The installation of protective fencing on a private lot in a condominium remains one of the most common disputes before the courts, and the reason lies in a legal qualification often overlooked: any fencing visible from the outside alters the external appearance of the building. This qualification leads to strict procedural obligations, even when the co-owner has an exclusive right of enjoyment over the concerned garden or terrace.
Fencing in a condominium and legal qualification: why the right of exclusive enjoyment is not enough
An exclusive-use garden is not a private lot in the full sense of the term. The land remains a common part, and the condominium rules only grant a reserved use. We regularly observe that co-owners confuse exclusive enjoyment with ownership, and then install rigid fencing or privacy screens without consulting the syndicate.
See also : Discover the new streamonsport address to watch live sports in 2023
The law of July 10, 1965 classifies the installation of a fence among the works affecting common areas or the external appearance. A vote in the general assembly is required, by absolute majority under Article 25, even for a simple low-height flexible fence. The absence of a vote exposes the co-owner to an action for restoration, at their expense, with no statute of limitations as long as the infringement of the external appearance persists.
On this subject, the detailed rules regarding fencing on Easy Home specify the voting steps and best practices to secure a fencing project in a condominium.
Recommended read : Installation Grant: Conditions, Beneficiaries, and Steps to Benefit in 2024
Condominium rules and fence height: cumulative constraints
The condominium rules take precedence over the individual will of the co-owner. Before any approach to the property manager, we recommend checking three levels of overlapping constraints.
- The condominium rules themselves, which may prohibit certain materials (opaque panels, reed screens, colored welded fencing) or impose a maximum height lower than the municipal standard.
- The local urban planning plan (PLU) of the municipality, which sets requirements regarding height, setback from public roads, and sometimes the appearance of fences in urban areas.
- The rules of the Civil Code relating to views and daylight, particularly the minimum distances for direct and oblique views concerning neighboring properties.
A fence compliant with the PLU but contrary to the condominium rules remains illegal under condominium law. The property manager can require its removal even if the town hall has granted a planning permit.
Prior declaration at the town hall: when fencing becomes an urban development work
Any new fence generally requires a prior declaration of works at the town hall, in accordance with the Urban Planning Code. This formality is in addition to the vote in the general assembly; it does not replace it.
In protected areas (surroundings of historical monuments, remarkable heritage sites), the architect of the Buildings of France must issue a compliant opinion. The instruction period then extends from one month to two months, and refusals are frequent when rigid fencing distorts the architectural harmony of the building.
The double authorization (condominium and urban planning) is a non-negotiable prerequisite. A co-owner who omits one of the two exposes themselves to two distinct procedures, one before the judicial court at the request of the syndicate, the other in the form of a compliance order from the municipality.
Particular case of protective fencing at windows
The installation of security fencing at a window (child protection, additional guardrail) follows the same logic. Fixed to the facade, it alters the external appearance. A vote in the general assembly remains necessary unless the condominium rules expressly allow this type of equipment without formality.
Some older regulations do not mention window fencing. In this case, the absence of a permissive clause equates to a prohibition without prior vote. The co-owner must include the issue in the agenda of the next assembly or request an extraordinary general assembly.
Prescription and litigation: the concrete risks of fencing installed without authorization
The issue of prescription often arises. In a condominium, the action to remove an unauthorized structure that affects the external appearance is imprescriptible. Jurisprudence considers that the infringement of the building’s harmony constitutes a continuous disturbance, which prevents the starting point of any prescription period.
In other words, a fence installed without a vote ten years ago can still be subject to a request for restoration. The syndicate of co-owners does not need to prove financial damage: the mere violation of condominium rules is sufficient.
- The co-owner bears the costs of removal and restoration of the lot and any damaged common areas.
- The property manager can hire a company and charge the costs to the at-fault co-owner if they do not comply within the time set by the court.
- Legal costs (lawyer, bailiff) are generally charged to the co-owner condemned under Article 700 of the Civil Procedure Code.
We recommend always keeping the minutes of the general assembly mentioning the favorable vote, as well as the receipt of the prior declaration at the town hall. These two documents constitute the only opposable proof in case of subsequent disputes, including during a resale of the lot.
A protective fence in a condominium is never just a simple DIY purchase. It is a project that engages the responsibility of the co-owner on two simultaneous fronts, condominium law and urban planning law, with no past tolerance creating acquired rights.