A notary who is aware of a property's industrial past cannot simply consult the public environmental databases. The first civil chamber holds that they must approach the authority responsible for regulating classified installations (installations classées) where the seller's statements remain imprecise. Under Article 1240 of the French Civil Code, the failure to carry out those checks amounts to a breach of the duty to provide information and advice (obligation d'information et de conseil) owed to the buyer.
Key points
- The notary must verify, through all appropriate investigations, the seller's statements which condition the validity or effectiveness of the deed they draw up.
- Merely consulting the general-public environmental databases does not prove that the notary has complied with the duty to provide information, because those databases list only operations that have complied with environmental legislation.
- Where the commonhold (copropriété) documents reveal a former industrial activity without any indication of its administrative status or its hazardous nature, the notary must make enquiries with the authority responsible for regulating classified installations.
- Article L. 514-20 of the French Environmental Code gives the buyer, within two years of the discovery of the contamination, a choice between rescission (résolution) of the sale, repayment of part of the price or remediation of the site at the seller's expense.
- A notary in default may be ordered, in solidum with the seller, to compensate the buyer's damage.
A property sold on a former classified industrial site
The Cour de cassation (France's highest civil court) upholds the order made against a notarial firm which had confined itself to consulting the public environmental databases. The first civil chamber rules on the liability of the notary who drew up a sale of a property built on a former industrial site (Civ. 1re, 28 May 2026, No. 24-16.354). In 2015, a company sold a commonhold unit to a couple. The building complex had been constructed within the footprint of a laundry and dry-cleaning business operated since 1965.
The notary who received that deed had also drawn up the commonhold community statement (règlement de copropriété) and the descriptive schedule of division (état descriptif de division). In 2019, the couple resold the property to a buyer, under a deed received by another notary of the same notarial firm. In February 2020, the buyer learned of the site's industrial past. A prefectoral order (arrêté préfectoral) of 6 January 2021 ordered the family to be rehoused owing to the concentration of volatile pollutants.
A letter from the prefect dated 20 August 2021 confirmed that activities subject to authorisation under the classified installations regime had been carried on at the site, without ever having been regularised. The buyer brought proceedings against their sellers, the notarial firm and the executive of the original selling company. The decision under appeal (CA Lyon, 9 April 2024, No. 23/03562) rescinded the 2019 sale under Article L. 514-20 of the French Environmental Code and held the notary liable.
The first civil chamber dismisses the notarial firm's appeal to the Cour de cassation: a notary who knows of a building's industrial past, without having sufficient statements from the seller, must approach the competent authority. The decision first recalls the extent of the duty of verification (free translation).
It follows from Article 1382, now Article 1240 of the French Civil Code, that the notary is required to verify, through all appropriate investigations, the statements made by the seller which, by their nature or their legal effect, condition the validity or effectiveness of the deed they draw up.
The court of appeal had noted that the descriptive schedule of division and the commonhold community statement mentioned a former industrial activity, with no indication of its administrative status or its hazardous nature. The first civil chamber endorses the inference drawn by the lower court judges.
the notary should have carried out the necessary checks with the authority responsible for regulating ICPE and that this lack of diligence amounted to a breach of the duty to provide information and advice, rendering the firm of notaries liable towards [the buyer]
What must a notary check on contaminated land?
Consulting the public environmental databases is not enough to establish that the notary has fulfilled the duty to provide information. The decision gives the reason explicitly.
the mere consultation by the notary of the general-public environmental databases (Basias, Basol, Géorisques, the classified installations database) is not sufficient to prove compliance with the duty to provide information, since those sites are incomplete and list only those operations which have complied with environmental legislation
An operator that has never registered does not appear in those records. A notary who stops there therefore verifies nothing: they record the absence of an entry, which is not the same as the absence of a classified installation. The ruling does not condemn the consultation of those databases; it fixes their evidential value. Such a search is a starting point, never proof of diligence.
The trigger for the enhanced duty lies in knowledge of the industrial past. Once the documents relating to the transaction point to a former industrial activity without specifying its administrative regime or its hazardous nature, the notary has grounds for doubt. It is then for them to turn to the authority responsible for regulating classified installations, which alone can confirm the applicable regime and the history of the site.
What the ruling changes for those drafting deeds
The decision does not create a general obligation to approach the authorities before every sale: it makes that step conditional on the notary's knowledge of an industrial past which the seller's statements do not clarify. The rule laid down remains the duty to verify the seller's statements, applied here to environmental matters. The test is the presence, within the file itself, of an element which makes those statements insufficient.
The other criticisms directed against the appeal decision were not such as to lead to quashing. The compensation awarded to the buyer and their daughter, and the apportionment of the final burden between the notary, at 30%, and the original selling company and its executive, at 70%, therefore stand. The decision says nothing, however, about the standard of diligence expected where nothing in the file points to an industrial past.
What should buyers and sellers do?
A buyer faced with contamination discovered after the sale has two distinct sets of claims: the claim available against the seller under Article L. 514-20 of the French Environmental Code, and a liability claim against the notary who drew up the deed. The two are not the same: the first sanctions a failure by the seller to provide information, the second a fault by the professional who drew up the deed.
The provision requires the seller of land on which an installation subject to authorisation or registration has been operated to inform the buyer of that fact in writing. Where the seller is also the operator, they must state in writing whether their activity involved the handling or storage of chemical or radioactive substances, and the deed of sale must record that this formality has been completed. The article then sets out the sanction for a failure to provide information.
Failing that, and if contamination found renders the land unfit for the purpose specified in the contract, within two years of the discovery of the contamination, the buyer may choose to seek rescission of the sale or repayment of part of the price; the buyer may also seek remediation of the site at the seller's expense, where the cost of that remediation does not appear disproportionate to the sale price.
Before the court of appeal, this duty to provide information was analysed as objective: it does not require proof that the seller knew of the classified installation or of the contamination. The Lyon judges also held that it applies where the land sold falls within the perimeter of the classified installation, including for commonhold units carrying a share of the ground.
Checks to carry out before signing
Careful reading of the commonhold community statement and of the descriptive schedule of division is the first filter: any mention of an earlier industrial activity calls for written questions. A negative answer from the seller does not close the discussion where the file contains an indication to the contrary. The searches carried out are best documented, with the date and the content of the answers obtained from the competent authority. For the buyer, the discovery of contamination opens a two-year period, running from that discovery, in which to exercise the choice organised by Article L. 514-20 of the French Environmental Code. For the seller, written information about the existence of a former classified installation remains due, even in the absence of any fault.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a notary rely on the seller's statements that there was no polluting activity?
No, not where something in the file casts doubt on those statements. The decision of 28 May 2026 restates that a notary must verify, through all appropriate investigations, the seller's statements which condition the validity or effectiveness of the deed. A commonhold community statement mentioning a former industrial activity, with no detail of its administrative regime or its hazardous nature, requires the notary to make enquiries with the authority regulating classified installations.
Can a buyer sue the notary if the seller was unaware of the contamination?
Yes. The notary's liability is assessed independently of what the seller knew. In the case decided on 28 May 2026, the intermediate sellers were not held at fault, whereas the notarial firm was ordered, in solidum with the original seller and its executive, to compensate the buyer. Fault by the notary, damage and a causal link between the two must still be established.
How long is there to act after discovering that a home was built on a former contaminated site?
Article L. 514-20 of the French Environmental Code gives the buyer two years from the discovery of the contamination. Within that period, and if the contamination found renders the land unfit for the purpose specified in the contract, the buyer chooses between rescission of the sale and repayment of part of the price. Remediation of the site at the seller's expense may also be sought, where the cost does not appear disproportionate to the sale price.
What should be checked before buying premises in a converted former factory?
The history of the site is the central point of the check. The commonhold documents, the planning permissions and the seller's statements deserve to be read together, and any mention of a past industrial activity justifies written questions before signing. The answers obtained are best recorded in the preliminary contract rather than in informal exchanges. Where serious doubt remains, a prior environmental survey is the safest way to measure the risk.
How is compensation apportioned between several parties liable for the same damage?
The victim may in principle claim the whole of their compensation from each of the parties ordered to pay in solidum, without having to split their claims. Apportionment then takes place between the co-liable parties themselves, through indemnity claims, according to the respective seriousness of their faults and their causal role in the occurrence of the damage. That internal apportionment cannot be relied on against the victim, who keeps a full claim against each of them.