The absolute character of ownership is one of the founding myths of civilian property law. However, the rise of environmental issues has made the limitation of individual ownership rights necessary. Two movements of limits can be distinguished. The first movement is grounded in private law and characterized by interdependency and an anthropological consequentialism. It manifests itself notably through neighbourhood disturbances. The second movement of limits, anchored in public law, can be distinguished by its biocentric dimension. This movement is characterized by a net decrease in the powers of owners as it emerged with the birth of environmental law. Through the lens of property law, it is hard to conceptualize the encroachment of environmental law on the powers of owners and to establish its basis. Concepts traditionally situated between environmental and property law—such as the res communes, the public trust doctrine, or the common heritage—enrich the analysis of the interactions between these branches of law, but cannot entirely account for them. Hence, this paper proposes the image of a collective patrimony, based on a collective interest in the environment, to legitimize the legislator’s intervention in environmental matters, in the context of property law. The idea of a collective patrimony also conveys the idea of a fiduciary relationship, which is particularly relevant in the context of the environmental protection.