008 certificate, which mentioned an easement without saying what it prohibited. The Cour de cassation requires knowledge of the restrictions on use themselves. For the owner, this means that the mention of an easement in a planning document is not enough to start the clock; for the valuer, that the chronology of documents, order, prescriptions, letters, local plan, forms part of the report, because it fixes the valuation date.
Four years, from the following 1 January. The indemnity claim against the commune or public body is time-barred after four years from the first day of the year following that of knowledge. A restriction notified in May 2016 opens a period running to the end of 2020; a claim of 2017 is in time. A dated and documented valuation report also helps establish that knowledge.
The indemnification procedure. Failing agreement, the indemnity is fixed by the expropriation judge, as for a dispossession, with the government commissioner on the other side. The rules of valuation in compulsory purchase apply, including the main indemnity and ancillary indemnities; the guide on compulsory purchase of business premises describes that framework, which carries over to land.
What the valuer takes from it
- The close protection zone of a catchment is a compensable public utility easement; it does not by itself make land unbuildable.
- The four-year limitation runs from the 1 January following the year in which the owner knew of the restrictions on use, not from the order.
- The loss of value is assessed at the date the restriction takes effect, value before and after, with the references of that date.
- The mention of an easement in a planning certificate does not amount to knowledge of the restrictions.
- The indemnity is fixed before the expropriation judge, under the rules of compulsory purchase.
Further reading
The Compulsory purchase and pre-emption page describes the assignment, its timescale and its fee. The glossary entries déclaration d’utilité publique, juge de l’expropriation and moins-value complement this article. On the same theme: Water main under the house: hidden easement, indemnity owed and Compulsory purchase: ordered works, common parts, land reserve. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
Land caught in a catchment protection zone, and a loss of value to have recognised?
I establish the value of the plots before and after the restrictions on use, buildability, crops, spreading, at the date they became known, for the indemnity claim before the expropriation judge.
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).
