Co-ownership and Short-Term Tourist Letting

Before embarking on a short-term tourist letting project, a co-owner must ensure that the co-ownership regulations do not prohibit such activity. Article 9 of the Law of 10 July 1965 grants each co-owner the right to freely enjoy their unit, which in principle includes the right to let it. However, this right may be restricted by the co-ownership regulations where those regulations specify that the building is for residential use only, thereby excluding any commercial or para-hotel activity.

Commercial Activity

In order for a letting to be characterised as “commercial”, the landlord must offer, in addition to accommodation, at least three supplementary services.

In a recent case, the courts ordered co-owners to cease their commercial activity in a residential building after finding, from screenshots of listings published on the Booking.com website, that the landlord was providing reception services, the supply of bed linen and towels, cleaning of the premises, grocery delivery, airport transfers and car hire (Tribunal judiciaire de Meaux, 28 March 2025, Case No. 23/05189).

Conversely, on the same date, the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal held that a tourist letting had retained its civil law character, as the accommodation was accompanied by only two services: left-luggage facilities and breakfast (CA Aix-en-Provence, 20 March 2025, No. 24/10669).

Abnormal Neighbourhood Disturbance

Co-owners inconvenienced by recurring “civil” tourist lettings may nonetheless seek to bring them to an end by invoking the doctrine of abnormal neighbourhood disturbance, as acknowledged by the aforementioned Meaux tribunal judgment, on the basis of the following evidence of disturbance:

screenshots of listings permitting guests to arrive “at any hour”;
footage from CCTV cameras recording continuous comings and goings in the communal corridors;
photographs of waste left near the dwelling units.

The Le Meur Act of 19 November 2024

Since the enactment of this legislation, co-owners have had the ability to amend the co-ownership regulations to prohibit tourist lettings in units constituting secondary residences, by means of a vote at the general meeting under the majority threshold set out in Article 26, with the possibility of proceeding to a second vote at a lower majority threshold at the same meeting (Article 26-1 of the Law of 10 July 1965).

Furthermore, newly drawn up co-ownership regulations must expressly state whether such activity is permitted or prohibited within the building.

Decision of the Constitutional Council on the Prohibition of Tourist Lettings

In a decision handed down on 19 March 2026, the Constitutional Council upheld the ability of a co-ownership body to prohibit tourist lettings of secondary residences.

The case originated with a property owner in Caen holding several units who challenged a resolution passed at a general meeting prohibiting short-term lettings within his building. He contended that this measure infringed upon his right to property and his freedom to conduct a business.

Seized by way of a priority question of constitutionality (QPC), the Constitutional Council rejected this line of argument. It held that the interference with those freedoms remains circumscribed and proportionate in light of the objective pursued by the legislature: to limit the nuisances associated with tourist lettings and to address growing pressure on the housing market.

The Council underlined that this prohibition applies only to secondary residences located in buildings where all commercial activity is already excluded, and does not affect other forms of letting, in particular standard residential tenancy agreements.

The Council also noted the reversible nature of the measure: co-owners retain the ability to lift the prohibition at any time by means of a new vote at a general meeting.

For a detailed legal analysis of the Constitutional Council’s decision, see:

– Airbnb et copropriété – comprendre la loi Le Meur

Co-ownership and Short-Term Tourist Letting