DVF: checking the actual price of property sales and its legal value

A seller who discovers, six months after signing, that a neighbour has sold an identical property 30% higher wonders whether he sold his house too cheaply. A buyer in a dispute over a latent defect seeks to quantify the loss in value. A couple going through divorce cannot agree on the value of the shared flat. In each of these situations, the first reaction is often to consult the DVF database to find the actual price of neighbouring sales. This guide explains how to use this public tool, what it really reveals, and above all what legal value these data have where a price dispute, an action for lesion or a latent defect claim is at stake.

DVF: what the database contains and where the data come from

The demande de valeurs foncières (DVF, property transaction values request) is a dataset published by the Direction générale des Finances publiques (DGFiP, the French public finance authority). It records transfers of real property for consideration, that is, essentially sales, that have taken place in France over the last five years.

Its publication rests on a legal obligation. Article 13 of Law No. 2018-727 of 10 August 2018 for a State at the service of a trusted society, known as the ESSOC Law, created Article L. 112 A of the French Tax Procedure Code (Livre des procédures fiscales). That provision requires the tax authority to make freely accessible the information on property values declared on transfers. In other words, making the actual price of property sales available is not an administrative favour but a legal obligation of open data.

The information comes from two cross-referenced sources: the registered sale deeds (that is, the data declared by notaries and on registration) and the land file derived from the land registry (cadastre). For each transaction, the database gives:

• the date of the transfer and the sale price actually declared
• the address and cadastral references of the property
• the type of property (house, flat, land, commercial premises, outbuilding)
• the actual built surface area and the number of main rooms
• the land area, where applicable

By contrast, the database never contains the identity of the parties. The seller and the buyer remain anonymous, in accordance with the legal framework governing dissemination.

Areas not covered

Three territories are outside the open data DVF database. The départements of Bas-Rhin, Haut-Rhin and Moselle fall under the Alsace-Moselle land register regime (livre foncier), the management of which differs from the rest of France. The département of Mayotte is not covered either. For these areas, consulting sale prices requires other steps, in particular with notaries or the local land register.

How to consult the DVF database in practice

Two means of access coexist, and it is useful not to confuse them.

The first is pure open data, accessible without authentication. The raw files can be downloaded from the data.gouv.fr platform. For ordinary use, the map explorer developed by Etalab (accessible via app.dvf.etalab.gouv.fr) is easier to read: you zoom in on a commune, click on a plot and obtain the list of recent sales with their price, date and surface area. Several local authorities and private portals reuse the same data through a more consumer-oriented interface.

The second is the Patrim service, hosted on the impots.gouv.fr website. It requires identification (via FranceConnect or the personal tax account) and is open only for specific purposes: valuing a property for a real estate wealth tax (IFI) return, for an estate, a gift, expropriation proceedings or a tax audit. Patrim provides more detailed information but its use is regulated and tracked. For a general search for comparables, the open data DVF is sufficient.

Search method for obtaining relevant comparables

The quality of a valuation depends entirely on the relevance of the sales selected. A serious search in the demande de valeurs foncières requires the following:

• limit the search to a consistent geographical area (same neighbourhood, same street if possible, failing that the same market segment)
• select properties that are comparable in type and surface area (a 65 m² three-room flat cannot be compared with a 120 m² five-room flat)
• favour recent sales, ideally less than twelve to eighteen months old, to take account of market movements
• calculate a price per square metre to neutralise differences in surface area, then build a range rather than a single figure

This methodological rigour is not cosmetic. In a dispute, the way in which the comparables were selected determines the credibility of the valuation before a judge or an expert.

What DVF shows, and what it does not show

The strength of the database lies in its source: the prices are not advertised prices or estate agents' estimates, they are amounts actually declared on authentic instruments. The actual price of property sales shown in DVF therefore corresponds to the price stated in the deed, excluding furniture where it was itemised separately.

Its limits are just as important to understand, because they determine its legal scope.

First, DVF says nothing about the condition of the property. Two flats identical in surface area and location may show a considerable price difference depending on whether they are renovated or dilapidated, dual-aspect or single-aspect, on a high floor with a lift or on the ground floor facing the street. The database ignores these qualitative characteristics, which nevertheless account for most of the value.

Second, the database does not distinguish atypical sales. A transfer between members of the same family, an urgent sale, or a transaction on a property that is occupied or burdened by an easement (servitude) may show a price far from the market. Nothing flags these situations in the raw data.

Moreover, some transfers do not appear in it or appear only imperfectly: sales of shares in SCIs (French property holding companies), contributions in kind, and certain off-plan sales (vente en l'état futur d'achèvement). Finally, there is a time lag: publication takes place every six months, so that a very recent sale may not yet appear.

In summary, DVF is an excellent starting point for gauging an order of magnitude, but only a starting point. Confusing the price of a comparable with the value of the disputed property is the most frequent error.

The legal value of DVF data

This is the heart of the matter for anyone contemplating litigation. Official data is not automatically sufficient evidence.

Official data, but not authenticated for the disputed property

DVF information comes from the DGFiP and is based on authentic instruments. As such, it enjoys a presumption of reliability as to the prices declared for the properties it records. A judge will not spontaneously call into question the fact that a neighbouring flat sold at a given price on a given date, since that data comes from registration.

But this reliability concerns the sales recorded, not the value of the property in dispute. DVF provides comparables; it does not deliver a valuation of the property concerned. Moving from comparable to value requires expert reasoning: weighting according to condition, aspect, floor, works and the local market. It is that reasoning that the judge assesses, not the raw data.

In practice, DVF data therefore has the value of an element of assessment, an indication, or even a commencement of proof, but rarely that of autonomous and decisive proof. They feed the judge's conviction; they do not replace it.

DVF and judicial expert appraisal

In valuation disputes, the judge has the power to order an expert appraisal. The court-appointed expert uses the DVF database too, among other sources (notarial scales, knowledge of the local market, inspection of the property). The expert's report, adversarial and detailed, almost always prevails over a mere impression drawn from a few lines of DVF produced by one party.

The practical lesson is clear. Producing a table of DVF comparables strengthens an argument, especially if the selection is rigorous and documented. But in a serious dispute, that table must be backed by an expert appraisal or, at the very least, by a reasoned valuation from a professional (notary, property surveyor). DVF alone does not win a dispute over price.

DVF and the action for rescission for lesion

Lesion (lésion) is the ground on which the temptation to rely on DVF is strongest, and where its exact scope needs to be clarified.

Article 1674 of the French Civil Code gives the seller of real property an action where he sold at an abnormally low price:

"If the seller has suffered loss of more than seven twelfths in the price of an immovable, he is entitled to seek rescission of the sale, even if he expressly waived in the contract the right to seek such rescission and declared that he was giving up the surplus value."

Three points are decisive. First, the action for lesion in the sale of real property benefits only the seller, not a buyer who may have paid too much. Second, the threshold is high: there must be a loss of more than seven twelfths, meaning that the sale price must be less than five twelfths of the property's real value on the day of the sale. A mere difference of 10 or 15% is never enough. Finally, Article 1676 of the French Civil Code confines the action to a period of two years from the sale.

The relevant value is that of the property at the time of the sale, not its current value. This is precisely where DVF is both useful and limited. The database makes it possible to check quickly whether there is a serious doubt: if strictly comparable properties sold for double the price received in the same period, the indication is strong. But establishing lesion does not rest on DVF.

The Civil Code in fact provides for a specific expert procedure. Articles 1677 and following provide that lesion must be proved, and verification of the value goes through the valuation of three experts, who assess the value of the property at the date of the sale. DVF in no way replaces that expert appraisal; it serves counsel to gauge whether it is worthwhile to bring the action before exposing the client to it, and then to feed the experts' work.

In practical terms, a seller who believes he has suffered lesion should gather the closest DVF comparables, document their relevance, and then consult a lawyer to assess whether the seven-twelfths threshold appears attainable. Without that margin, the action is doomed to fail and will expose the claimant to costs.

DVF and the action for latent defects

Latent defect (vice caché) litigation uses DVF differently, not to challenge the original price but to quantify a financial consequence.

Articles 1641 and following of the French Civil Code protect the buyer against hidden defects that make the property unfit for its intended use or significantly reduce its use. A buyer who discovers such a defect has, under Article 1644, an option: return the property and have the price refunded (rescissory action, action rédhibitoire), or keep the property and obtain a reduction in the price (price-reduction action, action estimatoire). The action must be brought within two years of the discovery of the defect, under Article 1648.

DVF has no function here in proving the existence of the defect, which is a matter for technical expert appraisal (cracks, water ingress, presence of dry rot, serious non-compliance). Its relevance appears at the stage of assessing the loss, in particular in the price-reduction action. To measure the loss in value, it may be useful to compare the price paid with the price that an equivalent sound property would have achieved, or to objectivise the gap between the theoretical value and the value affected by the defect. The conditions of the warranty and the remedies available to the buyer of a building are set out in our article on the warranty against latent defects in real estate.

Here again, the database only supports a line of reasoning whose core remains expert appraisal. The amount of the price reduction, in the price-reduction action, is set by the judge in light of expert opinion. A table of DVF comparables may illustrate the scale of the discount; it does not demonstrate it on its own.

DVF in other valuation disputes

Beyond lesion and latent defects, DVF is used in several disputes where the value of a property is in question.

In divorce and the liquidation of the matrimonial property regime, spouses frequently disagree on the value of the home to be shared or on the occupation indemnity. DVF makes it possible to set a first figure and give credibility to a position, before, if disagreement persists, the judge appoints a notary or an expert.

In estates, the declaration of the value of the assets determines the transfer duties and the balance of the division among heirs. DVF helps to secure a valuation against the risk of reassessment by the tax authority, which itself uses these data through Patrim.

In expropriation for public purposes, the compensation must cover the entirety of the loss. The expropriation judge reasons by comparison with recent transfers of similar properties. DVF and Patrim are a source of comparables used in these cases, subject to the relevance of the points of comparison. The calculation and challenge of compensation where the operation affects let premises are dealt with separately in our article on expropriation and commercial leases.

In all these cases, the pattern is the same: DVF provides the raw material, and expert appraisal and legal reasoning draw from it a value that can be relied on against others.

Conclusion: a tool for a first approach, not self-sufficient proof

The DVF database has democratised access to the actual price of property sales and changed the way individuals and professionals approach the value of a property. It is now a legitimate reflex as soon as a doubt about a price arises. Its major strength remains its source: prices actually declared on authentic instruments, published under a legal obligation.

The position taken in this guide is clear. DVF is an excellent tool for a first approach and a solid support for argument, but on its own it does not have the decisive evidential value that many attribute to it. In an action for lesion, the law requires an expert appraisal. In a latent defect case, the loss in value is demonstrated by expert appraisal. In a divorce or an estate, the final value is almost always set by an appointed professional. Confusing the comparable with the value of the disputed property is the error that weakens cases.

Before commencing proceedings based on a price difference, the useful approach is to gather the closest DVF comparables, document precisely the choice of those comparables, and then have the analysis validated by a lawyer and, depending on the stakes, by a property expert. It is that combination, and not a mere screenshot of the database, that carries the judge's conviction.

Frequently asked questions

Is the DVF database free and accessible to everyone?

Yes. DVF data is published as open data by the DGFiP, without authentication, on data.gouv.fr and through the Etalab map explorer. Its dissemination derives from Article L. 112 A of the French Tax Procedure Code, created by the ESSOC Law of 10 August 2018. The Patrim service, hosted on impots.gouv.fr, is separate: it requires identification and is open only for specific purposes such as an IFI return, an estate or an expropriation.

Is DVF enough to prove that I sold too high or too low?

No, not on its own. DVF provides comparables that are reliable as to declared prices, but it does not deliver a valuation of the property concerned, because it ignores its condition, aspect or works. In a dispute, the judge relies on a detailed expert appraisal. DVF data is worth an indication or an element of assessment, not autonomous and decisive proof.

What price difference is needed to bring an action for lesion?

Article 1674 of the French Civil Code requires a loss of more than seven twelfths of the price, which means a sale price of less than five twelfths of the real value of the property on the day of the sale. A difference of 10 or 20% is therefore insufficient. The action is reserved to the seller of real property and must be brought within two years of the sale, under Article 1676.

Does the DVF database cover the whole of France?

Almost. The départements of Bas-Rhin, Haut-Rhin and Moselle, subject to the Alsace-Moselle land register regime, are not covered by the DVF dataset, nor is the département of Mayotte. For these territories, other sources must be used, in particular notaries or the local land register.

How often is DVF data updated?

Publication takes place every six months and covers a depth of about five years of transfers. A very recent sale may therefore not yet appear in the database at the time of consultation. This lag must be taken into account when looking for comparables in a rapidly changing market.

Can DVF be used to challenge the value adopted by the tax authority?

Yes, DVF is a relevant support in a tax dispute concerning an estate, a gift or the IFI, all the more so as the authority itself uses the same data via Patrim. However, genuinely similar comparables must be selected and the choice documented. A simple list of neighbouring sales without analysis of their relevance will carry little weight against a reasoned valuation.

Does DVF make it possible to quantify the loss in value in the case of a latent defect?

It may contribute, but only at the stage of assessing the loss, not to prove the defect itself, which is a matter for technical expert appraisal. In the price-reduction action under Article 1644 of the French Civil Code, the price reduction is set by the judge in light of expert opinion. DVF comparables may illustrate the scale of the discount, but they do not demonstrate it on their own.