LLA effect on appurtenant easement

[Elias French]

Hello all,

looking for insight and/or references for the following situation. Two adjacent properties/PIQ's, under common ownership. One PIQ property has an appurtenant easement over adjacent State Property for ingress/egress to/from a city street. If a LLA is done on the two PIQ's so as to reconfigure the two PIQ properties, how does that affect their rights to the easement?

Also, if one property with an easement appurtenant is combined with adjacent properties that had no easement rights, does the easement become appurtenant to the new larger property, and are there limits on the new use of the easement, likely by a new condo development for ingress/egress?

Your thoughts are much appreciated, as I can't seem to find many references on this topic.

[pezdork]

Lot line adjustment do not change easement rights.

there are lots of scenarios but ultimately what happens to the easement is a legal function. what rights do you have as the easement holder? can you transfer it? can you get rid of it? will your use over burden the easements original intent? (ie if you have an appurtenant easement for access then subdivide your parcel into 40 condo units all with rights to the easement...)

its simple but its also extremely complicated.

[Ian Wilson]

Two adjacent properties/PIQ's, under common ownership. One PIQ property has an appurtenant easement over adjacent State Property for ingress/egress to/from a city street. If a LLA is done on the two PIQ's so as to reconfigure the two PIQ properties, how does that affect their rights to the easement?

Don’t look now, but that easement may have been extinguished when the common owner took title to both properties. See California Civil Code §881.

Under the current situation, since there is a common owner, simply reserve an ingress/egress easement in the location the owner wishes. Then, when one of the properties changes ownership, KA-BAM! Easement!

Just sayin'

Ian Wilson

[Elias French]

Thanks for the input folks,

Perhaps the question is of intent as pezdork stated: Can an easement for the benefit of one parcel, now be used for ingress and egress for the benefit of a multi-unit development on a new larger parcel comprised of the original parcel and additional lands? Or would this be going beyond the intent of the easement? This reasoning seems logical, and is one for the attorneys I suppose.

Ian, sorry for the poorly written question. This is not a "Doctrine of Merger" situation as I think you read it as. Rather, It is an easement appurtenant to a "Parcel A", over a "Parcel B", and "Parcel A" is to be combined with a "Parcel C".

Cheers all, and again if anyone knows of any applicable case law or references they would be much appreciated.

[Ian Wilson]

Ah! Now I understand Elias.

A picture really is worthy a 1000 words.

I think the attached diagram is what you're talking about.

If so, the situation is called overburdening the easement. A perfect example of this can be found in Scruby v. Vintage Grapevine, Inc. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 697, 702 [43 Cal.Rptr.2d 810]

Go to Leagle.com. Under the Advanced Search feature, enter the words overburden & easement. Select California Courts and hit enter. You'll be treated to a list of mire than 50 cases to read through.

Or, you could just hit: http://www.leagle.com/leaglesearch?all= ... California

Doc2.pdf

Leagle is free to use and is very user friendly. Enjoy the site!

Doc2.pdf

[steffan]

I could be wrong, but I don't believe Scruby v Vintage addresses the O.P. question, i.e. changes in dominant tenement parcel size. Scruby appears to me to be more about dominant vs. servient types of use and conflict of uses, not parcel additions/changes.

I've done some searching on this in the past and know how a title company advised my client regarding a similar situation. However at this point all that I can offer is a quote from "Clark on Surveying,7th edition". As a secondary authority, it may provide some level of guidance and confidence.

From "Clark" 7th, Section 27.13:
"Since easements benefit only the parcel owned by the dominant party at the time the easement is created, subsequent acquisitions of land that attach to that parcel may be restricted in or prohibited from benefitting from the easement proper".

[Elias French]

Folks,
Ian and Steffan you are both correct. It was a two-pronged question, involving both overburdening and changes in dominant tenement parcel size. I had been unable to find anything in Brown. The Clark reference and Scruby both seem particularly apt to their respective topics.

[LS_8750]

You have an over burden issue, like the water line that needs to be up sized to serve a thousand people instead of ten. The existing improvements need to be upgraded and the easement needs to reflect the use.

[Scott]

I have the same situation with a rail spur easement.
Parcel 'A' is the benefitted parcel, Parcel 'C' is the encumbered parcel.
With a LLA we are giving roughly half of Parcel 'A' to Parcel 'B'.
I am wondering if that half of Parcel 'A' joined to Parcel 'B' has any rights to the rail spur easement encumbering Parcel 'C' after the LLA?

[Proud7191]

Donald Wilson's book 'Easements Relating to Land Surveying...' has a relevant case study on page 231. Refers to Shooting Point v. Westcoat 265 VA.256;576 S.E.2D 497 (VA. 2003) that might be a good reference for you. Jp