Also known as: servient tenements · servient estate
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The parcel of land subject to an easement held by the owner of another parcel. The possessor of the servient tenement remains entitled to use the land in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the easement.
Apex Industrial Park LLC owns land uphill from a rail spur. Its predecessor recorded a written grant allowing trucks to cross an adjacent factory lot on a paved road. Nexus Manufacturing Corp later bought the factory lot and announced plans to block the road. The factory lot is the servient tenement, so Nexus takes title subject to the recorded access right and cannot block the trucks.
O owns Blackacre and grants Pipeline Company an easement for a high-pressure gas line. O later grants A an easement for a road across the same land to reach Whiteacre. Both easements burden Blackacre as the servient tenement. The holders of each easement must contribute to repair costs for any shared portions they both use.
Simone Sanders owns Lot 6 and grants Sarah Sullivan an easement for a driveway across it to reach Lot 7. Before the conveyance the path was used only for foot traffic. After the sale Sullivan begins driving delivery trucks over the same strip. The pre-conveyance use of the servient tenement helps determine whether the expanded vehicle use is permitted.
Power Company holds an easement over the northerly five feet of Blackacre for an electric transmission line. The owner of Blackacre plants mature trees that grow into the easement area. The servient owner may use the land in any way that does not unreasonably interfere with the transmission line, so the trees must be removed.
Sean Steele conveys Lot 6 to Sofia Stern while reserving an easement for access across it. After the conveyance Stern widens the road to accommodate larger farm equipment. The post-conveyance use of the servient tenement is examined to decide whether the expanded width exceeds the scope of the original grant.
A developer records mutual restrictions on multiple lots in a subdivision. One lot serves as the servient tenement for access and view easements benefiting the others. When the developer later acquires all lots and then sells one, the buyer of the former servient lot takes subject to the recorded burdens that survived the period of unified ownership.
In February 1964, Alpine Slopes Development Company conveyed Lot 101 of Alpine Meadows Estates Subdivision No. 3 in Placer County to Ernest H. and Jewel Riley by grant deed recorded on March 13, 1964. The deed contained no restrictions upon the use of the plaintiffs’ property nor any reference to any instrument purporting to impose restrictions upon Lot 101. At the time of the conveyance there was no document of record purporting to restrict the use of Lot 101. Nine months later, on November 25, 1964, the grantor recorded a declaration of covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations on lots 72 through 116 of the subdivision. The declaration recited that the grantor had established a general plan for the improvement and development of the property and set forth 26 numbered paragraphs of restrictions, covenants and conditions, including paragraph 6, which required submission of plans and specifications to the Bear Creek Planning Committee and its approval before any dwelling, garage, building, fence, wall or other structure or excavation could be commenced or maintained. At a time not established by the record the Rileys constructed a snow tunnel on their lot. On January 12, 1972, the committee recorded a notice of violation of covenants, conditions and restrictions that referred specifically to Lot 101 and the declaration recorded November 25, 1964, and recited the probable violation of paragraph 6 in that a covered walkway had been constructed without prior compliance. The Rileys filed a complaint to quiet title and for damages for slander of title. The planning committee and some of its members cross-complained for declaratory relief. The trial court entered judgment quieting title in the Rileys against all claims of defendants and ruling for the Rileys on the cross-complaint. The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the judgment. The California Supreme Court granted a hearing for the purpose of giving further consideration to the issues raised.
View caseThe servient tenement is the parcel burdened by the easement. The dominant tenement is the parcel benefited by the easement. An easement appurtenant requires both parcels. An easement in gross requires only a servient tenement.
Supporting sources
The beneficiary of the easement must repair and maintain portions under its control to prevent unreasonable interference with the servient estate or liability to third parties. The servient owner has no affirmative duty to repair unless the parties have agreed otherwise or joint use creates a contribution obligation.
Supporting sources
Yes. The servient owner may make any use of the land that does not unreasonably interfere with the easement. Planting trees, building structures, or conducting ordinary activities remains permissible so long as the easement holder's rights are not substantially impaired.
Supporting sources
Courts examine the language of the grant, the circumstances surrounding its execution, the use made of the servient tenement before and after the conveyance, and whether the use is reasonably necessary for the dominant estate's normal development.
Supporting sources
…Reed, J.; Petrich, C.J., and Petrie, J., concur Opinion of Reed, J. Defendants, Fred and Hattie Voss, owners of the servient estate, appeal from a judgment that denied their counterclaim for an injunction against Will and Jean Brown, plaintiffs, owners of the dominant estate. Defendants requested the injunction to…