Two companies in the same premises: complete legal guide 2026

Yes, running two companies from the same premises is legal. Each company must show it has the use of the premises (Article L123-11 of the Commercial Code) through a lease allowing subletting, the landlord's consent or a domiciliation contract. Conditions: separate accounts, an address filed with the INPI single window, co-ownership rules respected and one CFE per establishment.

Updated April 2026 - With rising commercial real estate costs in major French cities, an increasing number of entrepreneurs are considering sharing workspace. The question comes up regularly: can two companies operate from the same premises? The answer is yes, but the legal framework is precise and the risks of non-compliance are real if the arrangement is poorly structured. This guide covers the legal solutions, mandatory procedures and pitfalls to avoid in 2026.

See also postal proxies and correspondence management, characterising a business correctly and tax and social compliance questions.

Under French law, no provision prohibits multiple companies from sharing the same address. For a company (a legal person), the relevant provision is Article L123-11 of the French Commercial Code: the company must show it has the use of the premises where it establishes its registered office, "alone or with others", and the same article allows "the domiciliation of a legal person in premises jointly occupied by several businesses", under conditions set by decree. Article L123-10, by contrast, applies to natural persons: traders, craftspeople and sole proprietors. What the law monitors is transparency: each entity must remain clearly identifiable, with its own SIREN number, its own accounts and its own distinct legal identity.

The founding principle is straightforward: two companies in the same premises is legal as long as each maintains its own legal and accounting autonomy. The INPI, through the single window for business formalities (guichet unique), readily accepts the registration of multiple SIRET numbers at the same address. This is common practice : commercial domiciliation centres regularly host hundreds of companies under a single roof.

Before choosing a solution, it is essential to distinguish four différent legal configurations, each with its own obligations.

Commercial domiciliation. This is the simplest and most widespread arrangement. An approved domiciliation company provides a business address, without the registered companies necessarily conducting their daily operations there. Costs range from €15 to €80 per month depending on the services included (mail handling, telephone answering, meeting room access). Multiple companies can be domiciled at the same address without ever physically crossing paths.

Genuine shared occupation. Two companies physically share the same premises : offices, workspaces, meeting rooms. This situation requires a written premises-sharing agreement defining the allocation of space, costs and access hours. This is the typical case of two freelances jointly renting an office, or an accounting firm sharing its premises with a lawyer.

Commercial subletting. A company holding a commercial lease sublets part of its space to another company. This operation is governed by Article L145-31 of the Commercial Code: unless the lease provides otherwise or the landlord consents, all subletting, whether total or partial, is prohibited. Where it is authorised, the landlord is called to join in the deed and, if the sublease rent exceeds the main rent, may require a corresponding increase in the principal rent. The article sets no cap tying the rent to the sublet area, and whether the subtenant may pursue a different activity is a matter of the lease's permitted use (déspécialisation), not of Article L145-31. The landlord's written consent remains mandatory.

Cost-sharing with re-invoicing. One company bears the full lease and re-invoices a share to another user company. This re-invoicing mechanism must be documented by a written agreement, with invoicing that complies with applicable VAT rules. These re-invoiced amounts must be correctly accounted for in each entity's books. Mind the VAT treatment: letting bare premises is in principle VAT-exempt (Article 261 D, 2° of the French Tax Code), unless the landlord has opted to charge VAT (Article 260, 2°, an option binding for ten years). Without that option, re-invoicing bare rent is not subject to VAT; re-invoiced ancillary costs (electricity, internet) and the letting of fitted or equipped premises follow their own regime.

The four configurations at a glance#

In every case, each entity keeps its own SIREN, its own accounting records and an address filed with the INPI single window.

Landlord or lessor authorisation#

If the premises are rented, the landlord's written authorisation is mandatory before installing a second company. Standard commercial leases generally contain a clause prohibiting subletting or sharing without the owner's express consent. Neglecting this step exposes the tenant to lease termination for breach of contract. If you are the owner, check the building's co-ownership rules: some buildings prohibit multiple professional activities or limit the number of entities that can be installed.

Legal and accounting séparation#

Each company must have its own SIRET number, its own bank accounts, its own accounting records and its own client contracts. Any mixing between the two structures can be interpreted as a confusion of activities. The tax administration and URSSAF are particularly vigilant on this point. In the event of an audit, the absence of clear separation can lead the authorities to find a société créée de fait (Article 1873 of the Civil Code, subject to the regime of the undeclared partnership) where contributions, sharing of results and affectio societatis are all present. The possible consequences are heavy, though not automatic: VAT regularisation, social contribution recovery and, in some cases, penalties, all assessed on the facts.

Activity compatibility#

The two companies must not carry out incompatible or directly competing activities. An architect and a graphic designer can share premises without issue. Two accounting firms, however, risk creating confusion among clients and administrations. Additionally, certain regulated activities (healthcare professions, food activities, hazardous material storage) impose specific hygiene and safety standards that may be incompatible with premises sharing.

Safety and accessibility standards#

Depending on the nature of the activities and the number of occupants, certain regulations regarding fire safety, accessibility for disabled persons or reception capacity may apply. It is prudent to verify in advance that the premises comply with requirements for all activities to be carried out there.

CFE: two separate taxpayers in one set of premises#

The business property tax (cotisation foncière des entreprises, CFE) is assessed per establishment and per municipality (Article 1447 of the French Tax Code). Two companies sharing the same address are therefore two separate taxpayers: each files its own initial return (form 1447-C-SD) and is taxed separately. Where there is no significant rental value, the CFE is computed on the minimum base of Article 1647 D, whose scale depends on turnover or receipts from the year before last and is set by the municipality. Timing markers: a 50% instalment on 15 June where the previous year's CFE exceeded €3,000, then the balance on 15 December.

In short, sharing the walls does not pool the local tax: plan for two CFE assessments, not one.

Step 1: Check compatibility with the lease and co-ownership rules#

Review the current lease carefully. Identify clauses relating to subletting, premises sharing and use of the space. If necessary, request an addendum from the landlord formally authorising the presence of a second company.

Step 2: Draft a sharing or availability agreement#

This document must specify the duration of the sharing arrangement, the allocation of costs (rent, electricity, internet, maintenance), each party's access rights, reserved and shared spaces, and the termination conditions. It is strongly recommended to have this agreement reviewed by a lawyer or chartered accountant. The cost of a professionally drafted agreement typically ranges from €200 to €500.

Step 3: Declare the address via the INPI single window#

If one of the two companies is changing its address to move into the shared premises, it must update its registration through the single window for business formalities at procedures.inpi.fr. This procedure replaced the former formalities with the commercial court registry (greffe) following the implementation of the single window in 2023.

Step 4: Update the articles of association if necessary#

For companies (SARL, SAS, etc.), any change of registered office address requires an amendment to the articles of association, publication in a legal announcements journal and filing with the registry. Associated costs range from €150 to €300 depending on the case.

Step 5: Notify social and tax bodies#

Each company must inform URSSAF, the tax authorities (SIE), its pension fund and its professional mutual insurance company of the address change or confirmation. This step is often overlooked but is crucial to avoid lost mail and unnecessary reminders.

The benefits are real: a 30% to 50% reduction in real estate costs, shared equipment (printer, meeting room, internet connection), professional emulation and networking opportunities. For a young business or a freelance in the launch phase, the savings are significant.

The constraints deserve advance planning: confidentiality of exchanges and sensitive documents, increased administrative complexity (two sets of accounts, two déclarations, two insurance policies), and the risk of usage conflicts if cohabitation rules are not clear from the outset. A cohabitation charter, even informal, prevents the majority of tensions.

Two micro-entrepreneurs can absolutely share the same business address, provided the activities are distinct and there is no confusion in management. Each declares their revenue independently and retains their own SIRET number.

However, if the two activities are identical or very similar, the risk of reclassification as a société créée de fait by URSSAF rises appreciably. This is particularly the case of spouses operating two complementary micro-enterprises from the same premises with shared clients and pooled resources. In this situation, the spouse-collaborator status (conjoint-collaborateur) or the creation of a joint company (SARL, SAS) are legally safer alternatives.

Hayot Expertise advice: the real risk almost always appears when premises sharing has been organised informally : by habit, verbal agreement or assumption. In the event of a tax or social audit, the absence of a written agreement is treated as an absence of rights. A single formalised document protects both companies.

Representative example (illustration, not a real case file): two spouses each run a micro-enterprise from the same flat, one in graphic design, the other in web copywriting. As long as each invoices their own clients, keeps their own books and declares their revenue separately, the arrangement raises no difficulty. The risk appears the day they invoice shared clients, share a bank account and split the work with nothing in writing: together, contributions, sharing of results and an intention to act as partners may then characterise a société créée de fait. Three reflexes prevent it: separate accounts, invoicing specific to each, and a short dated occupancy agreement.

We recommend systematically verifying four éléments before committing to a premises-sharing arrangement:

1. The title of occupation: does each company have a written document justifying its right to use the premises (lease, availability agreement or domiciliation contract)?
2. The lease clauses: does the lease permit sharing, subletting or the presence of third parties on the premises?
3. The cost-sharing modalities: is the allocation of charges documented, invoiceable and compliant with applicable VAT rules?
4. The consistency of legal formalities: do the addresses declared to the RCS, URSSAF and tax authorities correspond to the actual occupation of the premises?