Looking for land when we have 2 million square meters of empty office space? This is the paradoxical situation we find ourselves in today in France. While the housing crisis worsens in French cities, entire square meters lie unoccupied, sometimes for several years.
It is in this context that the legislature intervened by adopting, on June 16, 2025, an ambitious law intended to facilitate the conversion of offices and other buildings into housing. This text comes amid a growing housing shortage, particularly in large cities, where the vacancy of millions of square meters of office space stands in stark contrast to the difficulty of accessing housing.
While reservations for new housing fell by nearly 40% between 2022 and 2024, this law is intended as a lever to reactivate a depressed supply by mobilizing existing built heritage rather than further expanding urbanization.
1. Amendments to the law of June 16, 2025
– A multi-destination building permit finally approved
Among the major contributions of this reform is the establishment of the multi-purpose building permit, already piloted during the construction of the Olympic Village. This mechanism allows, in a single permit application, to plan for several successive uses for a building (for example: offices today, housing tomorrow), without the need to submit a new permit for each change of use.
In concrete terms, this allows a project leader to integrate a possible medium- or long-term conversion into their strategy, thereby securing and enhancing the value of real estate transactions in an uncertain economic environment.
– An exemption from the PLU to authorize housing where it was prohibited
The competent urban planning authority may now, under certain conditions, authorize the conversion of a building not intended for residential use into a residential building, by deviating from the designation rules set out in the PLU (Local Urban Planning Plan), in accordance with the new Article L. 152-6-5 of the Urban Planning Code.
This exemption also applies to extension or elevation work included in the project and subject to planning permission.
This measure is far from trivial. Until now, many conversion projects were blocked because the PLU simply excluded “residential” use in certain tertiary areas. Project leaders were then forced to request a PLU review, which was often lengthy and politically sensitive.
– Mandatory use as a primary residence in certain cases
The law also allows local urban planning (PLU) plans to define areas within which only housing intended exclusively for primary residences may be authorized following the conversion of office buildings (Article 1 of the law, amending Article L. 151-14-1 of the Urban Planning Code). This mechanism is based on an extension of the scope of the so-called “primary residence” easement.
This measure aims to prevent abuses such as furnished tourist accommodation or vacant housing used for low-yield rental investments. It is also a way for local authorities to ensure that the housing created truly contributes to meeting the need for permanent residences.
This is a direct response to some criticisms regarding the inflationary or speculative effects that these conversions could generate in certain high-demand areas.
2. Between progress and limits of the reform
The law of June 16, 2025, establishes a more flexible legal framework to facilitate urban recycling, but on the ground, implementation remains fraught with challenges.
Despite progress (multi-destination permits, exemptions from the PLU, regulation of use), urban recycling remains a complex and risky exercise.
Adding to this is the economic climate: between 2022 and 2024, reservations for new housing fell by 40%, a collapse that reflects buyer reluctance, investor uncertainty, and the continued rise in the cost of building materials. In this context, even a transformation project deemed appropriate may not see the light of day due to the lack of a viable economic model.
These new measures remain, for many, paltry given the extent of the tension in the residential real estate market. The text does not address financing issues or propose incentive mechanisms to offset additional technical costs. It also does not provide for environmental simplification or a relaxation of standards.
The initial ambition of “relieving the burden on project leaders and accelerating housing production” appears somewhat watered down in the end. The reform is essentially based on empowering local authorities, without truly providing them with the technical or financial means to initiate a large-scale movement.
As a real estate lawyer, I regularly observe the strong desire to recycle office space among many developers, investors, and real estate management companies.
But it still faces multiple obstacles: fiscal, technical, regulatory, and financial.
The June 16, 2025 text offers a more favorable basis. However, for a real movement to take off, more will be needed.
