data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d5e14/d5e149bdf5a30c98c258b00fff6dd3725cb471c9" alt="Law Self logo"
Easements
An easement is defined as the right
of one person to exercise limited ownership or possession of the property of
another. Easements are a nonpossessory property interest held by another party
in the land of another.[1]
Easements can create contentious issues between
neighboring landowners but are also essential for the benefits they provide. For
example, landowners use conservation easements to ensure that land will be
preserved and wildlife will be protected.[2] Neighbors can use
easements to foster cooperation and ease accessibility to land to ensure that a
parcel of land is fully utilized. A
public utility or a government agency may use an easement to get permission to build overhead or
underground utility lines to benefit a neighborhood.
We will first present the various types
of easements and discuss their scope and how they affect different property
owners. Second, we will look at how easements are created. Finally, we will
analyze methods of easement termination and its impacts.
Types of Easements
Easements can be affirmative easements,
which allow the easement holder, who is someone other than the landowner, to
use the property of another for a limited purpose,[3] or they can be negative
easements, which entitles the easement holder to compel the possessor of another
property to refrain from taking part in certain activities. Conservation
easements, for example, are negative easements, as they are voluntary
restrictions on private land that prevent landowners from taking part in certain
commercial activities to preserve the land’s natural state.[4]
Both affirmative and negative easements
can further be divided into two categories. The first category is an easement
appurtenant. This easement is held by a person who can make physical use of and
enjoy another’s parcel of land. For an easement appurtenant to exist, two
different parties must own two different parcels of land.[5] The dominant tenement
is the land owned by the holder of the easement and the servient tenement
is the parcel of land in which the easement is held. An easement appurtenant is
attached to the land, passes with the land, and benefits the land. Courts will
construe, whenever they can, an easement to be an easement appurtenant[6] because easements
appurtenant are more flexible and usable.
The second category is an easement in
gross. An easement in gross is an interest in, or right to use, the land of
another that is personal and typically ends at the easement holder’s
death.[7] An example of an easement
in gross occurs when a landowner grants another the right to come upon his land
to fish and hunt. Once the grantor of this easement passes away or sells the
property to another owner, the other party no longer has the right to use the
land for these recreational purposes.
Creating Easements and Their Scopes
Easements are created in four ways: express
grant, express reservation, by implication, and by prescription.
Express Grant
The simplest way to create an
easement is by express grant. This occurs when a party burdens his land with an
easement and conveys that easement to another party.[8] Under the Statute of Frauds,
when an easement is created by express grant and is to last longer than one
year, it must be in writing and signed by the owner of the land that will be burdened
by the easement. The owner of this land is referred to as the servient
tenement holder.
The scope of an easement over the
property of another by an express grant is limited and confined to the terms
and purposes of that express grant.[9] In one notable case, a
property owner, Cyrus expressly granted another property owner, Ratcliff,
access across his rear property to access a roadway.[10] The court held that since
the easement expressly dictated and specifically mentioned the use of Cyrus’
“rear property,” it would be impermissible to extend the scope of the easement
and alter the easement’s language. Subsequently, Ratcliff could not get access
to the roadway across Cyrus’ “front property.”
Express Reservation
The second way to create an easement is
through express reservation. Here, a grantor conveys title to the land to
another person but retains an easement to use the land for a special purpose.
For example, Steven decides to sell his
30-acre commercial alfalfa farm to Robert and then live on a neighboring parcel
to the east of the farm. If Steven includes a clause in the land sales
contract, reserving a half-acre parcel on the alfalfa farm’s eastern edge for his
own continued personal alfalfa farming, Steven has created an easement through
express reservation. Note that a reservation of easement can only be made in
favor of the party transferring the land (Steven, in this case). Courts may, in
fact, void any attempt by a grantor to reserve an easement for anyone other
than the grantor himself.[11]
Easement by Implication
The third method to create an easement
is by implication. Even if an easement is not created expressly in writing, it
may arise by operation of law. There are two categories of easements by implication.
The first category is an easement by
necessity. An easement by necessity may, for example, involve an owner who
conveys a parcel of land that is landlocked.[12] If the landlocked parcel
has no means of ingress or egress except over lands retained by the conveyor or
in the possession of another property owner, the right of the purchaser to use
surrounding lands to access her parcel is implied.[13]
The second category of implied easements
are easements implied from existing use. An easement is implied from existing
use if
·
the
use is apparent and continuous;
·
it
is reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the parcel benefiting from the
easement; and
·
a
court determines that the parties wanted the use to continue after the division
of a parcel.
So, for example, if two businesses were
run on a single parcel with one shared parking lot and two partners who ran
both businesses decided to split the parcel, but the shared parking lot was
entirely on one side, the court could reasonably infer that the other property
owner receives an implied easement to allow her customers to park in the
previously shared parking lot.
The scope of an easement by implication
can expand with the easement holder’s use. In one case, a court held that when
an easement arises out of necessity, the easement may be “necessary for all
purposes to which the land is adapted.”[14] If the necessity
increases and remains reasonable, then a court will likely grant the expansion
of the implied easement’s scope.[15]
Going back to the parking lot example,
if the businesses are doing well and the owner of the parcel in which the
parking lot since decides to expand the parking lot, a court might likewise
infer that the other parcel owner’s right to allow her customers to park in the
parking lot are expanded to its new section as well.
Easement by Prescription
The fourth approach to easement creation
is creation through prescription. Easements created by prescription are analogous
to land acquired by adverse possession.[16] This allows someone to
acquire an interest in land merely by possessing or using it for a required
period of time. An easement by prescription must have the following four
elements:
·
Open
and notorious usage;
·
The
usage must be “adverse” and without the land owner’s permission;
·
The
usage must be continuous and uninterrupted; and
·
The
usage must be “hostile” and under claim of right, which means that the user
cannot, for example, either with the express permission of the owner or under a
lease agreement with the owner.[17]
A recent example of a court granting a
prescriptive easement took place in Helena, Montana.[18] There, Judge Sam Haddon
of the United States District Court for the District of Montana found that the
United States Forest Service had acquired a prescriptive easement for a trail
running through the front yard of an 80-acre property owned by a landowner
because the use was open (the Forest Service marked trails from 1940 to the
present day), continuous and uninterrupted (the Forest Service had been using
and maintaining the trail from at least 1959 onwards), and adverse (the
landowner did not specifically permit the Forest Service to mark and upkeep
trails).[19]
Termination of Easements
Easements can be terminated via a
variety of methods. The first and easiest is expiration, when the easement
terminates once the time period for the easement’s existence lapses.
The second method of termination is unity
of ownership, also known as the merger doctrine. Under this doctrine, when the
dominant and servient estates come under common ownership and possession, the
easement terminates.[20]
Third, an easement can terminate via release
where the holder of the easement provides the holder of the servient tenement
with a deed of release. To be enforceable, a deed of release for an easement
must include the names of the grantor and grantee, the date of execution, a
description of the land with the easement, and the operative release language (such
as “the easement is hereby released”).
The fourth way to extinguish an easement
is through abandonment. Abandonment requires physical action and clear intent
by the easement holder to permanently abandon the easement. This can be implied
by conduct. For example, if someone has an easement to use a shortcut over
someone else’s property but builds a wall that blocks off the path over which
he has the easement, he could be said to have abandoned the easement.
A fifth process for termination is
peculiar to an easement by necessity. Such an easement will terminate once the
necessity ends. Let’s assume that Jane lives on a parcel of land that is
blocked on all sides without access to the single major roadway servicing her
neighborhood. An easement by necessity arises to allow her to cross one of his
neighbor’s parcels of land to access the major roadway. This is because Jane
has no practical way to access the roadway. Years after the easement by
necessity arises, the municipality builds a new roadway that Jane can access
more easily. Once the new roadway can be easily used and accessed, the easement
by necessity terminates because Jane’s easement ceases to be necessary.
Condemnation (which means government
takeover) of the servient estate and involuntary destruction of the servient
estate also extinguish all easements. A 1918 case illustrated this latter method
of easement termination. A building owner granted a right-of-way easement over
a stairway to his neighbor in an adjoining building. A month later, the
building caught fire due to an electrical malfunction and was destroyed. The
building owner rebuilt the building, but decided not to rebuild the stairway. The
court held that the easement was terminated when the building caught on the
fire and the building owner was not obligated to rebuild the stairway for the
neighbor.[21]
Easements are a critical component of
real estate law. Understanding the basics of their operation can help property
owners better structure their requests to use the land of another, even if for
a short-term or limited purpose.
[1]
Stephen Siegel, A Student’s Guide to Easements, Real Covenants, and Equitable
Servitudes, (2012).
[2]
“Easements-Benefits for Landowners,” Land Trust Alliance, https://www.landtrustalliance.org/what-you-can-do/conserve-your-land/benefits-landowners.
[3]
Jessica Lippman, Exacted Conservation Easements: The Hard Case of Endangered
Species Protection, 19 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 293, (2004).
[4]
Karen A. Jordan, Perpetual Conservation: Accomplishing the Goal Through
Preemptive Federal Easement Programs, 43 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 401, 403 (1993).
[5]
James A. Webster Jr., Webster's Real Estate Law in North Carolina: Possessory
Estates and Present Interests in Real Property 15-1 (5th ed. 1999).
[6]
Weber v. Dockray, 64 A.2d at 633.
[7]
Shingleton v. State, 260 N.C. 451,
454, 133 S.E.2d 183, 185 (1963).
[8]
O'Connell v. Larkin, 532 A.2d 1039,
1042 (Me. 1987).
[9]
Farley v. Farley, 600 S.E.2d 177, 180
(W. Va. 2004).
[10]
Ratcliff v. Cyrus, 209 W. Va. 166,
544 S.E.2d 93, 2001 W. Va. LEXIS 7 (W. Va. Feb. 23, 2001)
[11]
Glasgow v. Glasgow, 221 S.C. 322, 70
S.E.2d 432 (1952).
[12]
4-34 Powell on Real Property § 34.07 (2017).
[13]
Rozelle v. Watts, 106 Cal. App. 2d
185, 234 P.2d 724 (1951).
[14]
Whittier v. Winkley 62 N.H. 338
(1882).
[15]
Michael V. Hernandez, Restating Implied, Prescriptive, and Statutory Easements,
40 Real Prop. Prob. & Tr. J. 75, 80 & n.21 (2005).
[16]
John W. Fisher, A Survey of the Law of Easements in West Virginia, 112 W. Va.
L. Rev. 637, (2010).
[17]
Donald Morgan, Balancing Interests: How The Prescriptive Easement Doctrine Can
Continue To Efficiently Support Public Policy, 50 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1253,
(2015).
[18]
Terry Anderson, “Property rights, access and neighborliness,” Helena
Independent Record, December 13, 2016, http://helenair.com/news/opinion/guest/property-rights-access-and-neighborliness/article_caeb227e-fa4c-5d40-a615-3ee4623f2fc6.html.
[19]
Wonder Ranch, LLC v. United States,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146810 (D. Mont. Oct. 24, 2016).
[20]
Knud E. Hermasen & Donald R. Richards, Maine Roads and Easements, 48 Me. L.
Rev. 197, 268, (1996).
[21]
Cohen v. Adolph Kutner Co., 177 Cal.
592, 171 P. 424, 1918 Cal. LEXIS 647 (Cal. 1918)