With the rise of short-term rental platforms such as Airbnb, investment in furnished tourist accommodation has emerged as an attractive asset strategy: high returns, flexibility, optimized taxation.
But this model is now increasingly contested in co-ownerships, where trustees and neighbors intend to protect the tranquility of the building. Result: the clauses prohibiting furnished tourist accommodation are multiplying.
The law has even recently facilitated their adoption, reducing investors' leeway. (read our article The Le Meur Law and Short-Term Rentals).
What do you need to know before investing or continuing to operate a property for a short term in a co-ownership? Here are the essentials.
A co-ownership regulation can completely prohibit short-term furnished rentals, as long as this prohibition is formally enshrined in the regulations and voted in the rules.
If such a clause exists, it is binding on co-owners, even former investors. This may prevent any vacation rental-type activity in the building.
❗ What the case law says: furnished tourist rentals are often assimilated to a para-hotel activity that is incompatible with the strictly residential use of certain buildings.
Many investors think that a mention such as “exclusive use of bourgeois housing” is enough to prohibit furnished rentals. This is partly true, but not enough in fact.
For a prohibition to be enforceable without an express clause:
❗ If business premises exist in the building, you may be entitled to continue your activity, even in the presence of a general clause on the destination.
Law No. 2024-1039 of November 19, 2024, known as Le Meur law, introduced a major change: it is now easier for a co-owners to prohibit furnished tourist rentals.
👉 Before: an absolute majority of all co-owners was required (article 26).
👉 Since November 2024: a prohibition clause can be adopted by a majority of 2/3 of the votes cast of the co-owners present or represented at the general meeting.
❗ Consequence: even in a divided co-ownership, a small group of motivated co-owners can have a ban adopted in GA. So the risk for investors is much higher.
If you continue to rent despite a prohibition clause, you are exposed to:
❗ It is therefore essential to have the condominium regulations checked before any purchase or operation.
Here are the best practices to adopt if you own or plan to acquire a furnished tourist apartment in a co-ownership:
👉 Make an appointment with an OIQIA expert
If you are already in business (you are currently renting furnished tourist accommodation in a condominium) and the syndicate of co-owners gives you notice or disputes your activity, do not panic, but react methodically:
A lawyer can:
If you are contesting in court a decision of a general meeting of co-owners aiming at the prohibition of furnished tourist rentals, know that this allows you to continue to carry out your activity until the decision made by the judge.
And if your arguments aim at the unconstitutionality of the Le Meur law by implying the referral to the Constitutional Council by means of a Priority Constitutional Question (QPC), there is a good chance that the judge, in the event of an unfavorable decision, will not order provisional execution. This will allow you to appeal and exhaust all remedies while continuing to operate your rental.
❗ Attention: ignoring the co-ownership request may worsen the situation (court summons, damages, procedural costs).
But giving in too quickly can also cause you to lose a legitimate right if the co-ownership is not legally founded.
At OIQIA, we support investors in furnished tourist accommodation in:
Our objective: to help you invest safely, without suffering post-acquisition blockages.
👉 Make an appointment with an OIQIA expert
To find out more about the latest news in tourism and short-term rentals,
subscribe to our newsletter.
