Easements
An easement is a right to USE someone else's land for a particular purpose.
17. Easements
An easement is a nonpossessory property interest that allows the holder of the easement the right to use property for a particular purpose without giving them any greater interest in the land. Restatement of Property §450.
- Common examples of easements are driveways, roads, rights of way, railroads, pipelines, sewers, and utility lines.
- There are two types of easements:
- An appurtenant easement is one that burdens and benefits specific parcels of land. Both the benefit and the burden of an easement appurtenant transfer automatically to successor owners of the benefitted and burdened parcels.
- An easement in gross burdens specific parcels of land, and that burden transfers automatically to the successor owner of the burdened parcel. The benefit of an easement in gross runs to a person or organization instead of to a particular parcel, and does not transfer automatically to successors.
- Easements can be created in five ways. [The Nevada FLE tests two of these: (1) easements created by express written agreement or deed, and (2) easements created by prescription.]
- Express easements. Express easements are perpetual in duration and cannot be revoked by the owner of the land burdened by the easement, unless the written agreement provides otherwise.
- Easements by prescription. Creation of a prescriptive easement requires satisfaction of the following elements: (1) the actual use of an owner’s land that is (2) hostile or by claim of right, (3) open and notorious, and (4) continuous throughout the statutory period.
- [Elements (1) through (4) are defined like the comparable elements of adverse possession (concept 14).]
- A party claiming a prescriptive easement does not have to exclude use by the owner of the land.
- The Nevada FLE does not test rules related to [easements implied from prior use, implied from necessity, or easements by estoppel].
- Nor does the FLE test rules related to public prescriptive easements or public beach access rights.
An easement is a nonpossessory right to use another's land for a particular purpose. The burden always runs to successors, but the benefit of an easement in gross belongs to a person and does not. The FLE tests only two creation methods: express and prescriptive.
An easement is a right to use someone else's land for a particular purpose. It is nonpossessory, which means the holder never owns the burdened land and never gets any greater interest in it; the right is limited to the use, nothing more. Common examples are driveways, roads, rights of way, railroads, pipelines, sewers, and utility lines, but that list is just illustrative, not a closed set of what can be an easement.
The single hardest thing on this concept is the appurtenant-versus-in gross split, because the two types behave differently when the land changes hands. An appurtenant easement is tied to two parcels of land: it benefits one parcel and burdens another, and both the benefit and the burden run automatically to whoever later owns those parcels. Buy the benefitted parcel and the easement comes with it; buy the burdened parcel and you take it subject to the easement, whether or not anyone mentions it. An easement in gross is different on the benefit side only: the burden still runs automatically to the successor of the burdened parcel, exactly like an appurtenant easement, but the benefit belongs to a person or an organization, not to a parcel of land, and it does not transfer automatically to successors.
- 1An express easement, created by a written agreement or deed. It is perpetual in duration and the burdened owner cannot unilaterally revoke it, unless the written agreement itself says otherwise.
- 2A prescriptive easement, built like adverse possession: actual use of another's land that is hostile or by claim of right, open and notorious, and continuous throughout the statutory period. Prescription does not require exclusivity; the claimant need not exclude the owner's own use.
The trap the exam loves is an option that says the benefit of an easement in gross passes automatically to the next owner; it does not. Likewise, an answer letting the burdened owner simply cancel an express easement at will is wrong absent contrary written terms, and a prescriptive claim does not fail just because the owner kept using the same strip.
Three creation theories are flatly off the table for this exam: easements implied from prior use, easements implied from necessity, and easements by estoppel. Public prescriptive easements and public beach access are out too. Any answer that creates an easement through necessity, prior use, or estoppel reaches outside the tested scope.
"Burden always runs; benefit only runs if it is attached to land."
Both types burden a parcel and that burden follows the burdened land to every successor. The benefit splits: appurtenant benefit is attached to a benefitted parcel and runs automatically; in-gross benefit belongs to a person or organization and does not run automatically. The headline trap is an option saying the in-gross benefit transfers automatically to the next owner. Three more quick tells: an express easement is perpetual and cannot be unilaterally revoked by the burdened owner unless the writing says so; prescription does not require excluding the owner; and necessity, prior use, and estoppel are out of scope, so any easement created by one of those three loses.
use of another's land, two creation routes only (express writing or prescription), burden always runs, in-gross benefit does not.
A landowner grants her neighbor, in a signed written deed, the right to drive across her back lot to reach the public road. The deed says nothing about how long the right lasts or whether it can be ended. Years later the landowner sells her lot to a buyer, and the neighbor sells his lot to a new owner. The buyer of the burdened lot wants to close off the crossing, and the new owner of the benefitted lot wants to keep using it.
The crossing survives the sales on both sides, and the buyer cannot close it. Suppose instead the deed had granted the right to a utility company to run a line, with the benefit running to the company rather than to any parcel. That would be an easement in gross, and the benefit would not pass automatically to a later owner of the neighbor's lot.
An option says the BENEFIT of an easement in gross transfers automatically to a successor, or treats the in-gross benefit like an appurtenant one. The easement benefits a person or organization (a utility, a company, a named individual), not a parcel.
Only the burden of an easement in gross runs automatically (to the successor of the burdened parcel). The benefit runs to a person or organization and does NOT transfer automatically to successors.An option lets the owner of the burdened land unilaterally revoke or cancel an EXPRESS easement (often on notice or at will), with no contrary written term mentioned; or limits an express easement to the original holder's lifetime/existence.
Express easements are perpetual in duration and cannot be revoked by the burdened owner unless the written agreement provides otherwise.An option says a prescriptive-easement claimant must have used the land exclusively or must have excluded the owner's own use; the facts often note the owner kept using the same area.
A prescriptive-easement claimant does not have to exclude use by the owner; the elements are actual, hostile/by-claim-of-right, open and notorious, and continuous use, not exclusivity. (And an easement gives only a right to use, never fee title.)An option creates the easement by NECESSITY (landlocked parcel), by implication from PRIOR USE (prior use of a common owner), or by ESTOPPEL (reliance), with no writing and no prescriptive period.
The Nevada FLE tests only two creation methods, express writing/deed and prescription. Necessity, prior use, and estoppel (and public prescriptive easements / public beach access) are excluded from scope.An option says ONLY the listed uses can be easements, or that an interest is not an easement because it is not on the common-examples list.
The common-examples list is illustrative ("common examples are"), not exhaustive; any right to use another's land for a particular purpose can be an easement.the stem hands you a right to use someone else's land for a set purpose, a crossing, a line, a pipe, a road, then turns the question on whether that right survives a sale or whether it can be ended.
The instant you see a successor owner, ask two things in order.
how was the easement created?
If it is a signed writing or deed, it is express, perpetual, and not unilaterally revocable by the burdened owner; if it grew from long actual, open, hostile, continuous use, it is prescriptive, and exclusivity is not required.
If instead the option conjures the easement from necessity, prior use, or estoppel, that route is out of scope and loses.
is the easement appurtenant or in gross?
If it benefits a parcel, both benefit and burden run automatically.
If the benefit belongs to a person or organization, it is in gross: the burden still runs to the successor of the burdened land, but the benefit does not pass automatically.
Match the option to those two splits and the distractors fall away.
A utility company holds a written easement, granted by deed years ago, to run a power line across a strip of a rancher's land. The deed grants the right to the utility company itself and says nothing about tying the right to any neighboring parcel. The rancher later sells the burdened land to a buyer, who takes it knowing the power line is there. Separately, the utility company is acquired by a successor utility, and a question arises about whether the right to keep the line in place passed to that successor.
Did the benefit of the easement transfer automatically to the successor utility?
A landowner granted her neighbor a written easement, by signed deed, to use a gravel driveway across her lot to reach the highway. The deed describes the driveway right as benefitting the neighbor's adjoining lot and says nothing about ending the right. A few years later the landowner decides she no longer wants the driveway crossing her property and notifies the neighbor that she is revoking the easement. The neighbor objects and continues to use the driveway.
May the landowner unilaterally revoke the express easement?
For well over the statutory period, a neighbor regularly drove a tractor along a dirt track across the edge of an adjoining owner's field to reach his own back acreage. He did so openly, without the owner's permission, and treated the track as if he had a right to use it. Throughout that whole time the owner also continued to use the same track to move equipment around the field. When the owner finally tried to block the track, the neighbor claimed a prescriptive easement, and the owner argued that the neighbor never had exclusive use because the owner used the track too.
Does the owner's own continued use of the track defeat the neighbor's prescriptive easement claim?
An owner subdivided a single tract into a front lot, which touches the public road, and a back lot, which does not. He sold the back lot to a buyer but the deed said nothing about access, and the parties never signed any agreement granting a right to cross the front lot. The back lot is now landlocked, and the buyer has never crossed the front lot for any length of time. The buyer sues, asking the court to recognize an easement across the front lot so she can reach the road.
Which statement best describes the buyer's claim under the law tested on the Nevada FLE?
A landowner granted her neighbor a written easement, by recorded deed, to cross a footpath on the landowner's lot to reach a lake; the deed describes the right as benefitting the neighbor's adjoining lot, which sits between the burdened lot and the lake. The landowner later sells the burdened lot to a buyer. The buyer claims that because he never signed anything and was never personally part of the original grant, he takes the lot free of the footpath easement.
Does the buyer take the burdened lot subject to the footpath easement?