Easement by Implication
Definition
An easement by implication arises from circumstances rather than an express written grant. Courts recognize implied easements when the circumstances of a conveyance make it reasonable to infer that the parties intended an easement to exist, even though they did not expressly state it.
Types
1. Easement by Prior Use (Implied from Prior Use / Quasi-Easement)
Elements:
- Prior common ownership of the dominant and servient parcels;
- Apparent and continuous use of the servient parcel for the benefit of the dominant parcel at the time of severance (a “quasi-easement”);
- Reasonable necessity of the use for the enjoyment of the dominant parcel (not strict necessity — “reasonable” or “convenient” necessity suffices in most jurisdictions).
2. Easement by Necessity
Elements:
- Prior common ownership of the parcels;
- Severance creating a situation where one parcel is landlocked (no access to public road);
- Strict necessity at the time of severance (parcel completely landlocked — no other access).
Easement by necessity terminates when the necessity ends (e.g., a new road is built providing access).
3. Easement by Estoppel (Irrevocable License)
Elements:
- Owner grants permission (license) for use of land;
- Licensee reasonably relies on the license;
- Licensee makes substantial improvements or changes of position; AND
- It would be inequitable to allow the licensor to revoke the permission.
The license becomes an irrevocable easement by estoppel.
Key Distinctions
- Easement by prescription: Arises from adverse use (hostile, open, notorious, continuous, for the statutory period) — similar to adverse possession but for use rights, not title. Requires hostility; implied easements do not.
- Express easements: Created by written instrument; must comply with Statute of Frauds; no implication required.
- License: Permissive use, revocable at will (absent estoppel); does not run with the land.
Key Cases
- Van Sandt v. Royster: Implied easement for underground sewer line based on prior use; apparent though not visible, the line’s existence was discoverable on reasonable inspection.
- Othen v. Rosier: Easement by necessity denied because prior common ownership not clearly established; strict necessity is insufficient if the common ownership element is not met.
Policy / Rationale
- Courts presume that parties conveying land do not intend to leave parcels landlocked or useless.
- Giving effect to the reasonable expectations of contracting parties.
- Prevents windfalls to grantors who could “trap” grantees by conveying landlocked parcels.