A commercial tenant can benefit from a right to light, but whether they can bring the claim themselves depends on the lease and who holds the legal easement over the property.
You run a shop, a restaurant or an office from a leased building. A development goes up next door and the light through your windows drops away. The freeholder owns the bricks, but you are the one trading in the gloom. So who actually has the claim, and who ends up with the money if there is a settlement? The answer is rarely as simple as "the landlord", and getting it wrong at the start can cost a tenant real leverage.
- A right to light attaches to the building, not automatically to whoever occupies it
- Leases usually decide who can act and who receives compensation
- A tenant often needs the freeholder involved to enforce the right fully
Who actually owns the right to light on a leased commercial building?
The right to light is a private easement attached to the land and the building, not to a person. It benefits the property. When a commercial building has acquired a right to light, that right runs with the property and passes to whoever holds the relevant legal interest.
Under the Prescription Act 1832, a right to light is acquired after twenty years of uninterrupted enjoyment of light through defined apertures. The building earns the right by standing and being used, not by anyone applying for it. Section 3 of that Act sets out the twenty-year period and how it works, and you can read the wording of section 3 on legislation.gov.uk.
Here is the part that trips people up. The freeholder holds the underlying legal estate, so the freehold interest carries the easement. A tenant holds a lease, which is itself a legal interest in the land, but only for the term granted. Whether a tenant can rely on the right to light in their own name usually comes down to what the lease says and how long a term they hold.
Can a commercial tenant bring a claim in their own name?
A commercial tenant can often bring or support a claim, but the position depends on the length of the lease and the rights the lease grants over the property. A tenant with a long lease, say a ninety-nine or one hundred and twenty-five year term, is in a very different position from a tenant on a five-year retail let.
A long leaseholder typically holds a substantial interest and a real financial stake in the light. If the value of that leasehold interest drops because the premises have become darker, the tenant has suffered a loss the law recognises. That tenant is often well placed to pursue a claim, particularly where the lease grants the benefit of easements enjoyed with the property.
A short-term commercial tenant is trickier. Their financial interest in the light is limited to the remaining years of the term. A court weighing remedies looks at who has suffered a real, measurable injury. A tenant with two years left and a rent that will not change has a weaker case than one paying premium rent for a bright, prominent unit.
The lease itself is the first document to read. It may grant the tenant the benefit of all easements enjoyed with the property, which strengthens the tenant's hand. It may also reserve rights to the landlord or contain clauses about who deals with third-party developments. None of this is obvious from the outside, which is why an early assessment that looks past the survey to the legal position matters so much.
What happens to the compensation on a leased property?
Compensation for lost light follows the loss, so it can be split between the freeholder and the tenant according to the injury each has actually suffered. This is where a leased commercial property differs sharply from an owner-occupied house.
Think of the value of the building as shared. The freeholder owns the reversion, the long-term value of the property once any lease ends. The tenant owns the benefit of the lease for its term. If a development darkens the premises, both interests can fall in value. The freehold reversion may be worth less. The leasehold interest may be worth less too, because a darker unit commands lower rent or is harder to assign.
A settlement therefore has to reflect that split. The developer pays for the injury to the light, and that sum is apportioned between the parties whose interests were damaged. How compensation is calculated is a subject in its own right, and the same principles about negotiating damages and book value apply whether the claimant is a freeholder or a tenant.
Getting the apportionment right needs the interests properly valued. A tenant who assumes the landlord will simply hand over a share is exposed. So is a landlord who ignores a tenant with a strong, long-term interest in the light.
Why the tenant and freeholder usually need to act together
The strongest position on a leased commercial building is one where the tenant and the freeholder act together, because a court considers the whole picture when deciding whether to grant an injunction or award damages.
An injunction is the remedy that gives a claim its teeth. In Regan v Paul Properties DPF No.1 Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1391 the Court of Appeal restored an injunction against a developer, confirming that damages are not automatically the fallback. The willingness of a court to grant an injunction is what drives serious settlements. But to seek an injunction against an obstruction, the claimant generally needs to hold the interest that carries the right and be able to show real injury.
If the freeholder holds the easement but has no immediate occupation, and the tenant occupies but holds only a short interest, a developer may try to argue that neither is well placed to force the point. Acting together closes that gap. The freeholder brings the easement and the reversionary interest. The tenant brings the occupation and the trading loss. Combined, they present a claim a developer cannot easily brush aside.
There is also a practical funding point. A commercial tenant with a live claim does not have to carry the cost or risk alone. Under a fully funded model, the surveyor, the solicitor, counsel and court fees are covered end to end, with legal insurance covering the developer's costs if the claim fails. That levels the field against a well-resourced developer, whatever the size of the tenant's business.
Timing matters more on a commercial site than most tenants realise
A commercial right to light position is at its strongest before the neighbouring development completes, and delay narrows the remedies a court will consider. This is legal reality, not a sales point.
Once a building is finished and occupied, a court weighing whether to order any part of it cut back looks hard at delay and at the balance of hardship. The principles from Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13 give courts a broad discretion on remedies, and a claimant who sat on their hands while a development rose is in a weaker position. For a trading business watching the light disappear, the instinct is often to wait and see how bad it gets. That instinct is expensive.
A tenant who spots scaffolding going up next door should treat it as a prompt to check the position, not a reason to wait. If you are watching a development rise while it is still mid-construction, that is exactly the window when your options are widest.
Common questions
Does my commercial lease need to mention light for me to have a claim?
Not necessarily. A right to light is acquired by twenty years of enjoyment under the Prescription Act 1832 and attaches to the building. Your lease may or may not expressly grant the benefit of easements, but the underlying right can exist regardless. The lease affects who can act and who receives compensation, not whether the right was acquired in the first place.
Can my landlord settle a light claim without telling me?
A freeholder can deal with their own interest, but they cannot simply give away rights that belong to your leasehold interest without consequence. If you hold a substantial interest in the light and suffer real loss, you have a stake in any settlement. This is why tenants and landlords are far better served acting together and agreeing how any compensation is apportioned early.
What if my lease has only a few years left?
A short remaining term limits your financial interest in the light and therefore the compensation attributable to you. That does not make the claim worthless, because the freeholder may still have a strong claim on the reversion, but it does affect your share. If your business depends on the light and you intend to renew, that intention can be relevant to the wider picture.
What a commercial tenant should do next
Start by reading the lease and finding the parts that deal with easements, alterations and third-party developments. Then establish the basics of the building's history, how long the current windows have been in place and whether twenty years of light has been enjoyed. Speak to the freeholder early rather than late, because a joint position is almost always stronger than two separate ones.
Above all, do not wait for the development to finish before taking advice. The remedies that give a claim leverage narrow with every month of delay. If you are a commercial tenant losing light to a neighbouring build, a proper assessment of the legal position, not just the survey numbers, will tell you whether you have a claim worth pursuing.
This article is general information about the law in England and Wales, not legal advice. Outcomes always depend on the facts.
Joshua Platt BSc (Hons) MRICS, Director, Daylight Protect
Daylight Protect is a rights of light claims specialist operating across England and Wales. We provide a fully funded solution that covers everything end to end, the surveyor, the solicitor, counsel and court fees, backed by legal insurance that covers the developer's costs if a claim does not succeed. There is no recovery, no fee, and no costs to you either way. We tell you plainly when you have a claim, and just as plainly when you do not.
Similar insights
