A property owner grants a neighbor an easement to access a beach through the owner's land. The neighbor sells their property to a new owner, who begins using the easement to shuttle large groups of tourists to the beach via bus. The original property owner objects, arguing that this exceeds the allowable use of the easement. Which of the following is the best interpretation of the situation?
The property owner's objection is invalid because easements are transferable, and the new owner may use the easement consistent with its original purpose.
The new owner's use of the easement to shuttle tourists exceeds the scope of the original easement because such commercial use was not intended by the grantor.
The new owner's use is within the scope of the easement because it still involves accessing the beach by acceptable means.
The property owner's objection is invalid because a change in ownership modifies the allowable use of the easement.
The correct answer explains that the scope of an easement is generally limited to the purpose for which it was created. In this case, the easement was granted to provide access to the beach, likely limited to reasonable personal use by the original grantee. Using it for commercial purposes, such as shuttling tourists via buses, would likely exceed this intended scope, as it imposes a greater burden on the servient estate than initially contemplated. Other answers are incorrect because they either incorrectly conflate transferability with a right to modify use, misstate the effects of a change in ownership, or fail to address how the new use exceeds the easement's original limitations.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is an easement and how does it work in property law?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does 'scope of the easement' mean?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why are easements transferable, and what limitations exist on their use?