Case of the Month Montecito Country Club, LLC v. Root et al.

A homeowner buys a beautiful property next to a golf course, only to later discover that part of their backyard is subject to an easement. At first, it seems like a minor issue. The cart path that once ran along the edge of the property is no longer in use after the course was redesigned. Over time, landscaping grows in, and the area feels like part of the homeowner’s yard.

Eventually, the homeowners decide to improve the space. They remove an overgrown hedge, relocate it closer to what they believe is the property line, build a retaining wall, and regrade the land. The project is significant and expensive. From their perspective, the easement no longer serves a real purpose, and the improvements make the property more usable. The issue is whether an easement disappears simply because it is not actively being used in the same way as before, and whether long-term landscaping can expand the scope of an easement.

Under California law, an easement is not abandoned unless there is clear evidence that the holder intended to give up the right permanently. Nonuse alone is not enough. Even if the original use changes, the easement can still exist if future use remains possible or the area continues to serve related purposes.

The court found that the easement had not been abandoned. Although the cart path had been rerouted, the area continued to be used as part of the overall property, including landscaping and maintenance, and it remained feasible to reinstall the path if needed. There was no clear intent to give up the easement.

The court also addressed whether the scope of the easement had expanded. Over decades, a hedge and landscaping had been maintained in the easement area. That use was open, continuous, and without permission from the property owner. As a result, the court found that a prescriptive easement had developed, allowing the continued maintenance of the hedge and related landscaping within the easement area.

Finally, the court upheld an injunction requiring the homeowners to remove the improvements they had made that interfered with the easement. The court concluded that the improvements obstructed the established rights tied to the easement and could not remain.

The conclusion is clear. Easements do not disappear simply because they are less visible or less actively used, and long-standing use can expand the rights associated with them. For real estate consumers, this case highlights two important risks. First, an easement can continue to exist even if its original use changes or appears inactive. Second, long-term use by another party can create additional rights over time. Before making improvements near an easement, property owners should understand not only what is recorded, but also how the land has been used historically. Failing to do so can result in costly disputes and the removal of completed improvements.