Why Some Couples Choose to Live Apart (And Thrive)

There exists a relationship model that society has long viewed as an in-between state, a temporary phase, or an admission of failure. This model has a name: LAT, Living Apart Together.

Over the past decade, this lifestyle choice has gained ground. Not as a fallback option, but as a deliberate décision, often advocated by people who have already experienced cohabitation — and who understand its limitations.

As a CBT psychotherapist in Nantes, I work with individuals and couples who are questioning this model. Some consider it after a divorce. Others after a difficult cohabitation. Still others have never lived together and see no reason why they should start. None of these positions is pathological. Each deserves to be explored with honesty.

---

What exactly is LAT?

The term "Living Apart Together" was first used by Dutch sociologist Cees Straver in the 1980s to describe a phenomenon he observed in the Netherlands: stable, committed couples who deliberately chose not to share the same roof.

Definition: A LAT couple is a couple that considers itself as such, that is recognized as such by those around them, but whose two partners maintain separate residences. This is not a long-distance relationship (partners generally live in the same city). It is not a pre-cohabitation phase. It is a complete choice of relationship structure. What LAT is not:

– A classic long-distance relationship (where séparation is imposed due to work or geographical constraints).

– A trial phase before moving in together.

– A sign that the relationship is "not serious enough."

– A disguised form of singledom.

---

The numbers: A growing phenomenon

Data on LAT varies by country and methodology, but the trend is clear.

In France: According to INSEE (2020), approximately 7% of coupled adults do not live under the same roof. This percentage rises to 12% among 45-64 year-olds and reaches 18% among coupled individuals over 60. In Northern Europe: Scandinavian countries, where the model is most widespread, show rates of 10 to 14% among couples of all ages (Levin & Trost, Swedish longitudinal study, 2003-2019). The typical profile: LAT is overrepresented among people over 40, after divorce or séparation, with children from a previous relationship, and with financial independence. But it also concerns younger couples, particularly in major cities where housing costs make cohabitation economically questionable.

---

For whom is LAT relevant?

People with high autonomy needs

Some people function better with a preserved personal space. This is not an attachment problem or fear of commitment. It is a temperamental trait: the need to regulate one's own environment — one's schedules, space, habits — is stronger than average.

In CBT, we distinguish between dependency patterns (excessive need for the other) and autonomy patterns (excessive need for control over one's environment). LAT can be a healthy response to the latter, provided it is a conscious choice and not avoidance.

Blended families with children

Blended families represent one of the contexts where LAT makes the most sense. Moving in with a new partner when children are involved means: managing conflicting loyalties, negotiating educational rules, integrating different custody schedules, and contending with the ex-partner.

Research: A study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family (Strohm et al., 2009) showed that blended couples who cohabit quickly have a séparation rate of 60% within 5 years. Those who maintain separate residences for at least 2 years before moving in together have a significantly lower rate.

LAT allows children to maintain a stable anchor point (the parent's home), enables the couple to build their relationship without the pressure of immediate cohabitation, and lets everyone take things at their own pace.

Dual-career couples in different locations

Two careers, two cities, one relationship. An increasing number of couples — particularly in highly qualified professions — operate on this model not by philosophical choice but by professional necessity. LAT then gives a name to a reality that would otherwise be experienced as a deficit.

People after divorce or long séparation

After cohabitation that ended badly, the prospect of living with someone again can generate considerable anxiety. LAT offers a framework where emotional commitment exists without the pressure of shared daily life. It is often experienced as liberating: you can love without reproducing the mistakes of the past.

---

LAT is not a failure. It is a valid choice.

This is the most important point of this article, and the one that requires the most deconstruction.

The dominant social norm in France remains: meeting – exclusive relationship – moving in together – marriage (or civil partnership) – children. Any deviation from this trajectory is perceived as a delay, an anomaly, or a sign of immaturity. The couple that doesn't live together is judged as "not really together." The psychological reality: There is no scientific data demonstrating that cohabitation is a reliable indicator of the quality or stability of a relationship.

What predicts couples stability is the quality of communication, the ability to repair after conflict, mutual respect, and voluntary commitment. None of these elements require a shared address.

Reference study: Birte Hassmiller Lich and colleagues (University of North Carolina, 2017) compared cohabiting couples and LAT couples on indicators of relationship satisfaction, trust, and fidelity. Result: no significant difference in satisfaction and trust. And a slightly lower infidelity rate among LAT couples.

The interpretation proposed by researchers: the distance maintained by LAT preserves a space of desire and individuality that protects against the erosion of routine and the temptation to seek elsewhere what daily life has worn away.

---

Documented advantages of LAT

Preservation of individual identity

LAT structurally protects against identity fusion. Each partner maintains their space, habits, and rhythms. Individual identity is not negotiated daily. It is preserved by default.

Quality of reunions

When you don't live together, every reunion is an active choice. You don't "end up" by default at 7pm in the living room. You decide to see each other. This intentionality maintains a quality of attention that cohabitation naturally erodes.

Reduction of surface-level conflicts

No arguments about housework, toothpaste tubes, bedroom temperature, or TV volume. The conflicts that exist are about real relational issues, not domestic logistics.

Freedom of rhythm

Going to bed at 10pm or 2am. Eating on the couch or at the table. Listening to music loud or not. These micro-freedoms, seemingly insignificant, represent considerable psychological comfort for people who value them.

---

Limitations and risks of LAT

Financial cost

Two rents, two sets of utilities, two shopping trips. LAT is more expensive than cohabitation. This model is therefore more accessible to financially independent people, which creates an obvious socio-economic bias.

Social judgment

LAT remains minority and often misunderstood. Friends, family, and colleagues may express doubts, judgments, or concerns. "When are you two actually going to move in together?" is a question LAT couples hear regularly.

In CBT: The ability to maintain a lifestyle choice despite social pressure is an indicator of psychological solidity. But it has an emotional cost that should not be minimized. Others' judgment influences our own doubts.

The risk of avoidance

LAT is a healthy choice when motivated by positive autonomy needs. It becomes problematic when it masks a fear of intimacy, an inability to manage daily conflicts, or a refusal to fully commit.

How to distinguish the two? Choice-LAT comes with serenity, emotional commitment, and an ability to be present for the other during difficult times. Avoidance-LAT comes with emotional distance, difficulty in engaging in joint décisions, and excessive relief at the idea of "getting back to your own place."

The question of long-term commitment

LAT works well as long as both partners are aligned. But needs evolve. One may start to desire shared life. Age, health, retirement can change things. LAT requires regular renegotiation, like any form of relationship.

---

LAT vs situationship: An essential distinction

The term "situationship" describes an ambiguous relationship without clear définition, where both parties (or one of them) avoid naming what they're experiencing. It is ambiguity as a mode of operation.

LAT and situationship share an external appearance: two people who see each other regularly without living together. But the internal dynamic is radically different.

| | LAT | Situationship |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Explicit: "We are a couple; we choose not to live together." | Vague: "We see each other; we'll see what happens." |
| Commitment | Clear and reciprocal | Ambiguous, often asymmetrical |
| Communication | Open about needs and boundaries | Avoidant, fear of "scaring them off" |
| Future projection | Both envision a shared future (in this form or another) | The future is not addressed |
| Exclusivity | Generally yes, discussed openly | Often assumed but never confirmed |
| Well-being | Serenity, security, conscious choice | Anxiety, uncertainty, hypervigilance |

The decisive criterion: In a LAT, both partners can answer without hesitation: "What are we?" In a situationship, this question itself is a source of distress. In CBT: Situationship frequently activates abandonment schema and mistrust schema. The absence of a clear framework generates emotional hypervigilance ("Did they text me today?" "Are they seeing someone else?") that is exhausting and toxic. LAT, by contrast, rests on an explicit framework that reassures and liberates.

---

LAT as a form of relational maturity

There is in LAT a form of maturity that the social norm does not always recognize: the ability to love without possessing, to commit without merging, to choose the other every day rather than taking them for granted.

Traditional couples are based on a promise of physical presence: "We will be together, under the same roof, forever." LAT couples are based on a promise of emotional presence: "We will be there for each other, whatever our lives look like."

Neither of these promises is superior to the other. Each has its strengths and vulnerabilities. What matters is choosing consciously, not by default.

---

Exploring LAT in therapy

If you are in a couple and considering LAT — or if you already live this way and feel doubts, tensions, or outside pressure — therapy can help you:

• Clarify your real motivations (positive choice vs avoidance)
• Identify cognitive patterns influencing your position (fear of abandonment, need for control, fusion schema)
• Communicate with your partner about your respective needs without the discussion becoming an ultimatum
• Build a relational framework that matches who you are, not what society expects

LAT is neither a miracle solution nor a problem to solve. It is one option among many. The only question that matters is: does this configuration make you both happier and freer than the alternative?

---

If you wish to explore this question in a caring and structured setting, I offer sessions at my office in Nantes and by videoconference. Sessions are oriented toward clarification and décision-making, not judgment. Schedule an appointment

---

Gildas Garrec — CBT Psychotherapist in Nantes Individual and couples therapy

Read also

• Moving in together: The complete guide before taking the plunge
• Cohabitation: 10 things you MUST know before moving in
• We've been fighting since we moved in together: Should we worry?
• Do I need therapy? 10 unmistakable signs

Do you recognize yourself in this article?

Take our Attachment Style Test in 35 questions. 100% anonymous – Personalized PDF report for €14.90.

Take the test → Also to discover: Couple Communication (30 questions) – Personalized report for €9.90.

---

Watch: Go Further

To deepen the concepts discussed in this article, we recommend this video:

Rethinking Infidelity - Esther Perel | TEDTED