Single-Use Premises: Key Points
Two cumulative criteria: (1) material — built or fitted with structural installations specific to a single use; (2) economic — conversion to another use would require major and costly works relative to the capital value of the building. Both must be satisfied; neither alone is sufficient.
Assessment is based on objective physical characteristics only: the contractual destination clause and the planning regime are irrelevant. An “all activities” clause does not prevent single-use classification; a planning rule against change of use does not establish it.
The burden of proving both criteria falls on the party asserting single-use status (usually the landlord). An end-of-tenancy accession clause in the lease prevents the landlord from relying on tenant fit-out works to establish the material criterion (Cass. 3e civ., 21 May 2014).
Single-use premises are exempt from Art. L. 145-34 capping, from the five-criterion market-value rules of Art. L. 145-33, and from the Pinel smoothing mechanism. The rent is fixed by reference to sector customs, or by the court with sovereign discretion if none exist.
A turnover-based rent clause in the lease overrides Art. R. 145-10: the contractual mechanism governs. The statutory triennial early termination right is not mandatory for single-use premises following the 2014 Pinel reform.

Overview: A Derogation from the Standard Rent Rules

Article R. 145-10 of the Code de commerce provides that the rent of premises built for a single use may, by derogation from Articles L. 145-33 and R. 145-3 et seq., be determined according to the practices observed in the relevant sector. Single-use premises are therefore exempt from the standard five-criterion market-value framework, from the capping rule of Article L. 145-34, and from the Pinel smoothing mechanism. The rent is fixed by reference to the economic customs of the sector — which the court assesses with sovereign discretion if no established custom exists. A turnover-based rent clause in the lease displaces the Art. R. 145-10 mechanism, since the parties have contractually defined the rent calculation method (Cass. 3e civ., 7 May 2002).

Single-use status also has consequences for the triennial early termination right: the 2014 Pinel reform placed single-use premises in a derogation category where the statutory triennial right to exit (Art. L. 145-4) is not mandatory.

The Material Criterion

The statutory text speaks of premises “built for a single use.” Courts have extended the concept to premises fitted with specific installations after their original construction, provided the fit-out goes beyond simple decoration and affects the structure. However, the landlord can only invoke tenant fit-out works if they have vested by accession — a lease with an end-of-tenancy accession clause prevents the landlord from relying on the tenant’s works to establish single-use status during the lease relationship (Cass. 3e civ., 21 May 2014).

The assessment uses only the objective physical characteristics of the premises. The contractual permitted use and the planning regime are irrelevant: an “all activities” clause does not prevent a classification as single-use (Cass. 3e civ., 27 November 2002), and a planning rule against change of use does not establish it if the premises could be converted without major cost.

Multiple Activities and Exceptions

The exercise of genuinely distinct activities in the same premises normally excludes single-use status. Two exceptions are recognised: where the ancillary activities serve only the main monovalent activity; and where multiple activities are conducted for the same client base as part of a single unified commercial operation (courts have applied this to department stores and entertainment venues: Cass. 3e civ., 30 June 2004; Cass. 3e civ., 8 February 2006; Cass. 3e civ., 3 December 2003). Integrated monovalence is a further category: premises fitted and interconnected with adjacent buildings to form an indivisible exploitation unit qualify even if individual buildings might not qualify on their own (Cass. 3e civ., 28 June 1989).

The Economic Criterion

The material criterion alone is not sufficient. Courts have progressively added an economic criterion: the premises must be incapable of being put to a different use without major and costly works relative to the capital value of the building (Cass. 3e civ., 28 April 1998; Cass. 3e civ., 8 February 2006). The burden of proving the extent and cost of those works lies with the landlord invoking single-use status (Cass. 3e civ., 10 November 2010). Courts will not accept single-use classification merely because specific fit-out exists — they must investigate whether conversion is economically feasible without major expenditure (Cass. 3e civ., 8 March 2005).

📋
Practical Point — The Two-Part Test in Litigation

In any dispute over single-use classification, the court will typically appoint a valuation expert to assess both criteria. For the material criterion, the expert examines the structural fit-out and whether it is specific to a single use. For the economic criterion, the expert estimates the cost of conversion works and compares them to the building’s capital value. The party asserting single-use status should commission independent evidence on both criteria before the hearing — particularly on the conversion cost figure, which courts will otherwise estimate themselves.

Practical Examples: Recognised and Not Recognised

Premises type Status Key conditions / notes
Recognised as Single-Use
Hotels SINGLE-USE Paradigm case; structural hotel fit-out satisfies both criteria
Cinemas and entertainment venues SINGLE-USE Cass. 3e civ., 3 December 2003; 21 March 2007
Nursing and retirement homes SINGLE-USE Structural medical/care fit-out; costly conversion
Teaching establishments (costly structural conversion) SINGLE-USE Cass. 3e civ., 28 June 1989
Dance halls and casinos with specific installations SINGLE-USE Cass. 3e civ., 20 June 1990
Large garages with structural concrete ramps and hydraulic lifts SINGLE-USE (if conversion costly) Modern case law requires actual application of structural-conversion test; courts refuse if conversion feasible at reasonable cost (Cass. 3e civ., 10 November 2010)
Furnished apartment rental complexes with hotel-style fit-out SINGLE-USE Full hotel-equivalent structural fit-out
Not Recognised as Single-Use
Plain warehouses NOT SINGLE-USE No specific structural fit-out; readily convertible
Psychiatric clinics NOT SINGLE-USE Courts have not accepted single-use classification
Museums NOT SINGLE-USE Not accepted in the case law
Bakeries (despite specific ovens) NOT SINGLE-USE Specific fit-out insufficient; conversion economically feasible (Cass. 3e civ., 8 March 2005)

How the Rent Is Fixed for Single-Use Premises

The rent is fixed according to the practices observed in the relevant sector if any exist. Where no established sector custom exists, the court fixes the rental value using whichever method appears most appropriate, with full sovereign discretion. The standard five-criterion market-value framework of Art. L. 145-33 does not apply, and neither does the index-based capping rule of Art. L. 145-34. If the parties agree on a turnover-based rent clause in the lease, the Art. R. 145-10 mechanism is also disapplied — the contractual clause governs.

Practical Checklist: Asserting or Contesting Single-Use Status
For the landlord asserting single-use status: commission an independent expert report addressing both criteria before proceedings. For the material criterion, document the structural fit-out and its specificity to a single activity. For the economic criterion, obtain a conversion cost estimate expressed as a percentage of the building’s capital value. Obtain comparables from the relevant sector for the rent-fixing stage.
Check the lease for accession clauses: if the lease contains an end-of-tenancy accession clause, the landlord cannot rely on the tenant’s fit-out works to establish the material criterion — the landlord must demonstrate that the original structure (before the tenant’s works) itself satisfies the material criterion.
For the tenant contesting single-use status: challenge the economic criterion by commissioning a conversion cost assessment showing that conversion is feasible at a cost that does not reach the threshold of “major works” relative to capital value. Even where specific structural fit-out exists, the economic feasibility of conversion is the decisive battleground in modern case law.
Multiple-activity premises: if the premises host multiple activities, assess whether they fall within the “single unified commercial operation with the same client base” exception or the “integrated monovalence” exception. Without one of these exceptions, genuinely distinct activities defeat the classification.
If single-use status is established, identify the sector customs: the rent is fixed by sector custom if any exist. Collect evidence of comparable sector leases, sector trade association publications, and any published rental statistics for the specific property type. If no custom exists, the court will fix the rent with sovereign discretion — the quality of the expert instruction is critical.
Assessing Single-Use Status for a Renewal?

Whether you are a landlord seeking to establish single-use classification to escape the standard rent cap, or a tenant contesting that classification, we advise on the application of both criteria, the evidence required, and the practical consequences for rent determination at renewal.

Book a Consultation

Legal Notice. This article is for general information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Laws and regulations may have changed since publication. Always seek qualified French legal advice on single-use premises classification in a French commercial lease.