Easement Defined
Adams Stirling PLC
Menu

EASEMENT DEFINED

It is common for homeowner association CC&Rs to contain easements over the property of members for ingress and egress, installation of utilities (gas, water, electricity, internet, etc.), roads, hiking paths, etc. It gives the association the right to use specified portions of members' properties to benefit the membership.

An easement is a nonpossessory interest in the land of another that gives its owner the right to use the land of another or to prevent the property owner from using his land. (County Sanitation Dist. v. Watson Land Co. (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 1268, 1278.)

The owner of an easement is not the owner of the property, but merely the possessor of a right to use someone's land for a specified purpose. (Cody F. v. Falletti (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1232, 242.)

An easement appurtenant to the land is attached to the land of the owner of the easement, and benefits him as the owner or possessor of that land. (4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1987) Real Property, § 435, p. 615.)

An  appurtenant easement is a burden on land that creates a right-of-way or the right to use the land only. (Civ. Code, § 801.) It represents a limited privilege to use the land of another for the benefit of the easement holder's land, but does not create an interest in the land itself. (Camp Meeker Water System, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com. (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 845, 865.)

An easement can be created by an instrument other than a deed, such as the subdivision map. (Gov. Code, § 66475.)  It has long been the law in California that plat maps may be used to precisely define an easement, and when an easement is defined by a map, it is decisive. (Wilson v. Abrams (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 1030, 1035.)

It is fundamental that the language of a grant of an easement determines the scope of the easement. (Schmidt v. Bank of America, N.A. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1499.)

The owner of the dominant tenement may maintain an action for the enforcement of this intangible right and may recover damages from a party for obstructing the easement. (Civ. Code, § 809; Moylan v. Dykes (1986) 181 Cal. App. 3d 561, 574.)

Equitable Easement. "For a trial court to... grant an equitable easement, three factors must be present. First, the defendant must be innocent. That is, his or her encroachment must not be willful or negligent. The court should consider the parties' conduct to determine who is responsible for the dispute. Second, unless the rights of the public would be harmed, the court should grant the injunction if the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury … regardless of the injury to defendant. Third, the hardship to the defendant from granting the injunction must be greatly disproportionate to the hardship caused plaintiff by the continuance of the encroachment and this fact must clearly appear in the evidence and must be proved by the defendant. Unless all three prerequisites are established, a court lacks the discretion to grant an equitable easement. (Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Ass'n v. McMullin (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 982, 1003.)

Prescriptive Easement. A prescriptive easement requires use of the property which has been open, notorious, continuous and adverse for an uninterrupted period of five years. Whether the elements of prescription are established is a question of fact for the trial court. (Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 564, 570.)

Implied Easement. When the grant of an easement is implied, its terms must be inferred from all of the circumstances of the case. The extent of an easement created by implication is to be inferred from the circumstances which exist at the time of the conveyance and give rise to the implication. The reasonable expectation of the parties at the time of the conveyance is key. Moreover, the easement must be obvious to others to confirm the intent of the original owner to use part of his land for the benefit of the other part and to give notice to his successors in interest that the future servient estate is burdened with the easement in favor of the future dominant estate. (George v. Goshgarian (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 856, 860-862.)

ASSISTANCE: Associations needing legal assistance can contact us. To stay current with issues affecting community associations, subscribe to the Davis-Stirling Newsletter.

Adams Stirling PLC