Local government may seize property containing an easement without providing a new easement to a non-landlocked parcel

Facts: A local government sought to acquire real property through eminent domain for a highway bypass project. The project would result in the elimination of a roadway easement connecting an owner’s non-landlocked commercial property to the highway. No alternative easement was provided.Claim: The owner sought to prevent the seizure, claiming the government could not take the property containing the easement unless it provided an alternative easement over a neighboring property since eliminating the easement resulted in unnecessary private losses.

Counter claim: The government sought to take the easement through eminent domain without providing an alternative easement since neighboring real property cannot be taken for the benefit of another property that is not landlocked.

Holding: A California court of appeals held the government may take the parcel containing the easement without providing an alternative easement since real property cannot be taken for the benefit of another property that is not landlocked. [Council of San Benito County Governments v. Hollister Inn, Inc. (September 9, 2012) _CA6th_]

Credit given to first tuesday Realty Publications, Inc.

http://firsttuesdayjournal.com/local-government-may-seize-property-containing-an-easement-without-providing-a-new-easement-to-a-non-landlocked-parcel/

Advertisements