Co-ownership: the Constitutional Council validates the LCD ban by a two-thirds vote

On March 19, 2026, the Constitutional Council rendered its decision no. 2025-1186 QPC: the provisions of the Le Meur law allowing co-owners to prohibit the rental of furnished tourist accommodation by a two-thirds majority of the votes are in accordance with the Constitution. End of the legal uncertainty opened by a priority question of constitutionality transmitted by the Court of Cassation. For hundreds of thousands of co-owners who rent an apartment on a short-term basis — often a second home — the landscape is changing: the lock of unanimity, almost impossible to achieve, has been broken. Your neighbors can now pass a prohibition clause if four cumulative conditions are met. This article deciphers the decision, its precise limits, and what you can do before, during and after a general meeting (GM) which threatens your activity.

Chronology: from the Le Meur law to the decision of March 2026

The law had already modified co-ownership by allowing, under conditions, a modification of the regulations to prohibit furnished tourist accommodation on certain lots. But as long as the constitutionality was not decided, many trustees and lawyers advised wait. Since March 2026, the AGs can legally include this point on the agenda based on a text validated by the Sages of rue de Montpensier.

The four cumulative conditions (all mandatory)

The two-thirds ban does not apply to all co-ownerships or all lots. The Constitutional Council confirmed a strict framework:

1. “bourgeois housing” clause

The co-ownership regulations must already prohibit any commercial activity in lots that are not specifically for commercial use. Without this clause, the two-thirds vote is not enough to impose the LCD ban via the new mechanism.

Host action: read your co-ownership regulations (descriptive statement of division + regulations). Locate the articles on the destination of the building and prohibited professional activities.

2. Lots for residential use other than main residence

The ban only applies to lots used as secondary residences (or more generally those which do not constitute the main residence of the co-owner within the meaning of the law of July 6, 1989). Your RP where you live for more than eight months per year is not covered by this specific mechanism — even if other rules (town hall, noise, existing regulations) may limit the LCD.

3. Furnished tourist accommodation within the meaning of the tourism code

Only accommodation covered by article L. 324-1-1 of the tourism code is concerned. Long-term rentals, mobility leases, stable shared rentals or commercial activities outside LCD are exempt from this targeted ban.

4. Qualified majority of two thirds

The modification of the regulations must be adopted by a majority of the members of the union representing at least two thirds of the votes (article 26 of the law of 1965). This threshold remains demanding: a broad consensus is required, not a simple simple majority - but it is clearly more accessible than the unanimity previously required for this type of restriction.

What the decision does not change

The Constitutional Council recalled several safeguards:

• The ban must be justified by the destination of the building and remains controllable by the judge;
• The measure is reversible: an AG can lift the ban with the same two-thirds majority;
• The property right is not eliminated: it is reconciled with the collective contractual freedom of the co-ownership;
• The municipal rules (Declaloc, 90-day ceilings, authorizations) remain applicable in parallel (Le Meur law).

Complete your monitoring with the general guide co-ownership and LCD for the neighborhood, the trustee and good daily practices.

Take action — Reduce neighborhood complaints with a digital welcome booklet and clear rules (noise and parties. Create your space.

Quantified impact: who is exposed?

Media estimates suggest several hundred thousand to nearly a million second home accommodations potentially affected in France, concentrated in tourist metropolises and seaside residences. Not all of them will be banned tomorrow: there needs to be a motivated AGM, the four conditions, and often a preliminary conflict dynamic (nuisance, saturation of common areas).

Most exposed profiles:

• Investor with studio in co-ownership without RP, 100% dependent on the LCD;
• Concierge service with dense portfolio in buildings without bourgeois housing clause… or on the contrary with clause and hostile AG;
• Heirs who rent the family property without dialogue with the union.

Profiles less exposed by this mechanism:

• RP occupant occasionally renting during his absences (ceiling 90 days);
• Co-ownerships without bourgeois housing clause;
• Buildings already have a unanimous ban or explicit authorization from LCD.

Strategies before the vote in AG

Map settlement and history

Obtain from the trustee: complete regulations, Minutes of AGMs for the last five years, possible formal notices or procedures in progress. Identify whether a ban attempt has already failed due to lack of unanimity — the new threshold reignites the debate.

Create a “good neighbor” file

Emotional votes follow nuisances. Document:

• Stay statistics (average duration, family/professional profiles);
• Absence of complaints or rapid resolution of incidents;
• Digital booklet with strict rules (nights, trash cans, elevator);
• Noise sensors or 24-hour contact (incident protocol).

Present these elements before the AGM, not just on voting day.

Dialogue and mediation

Propose compromises: internal ceiling of LCD nights per building, register of stays shared with the trustee, ban on parties (> X people), reinforced traveler deposit. Some unions prefer to regulate rather than prohibit if the complaints stop.

Proportionate legal mobilization

Consult a co-ownership lawyer before the summons. Possible arguments depending on the case: absence of bourgeois housing clause, lack of motivation, faulty summons, diversion of procedure targeting a single person. The Constitutional Council did not validate an arbitrary ban: the destination of the building must take precedence.

After the vote: ban adopted

If the modification of the regulations is registered in the regulations after a conforming vote:

1. Stop any new LCD reservations on the affected lots;
2. Honor stays already confirmed according to contractual rules and the reasonable deadline set by the AG or the law;
3. Consider litigation if formal defects or non-compliance with the four conditions (short deadline - lawyer immediately);
4. Pivot towards long-term rental or sale if the economy of the property is no longer viable;
5. Document compliance to limit fines (orders of magnitude up to €100,000 mentioned in certain summaries for serious violations depending on the case).

The platforms and Declaloc (European regulation) make clandestinity risky and short: an active advertisement in a prohibited building exposes the co-owner and sometimes the manager.

Case of concierge services and property managers

Your margin can collapse if 30% of the portfolio is in “AG risk” condominiums. Set up:

To industrialize a portfolio: conciergerie 5 à 50 biens.

Comparison: unanimity vs two thirds

Synergy with other 2026 news

The decision of the Constitutional Council is part of a regulatory triptych:

1. Declaloc / NER (May 20, 2026) — national traceability;
2. 90-day ceilings in PR in large cities;
3. 2/3 co-ownership — restriction on secondary residences.

A Parisian studio in RS in co-ownership with HB clause combines the three risks. An individual chalet outside a co-ownership in a rural municipality without a 90 day ceiling is only affected by Declaloc. Map your risk stack property by property.

FAQ

My neighbor rents in LCD: can I ban it alone?

No. Only a GA decision with the required majority, within the legal framework, modifies the regulations. Individual complaints go through the trustee, the town hall (nuisance) or the criminal court depending on the facts.

I am in my main residence: am I affected?

No by the specific mechanism validated on March 19, 2026, which targets batches other than RP. Other restrictions may, however, apply (previous regulations, town hall, neighborhood).

Can the ban target a single co-owner?

The clause applies indistinctly to all lots covered by the modification of the regulations, not to a person by name — under penalty of dispute for misappropriation.

Can I offer the mobility lease instead?

The mobility lease is not furnished tourist accommodation within the meaning of L. 324-1-1; it can be a legal alternative depending on your situation, with specific constraints (duration, audience). Have it validated by a professional.

What should we do if our co-ownership does not have a bourgeois housing clause?

The 2/3 vote is not enough for this specific path. Other procedures (unanimity for certain modifications, nuisance action) remain possible but more cumbersome.

The essential things to remember

The decision of the Constitutional Council of March 19, 2026 marks a new era for the LCD in co-ownership: the targeted ban on furnished tourist accommodation in secondary residences becomes politically and legally achievable by vote of two thirds, under four conditions. For hosts and concierge services, the answer is no longer just “optimize your Airbnb ad”, but secure the right to rent in the building: regulations, neighborhood, contracts, AG monitoring and Declaloc compliance. Anticipating is less expensive than pivoting urgently after a vote that took you by surprise.

To go further: contact for B2B portfolios, visio for a Majordia demo, support for technical help.