An easement is a right to use someone else's property for a specific
purpose. Neighbors commonly give easements to each other in order to accommodate
each other's needs. But what happens when the city fathers, in their
greater wisdom, prohibit the use that one neighbor has allowed to the other?
That was the question before the court in a case out of the City of Los
Angeles. In that case (Baccouche v. Blankenship [Sept. 11, 2007]) a homeowner
(Blankenship) received an easement from his neighbor (Baccouche) to use
a portion of the latter's property for the purpose of keeping and
riding horses. Both properties were zoned residential in the City. Homeowner's
property had a residence on it, but the neighbor's property was totally
unimproved. The City's zoning ordinance allowed horses on residential
property but only "in conjunction with the residential use of the
lot." Obviously homeowner possessed residential use, but neighbor,
having nothing on his land, did not.
The court had no difficulty finding that the grant of the easement by neighbor
to homeowner was lawful. After all, property owners may transfer rights
between themselves without interference from government. But, in a somewhat
surprising conclusion, the court went on to say that the easement, though
valid, was completely unenforceable by the homeowner. The court reasoned
that, because the zoning allowed horses only "in conjunction with"
residential use, keeping horses on unimproved lot was a prohibited use
because the lot itself contained no residence. The fact that the user
of the lot, the homeowner, did maintain a residence on his land made no
difference.
As result, the homeowner did own an easement to use his neighbor's
land in theory, but in practice he could not enforce that easement. That
result is, admittedly, hard to digest.
The court could have avoided its conclusion by considering the easement
to be part of the homeowner's property rights in his own lot. But
the court explicitly rejected that analysis. The court took a narrow view
that, in order to comply with the zoning, the home must sit on the lot
where the horses actually run.
The issue about loss of property rights was bypassed altogether in the
court's opinion. However, that issue becomes conspicuous by its omission.
The homeowner effectively lost his rights in the easement. He could do
nothing with the easement unless and until the City released him from
the zoning. Of course, since homeowner was not the legal owner of the
lot being used for his horses, it is doubtful that he held standing to
apply to the City for a variance. That is a further irony in this case.
Although it is true the law allows local zoning to restrict how one uses
one's property, and although a city is not necessarily liable for
the resulting loss of property value, a city can go only so far before
becoming liable under the Fifth Amendment for taking away a property owner's
rights. This case, as I see it, approaches that legal boundary.
Easements are typically written for a specific use. When government denies
that use altogether on the land covered by the easement, the property
right represented by the easement has been destroyed. A little constitutional
horse sense would have gone a long way in deciding this case.