California Surveyors Forums

Here's a new one on me..... Parcel A is covered by a commercial building. Parcel B is the parking lot for Parcel A, both owned by the same person. To make sure that the parking is always appurtenant to Parcel A, someone has come up with the concept of recording a 'springing easement', one that 'springs' into being if either lot is sold separately.

I have never heard of this.......anybody?....anybody?......Beuhler?

Would a reservation of an Reciprocal Access Easement do the trick?

Or better yet a "Executory Interest" will do the trick!?

Oh, I have plenty of ways to accomplish this, including your suggestions.

Our County Counsel and I are curious to see if anyone has heard of this 'springing easement'.

Since there is no dominant or servient tenement, no easement is created. Regardless of the "trigger" event.
I would try another avenue.

When we have to create this type of easement, for instance an access easement over a designated remainder, we have the owner grant himself an easement which, in it self, doesn't CREATE the easement but introduces it into the chain of title. Then, when the DR is sold, the title search brings up the previous deed which acts as tickler for the title officer to reserve the easement. We have been doing this for going on 20 years and haven't had a single problem.

It's very simple and works very well.

Gary,

I know of no way other than what you did to create the same situation. But a "springing" easement? We now have a term for the darned thing.

While I agree it may not actually "create" the easement, if the servient and dominant tenements are properly cited and described, it serves as intent. To be caught in the future. And if someone has a better method, we're alyways looking for it...

Dave Ryan
Humboldt County

According to Black’s Law Dictionary:

Springing Use = A use that arises on the occurrence of a future event.

Also Known as = Executory Use

We have a BINGO!

see if these help, this is what came up when I did a search for examples, just don't have the time to read them myself.

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlif ... nguage.pdf

http://www.warner.nh.us/meetings/minute ... 072204.htm

http://www.spnhf.org/pdf/ce-stewardship.pdf

Good topic,
ironically one that parallels a discussion we held last night at our Chapter meeting with our guest speaker from one of the local title offices.
Before I'd offer a possible "better avenue", I'd first like to ask Gary what is this situation a result of. A subdivision map? A development permit? Use permit? or ??

no springing necessary..... deed restriction on the parcel to be used as parking

steffan wrote:Good topic,
ironically one that parallels a discussion we held last night at our Chapter meeting with our guest speaker from one of the local title offices.
Before I'd offer a possible "better avenue", I'd first like to ask Gary what is this situation a result of. A subdivision map? A development permit? Use permit? or ??

This is a condition of a use permit.

Gary:

While a Conditional Use Permit may be required to use the land as a parking lot, the OP is trying to ensure that the parking lot on Lot B is always available to the owners and their clients of Lot A to park.

That's a right of use in someone else's land, not a jurisdictionally authorized use.

Reserving the right on the face of the document is probably the cleanest and most effective way of "springing" the easement.

Actually, it's the county that wants the parking lot to always be available. The applicant already owns A & B.

So I'll assume that although we've all done something like this, no one has actually heard the term 'springing easement' used as a description.

Thanks for the time and thoughts.

Ah, Gary, I must be missing some of the details concerning this case.

The owner of the lot with the building doesn't care if the parking lot access is always available?

Are the lots already existing?

And, no, I have never heard of a "springing easement". If the intent is for the owner of both lots to record an perpatual easement over the parking lot lot, wouldn't that be an attempt to record and easement infavor of oneself over land surrently owned by oneself? Wouldn't that be a problem?

If the use permit requires parking to be available on the owner's adjacent lot, then that is the hammer that forces the owner to include the easement in the title transfer if he ever wants to sell the lot(s) while keeping the use permit active.
On subdivision maps I add a conspicuous note to the map stating: "The private easement shown shall be included in the first transfer of title for Lots x and y".
Jeff

Ian,

The applicant owns both A & B. A has an existing commercial building, B has an existing parking lot. The owner applied for a use permit (sorry, don't know what it was) and one of the conditions was to assure that the parking lot was always appurtenant to the building. The owner doesn't want to merge the lots and came up with this 'springing' easement.

"....wouldn't that be an attempt to record and easement infavor of oneself ...........Wouldn't that be a problem?"

As I posted earlier, for many years we've been recording easements, not to CREATE them, but to introduce them into the chain of title and be picked up later. Our local title companies feel this is the best and easiest way to assure the easement does get created when one of the lots is sold.

Gary:

How about a "Notice of Intent to Preserve Esaement" as defined in §887.060 of the California Civil Code? Would that work for you?

Disneyland in So cal, leases adjacent land for parking lot use. They pay dearly for this land.

I'll let the grandson tell the rest of this story if he feels like it.

Stay tuned.
They may have a springing easement on the parking lot . . . it is probably a B ride ticket .