Easement by Necessity as a Cause of Action in Connecticut

An easement by necessity arises when a parcel of land is rendered landlocked after a division of property, leaving the owner of that parcel without access to a public road or other essential access. In Connecticut, this type of easement is created by law to ensure that the land can be reasonably used and accessed.

The Connecticut Appellate Court in Christensen v. Reed described the essential elements for establishing an easement by necessity:

1. Common Grantor Leaving a Parcel Landlocked
   The plaintiff must prove that the property was originally part of a larger tract owned by a common grantor and that the parcel became landlocked as a result of the grantor’s actions in dividing the property. This means the lack of access is not accidental but directly caused by the manner in which the property was subdivided.
2. Reasonable Necessity for Ingress and Egress
   The plaintiff must demonstrate that access over the burdened property is reasonably necessary for the use and enjoyment of their land. The necessity does not have to be absolute but must be essential for the practical use of the property. For example, access to a public road for transportation would typically qualify as reasonably necessary.

Unlike easements by prescription, which are based on long-term use, an easement by necessity arises immediately upon the division of the property if the land is left without reasonable access. This easement remains in place as long as the necessity exists.

The court closely examines the facts surrounding the property’s division and current access to determine if an easement by necessity is warranted. Evidence of the grantor’s intent and the level of necessity are critical in making this determination.

Find the Law

The elements of an easement by necessity are outlined in Christensen v. Reed, 105 Conn. App. 578, 587 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008), citing Pender v. Matranga, 58 Conn. App. 19 (2000):

“The elements of an easement by necessity remain the same, which are whether a common grantor left a parcel landlocked and whether there is a reasonable necessity for ingress and egress over the burdened land.”

This doctrine ensures that landlocked property owners are not unfairly deprived of access and that the property can be put to reasonable use.