III.	Interest in the Land of Another
1.	Definition of Interests:
A.	Easements  (allow/prevent specific use of land):  An easement is a nonpossessorty interest in land which entitles its owner to a limited use or enjoyment of the land.  The owner is protected against interferences with his use by third persons, including the possessor of the land.  An easement may be created by conveyance, and is not an inherent, ordinary property right.  (Note:  Because an EM is an interest in land, you must normally comply with S/F unless the EM is created by operation of law.)
1.	Types:  There are several types of easements:
A.	Affirmative Easement: Allows non-possessor to do an act on the land.
	The owner of an affirmative easement has the right to use the land of another in certain limited ways (the burdened or “servient” land).  Most easements are affirmative; i.e. driveway easement -- a limited right to use that strip of land as a driveway only and with which use the possessor of land can not interfere.
B.	Negative Easement:  Prevents the possessor from doing an act on the land.
	The owner of a negative easement may prevent the possessor of the servient land from using their land in certain limited ways (uses which he could otherwise do).
C.	Spurious Easement:  Allows the possessor too do an act on the land.
	The owner aof an easement may be able to require the landowner to do certain acts upon his own land (entitles one to performance of some act by burdened landowner).  Although this is normally classified as a covenant, this right may sometimes be labeled a spurious easement; i.e. maintaining a fence, burning leaves and giving off smoke.
2.	Subtypes:  There are two subcategories of each:
A.	Easement Appurtenant:  The benefit runs with possession of the land.
	This easement is an incident to appurtenant land, and is conveyed with that tract of land and inseparable from it.
B.	Easement in Gross:  The benefit is personal to the owner of the easement.
	This easement is one that is personal to the owner of the easement without regard to her ownership of the land.  I am not sure whether it is transferable, I believe that affects only the parties to the agreement and not the successors to the contract.  The servient land is burdened, but there is no dominant estate that benefits.
	This easment is not recognized in England, but is viewed as a contract between the parties, that would not be enforceable against successor in title to the land, nor would it be transferable.  A problem with railroad right of way, pulled from underneath them on sale of the land.
3.	Categories:  At common law there were six (6) type of recognized easements recognized, and not others even if in writing.  In the United States many legislatures have enacted statutes to allow other express easements.
A.	Traditional Easement:
1.	Air:  A negative easement to prevent air pollution, or ???
2.	Light:  A negative easement to prevent blocking sunlight, or high fences.
3.	Ways:  The traditional affirmative easement of right of way, or passage over land.
4.	Support:  A negative easement concerning a building on adjacent land depends on the physical support fromthe neighbors land.  Usually used to prevent that land from being excavated.
5.	Water:  An affirmative easement for the use of water.
6.	Fences:  Spurious easement for keeping a fence.
B.	New Easements:  Several states viewing this common law rule as restrictive and enacted statutes to allow other express written easements such as:  pasture, fishing, hunting, cpsorts, etc.  Though some of the more vague easements present to difficult a problem of enforcement and supervision for the courts, such as recreational easements over large tracts of land.
4.	Treatment:  The easement can be treated in one of two ways:
1.	Easement as an Interest in Land:  This is the traditional view of easments taken by the court, that it is a property right to use a piece of land for a specific purposes.  The possessor of the burdened land has no claim, nor power to alter the agreement at law, regardless of the relative inconvenience or benefits.
2.	Easement as an Equitable Matter:  The more flexible approach is to consider the easement within the context of the changing situations, and the burdens and benefits involved.  This would allow an easement to be moved if it placed an undue burden on the possessor, but could still allow the same accees or through fare as the original easment.  However, this view in not tused much.
B.	Profits A Prendre:  Right to use another’s land by removing portions of the land, such as minerals, crops, timber, or by removing the land’s products, such as game. 
	When a profit is granted, an easement in gross is implied to assure its use, and it is then basically identical in law within the United States to an easement.  However, in the UK where easements can only be appurtenant, a profit is allowed to be in gross.
C.	Licenses: A license is a privilege to go upon land belonging to the licensor, that is revocable at the will of the possessor.  
1.	Protection of Trespass: A license is permission to do acts upon another’s land which otherwise would constitute trespass.  Does not afford protection from interference by third parties.
2.	Revocable at Will:  The essence of the license is that it is revocable at the will of the licensor, and threrefore differs from an easement which is not.  The revocaton may, however, constitute a breach of contract, but is nonetheless effective.
	Specific Performance:  There can be no specific performance of a contract to give a license, as that would enforce performance of a revocable thing, and give more than the original contract, Baseball Publishing Co. v. Bruton.
3.	Rules of Conveyance:  Because a license is subject to few, if any, conveyancing rules, licenses are frequently not considered an interest in land.  A license may be contracted for or given orally, not subject to the statute of frauds question in leases, estates, and easements.
	A license cannot be 
2.	Creation of Easments:
A.	Express Creation: 
1.	Methods of Creation: An easement may be created by several means:
A.	Reservation in a Conveyance:  The easement may be reserved when granting an estate in land.
1.	Easment in Grantor:  At common law this was the only type of easement that could be created by reservation as based upon the feudal considerations of livery by seisin, and a desire to limit such conveyances.
	This rule has been rejected in some jurisdictions, but is still the majority position though waning. Those that have maintained the cite the policy in favor of certainty in title, and the ready ability to achieve the same ends by a conveyance of the easment prior to conveyance of the land.
	Exceptions: Many use this as the rule, but make exceptions where third party is the spouse, or treat the reservation as an exception to the grant, or overriding it where the intent of the grantor is obvious and overriding.
2.	Easement in Favor of a Stranger: Contrary to the ancient common law rule, modern courts allow a grantor to effectively reserve and vest an interest in the same property in a third party, or stranger to the conveyance, when making a conveyance in fee, Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist, Pacifica.
	In adopting this rule there are several concerns which a court must balance.  
A.	Pro: The old rule frustrated the grantors intent.  The grantor sold the land at a reduced price due to the encumbrance upon it, and it would amount to a windfall for the grantee not to enforce what both parties knew to be the intent.
B.	Con:  There may be reliance by a subsequent purchaser or a title insurance company based upon the old rule, and there is a policy in favor of certainty in title.  
	Another possible problem for this rule is that when a grant is made using both spouses names as is requirted by many states, even though only one owns the property, it could create hidden interest in the spouse if an easement is reserved in the grantor.  The spouse a stranger in law to the transaction would also be a recipient of the easement.
	The court may adopt the rule prospectively to alleviate the uncertainty, but still could get reliance by purchaser or insurance company, though it would not be justified at law.  If the rule is applied retroactively, but with allowance for cases where there has been substantial relaince.  The problem with this is that a title examiner cannot say in advance whether an easement exist or not, thus clouding titles.
B.	Conveyance of the Easement:  An easement may be made by express conveyance of the right to use and enjoy the burdened land, subject to the normal rules regarding conveyances.
2.	Rules of Creation:  Easements are general subject to all of the rules that govern transactions involving interests in land.  They must be in writing, and their is a presumption of infinite duration.
1.	Word of Inheritance:  Words of inheritance are not necessary to create an easement by Mitchell v. Castellaw , however, the 1944 restatement of property mad mention of the need of duration.
2.	Repugnance:  Where the granting, habendum, and warranty clauses contain no words such as “subject to the reservation...” or “notwithstanding other provisions,..” and then later in the deed has a clause reserving the easement, there is an issue of repugnance.
A.	Grant and Reservation Both Specific, Repugnance:  Where grant and reservation are either both general or both specific, there is repugnance, however, the latter can usually more logically be read to make a reservation by common sense.  
B.	One Specific and One General, No Repugnance:  Where the grant is general and the reservation specific, there is no repugnace to the reservation, and where it is vice versa, there is no repugance to the grant in full.
3.	Appurtenant or In Gross:  Consider the terms of the grant, ALONG WITH the surrounding circumstances.  Even if the reservation says “to A as owner” or “to grantee” the easement may still be appurtenant.  No specific words are necessary.
A.	Private Parties Presume Appurtenant:  In private easements the courts favor finding an easement appurtenant as the vast majority in this setting are for the enhancement of the value of land, and not for personal rights.
B.	Commercial Entities Presume In Gross:  In the commercial setting the easement is more likely to be presumed as in gross.  This type of easement is typical with regard to utility easements and railroad right of way easements personal to the company, so that the title of the easement does not transfer when the company is sold or ends.
	Restatment (1944) state that there is no reason that one cannot restrict an easement to one in gross, except that it only has this effect if the manner or the terms of the creation permit such a limitation (subject to the rule of reasonableness? or the Stoner v. Zucker rule?)  If they do not permit such an effect their are two possible results:
A.	Ineffective Restriction:  The restriction against transfer, making an easement in gross is ineffective and left as appurtenant if ???  See page 638, note 7.  Otherwise,..
B.	Extinguished Easement:  The easement is extinguished and the land is freed from subservience.
4.	The Rule of Reasonableness:  Where terms are left unspecified in an easement, reasonable uses and extents shall be inferred.  The rule does not void unreasonable provisions, but refuses to give unreasonable rights where the parties either actually or by legal implication have spoken only generally.
A.	Unspecified Conditions:  Where certain terms and/or conditions are left unspecified or only dealt with generally, the court will infer reasonable rights.  The reasonableness shall be drawn upon consideration of all of the surrounding conditions.
B.	Specified Conditions:  The rule of reasonableness does not apply where the condition is specified, but only to infer terms that are not.  Therefore where the dimensions and location of a use are specified, the court cannot deflect that path, however, reasonable that deflection may be, Sakansky v. Wein. 
C.	Changing Uses:  Where a the use of the land changes in character through time, the court will infer some limit as to the extent of the right and the reasonableness of the increased use.
1.	Building upon Burdened Estate:  Easements are generally for a very specific use and over a very specific area.  They are generally not held to extend to the sky, but do extend to some reasonable height for their use.  
2.	Subdivision of Dominant Estate:  Many dominant estates are divisible, and the court seems willing to infer some degree of “foreseeability” to this subdivision in the creation of an access easement to land.  Therefore, increased traffic will not be a violation of the easement, unless there is some contrary indication implicit or explicit in the use authorized by the easement. However, if the access easement to a soon to be divided dominant estate goes through a cow pasture, the increased use is probably incompatible with grazing cows.
3.	Servient & Dominant Estate Restriction on Changing Uses:  The possessor of burdened land is utterly free upon the non-servient portion of the land, and restricted to compatible use on the sevient portion.  The dominant estate is severely restricted upon the servient estate, but is also partially restricted upon the dominant estate with regards to how the uses of the dominant estate affect the use of the servient estate’s easement.
D.	Addition of Rights:  The court may infer seemingly additional rights where none are expressed, but this seems dependant upon the burden of such imposition.  The court may infer the right in a city or a private company with a road easement to put a pipeline underneath the road, but may not infer pole and wire easements, as being a deterrent  to people dedicating their land. 
E.	Vagueness:  The court may or may not make an easement void for lack of clarity.  In a case where there was an oil and gas pipeline easement without time or location of the easement, the court declared it valid even though it restricted construction by the owner upon the servient land.  However, this may be to stop the breaking of a long line of easements acquired by gas company, allowing that owner to increase bargaining power.  Don’t know for sure.
	Easements to Wander:  At common law the easement to go upon and wander about land was considered to vague, and considered “jus spandiati” or 
F.	Timing Fixing Extent of Right:  The reasonableness and extent of a right is dependent upon the type of easement it concerns:
1.	Express Easements:  When and easement is acquired by an express conveyance, the extent of the right is not fixed in time, but is dependent upon what is reasonable in light of the changing conditions through time.
2.	Prescriptive Easements:  When an easement is acquired by presciption, the extent of the right is fixed by the manner of use in which it originated.
5.	Examples:
A.	Grants to Third Party:  Where a deed conveys without reservation in the formal sections of the deed, and without words of inheritance on the reservation, and even saying “to grantor,” but where the easment was for a driveway to a filling station not operated by the grantor which was continuously operated in such manner, the easment is appurtenant and infinite in duration, Mitchell v. Castellaw.
B.	Overcoming the Presumption of a Fee Simple:  Where a deed “conveys to A a strip of land for a right of way over X tract of land” the wording strip of land is the object of convey and the other language is insufficient to overcome the presumption of a fee simple, Midland Valley RR v. Arrow Industrial Mfg, (1956).  Here both are general, and in accordance with rule 2A, the reservation loses.
	Note on Rights of Way:  Court may limit the language of a deed more strictly to construe it as an easement, as don’t want RR’s to own long strips of land, that they may abandon and later sell for purposes perhaps obnoxious to adjoining owners.  May also interfere with land development too much.  Some states statutorily limited RR’s right of eminent domain to easements, and some courts then followed the logic with voluntary conveyances.
	May also come into play at law whether it is a defeasible fee or easement, as statutes may bar termination of defeasible fees after a certain period of time and note easments.
C.	Creation of a License or Lease:  A contract for a “license” for the exclusive right and privilige to maintain a sign on the wall for one year with the privilege to renew for four more years, was ruled to be a one year lease with a contract to grant an easement in gross for four more, Baseball Publishing Co. v. Bruton.  So take care to specify that it is a license and terminable.
D.	Conversion of a License:  A license may be converted to an easement by reliance through expenditure upon the continuation of the license.  The duration will then be set by the court as that suggested by the amount and type of expenditure.
	Where an executed parol license is of the type involving continuous use, upon which money is expended in reliance upon its continuation, the court may treat it as an inconsiderate parol contract with part performance on one side, Stoner v. Zucker.  
1.	Duration:  The duration of this easement by parol contract is to be commensurate in extent and duration with the right to be enjoyed.  Perhaps, long enough to turn a reasonable profit on the investment, or when a lumber mill is erected, ends when the lumber is all cut.  Often the rule is “so long as there is use for.”
2.	Right to Rebuild:  The right to rebuild in case of destruction or dilapidation is dependent upon the circumstances and if it appeared to be in the contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting.
3.	Abandonment:  The right may be lost by abandonment or disuse after a period of time sufficient to raise the presumption of release.  How long this is is not defined.
4.	Position contra:  Does violence to the statute of frauds.  Where there is no fraud on the part of the licensor, it is paternalistic to enforce the license as an easement.  Clouds titles with unwritten easements, and may frustrate the parties’ intent.
5.	Position Pro:  It would be a countenance of fraud by the courts to allow the revocaton of a license by the licensor after the expenditure of money upon faith in the continuance of the license.  The licensor should stop them, the essence of estoppel.
	Note, however, that the case may be different with a public utility, such as telephone line license, but why I do not know.
B.	Creation by Implicaton:  An easement may be created by mere implication from the conditions surrounding the transfer of interest in land.
1.	Creation by Necessity:  There will be an implied easement by necessity made when a tract of land is conveyed with no means of ingress and egress.  This is true if the right is asserted by the grantor or grantee (if the conveyance cuts off grantor’s egress, or if the land bought has no means of egress).  The easement is only allowed over the land with privity, or having come from the same original estate, and the easement may lie dormant until necessity come about.
A.	Elements:  There are three elements to be satisfied with the burden upon the plaintiff, of course.
1.	Necessity:  There can be no other means of egress, inconvenience of egress or having to build a new driveway is probably not enough.
2.	Privity:  At one time there must have been unity of title, and is not allowed across the land of others.  The courts cite constructive intent for this distinction (see below). 
	Where there is no privity of title, but a the owner of the surrounding land agains which the easement is sought has an easement in the landlocked estate, the privity requirement is not met.  There was no former unity of title.
3.	Dormancy:  The right may lie dormant through many transfers of title and yet pass with each transger as apputenant to the dominant estate and be excersized at any time by the owner.
D.	Rationale:
1.	Constructive Intent:  The most cited reasoning behind this easement is that it could not have been the intent of the parties to make an inaccessible estate.  However, this does not explain the dormancy provision, and I don’t know what would be the effect of an express agreement that there would be no easement allowed.
2.	Argument Pro:  
A.	Access:  Their is an underlying policy rationale that land should be accessible, whether for purposes of access for the government or for economic exploitation.
B.	Abuse of Bargaining Power:  The land has no use to an owner without access, only has use to the adjoining landowners who would then be in a position of extreme bargaining power.  Don’t want to allow abuse of bargaining power.
3.	Argument Against:  Court is adding an economic inefficiency into the equation, by inferring intents that may not have been there.  It is paternalistic.  The easement burdens the servient land without compensation.
4.	Eminent Domain:  There is no mention of the eminent domain approach, that the grantee should pay for it.  However, implicit within the constructive intent approach is that this factor was already calculated in the price.  When the dormancy comes in, however, there may have been a chain of titles and this discount was almost surely not included.  Also, there is the question of whether the public use requirement for eminent domain is satisfied.
A.	Statutes:  There are statutes in many states that provide for a right of reasonable route over the land of another (regardless of privity) when that land completely surrounds the land of the person seeking route.  Others allow easement for water pipes or electricity, etc.
B.	Constiutional Question:  This raises the Constituional question.  A Texas statute which provided for an easement without compensation was held to be invalid for lack of public use, but there are many others that have gone unchallenged with compensation.
C.	Effect of the Statute:  A court may refuse to imply an easment of necessity when the statute is in place, for necessity being removed by the statute.  Others have not refused, noting that the request for condemnation could be denied, or might be cost prohibitive.
2.	Implied from Prior Existing use:  Where a pre-existing use has been made of a tract of land that is conveyed, and the use is open and obvious enough to not give rise to unfair surprise, then the easement will be enforced.
A.	Elements:  There are five usual elements to the easement.
1.	Common Ownership: The land over which the easement is sought was originally owned by the grantor of the land from which the easement is sought.
2.	Prior Use:  The use had been in existence prior to the conveyance of the land.  That the previous owner had used one part of the land to benefit the other.
3.	Use Apparent, Obvious, and Permanent:  The use must be so obviousor manifest as to show that it was meant to be permanent.  A paved driveway is helpful, but the use can be of other types, but must be something that should have been noticed by the purchaser of the land. The more apparent the use, the lower the necessity required.
4.	Reasonable Necessity:  The use needs to be important to the enjoyment of the land.  Would it be difficult, awkward to get along without it?  How difficult would it be to get an alternative?  It doesn’t need to be impossible to get along without it; if so would have an easement by necessity situation again.
A.	British Treatment:  The British courts apply this doctrine without the requirement of necessity of any sort.
B.	Time of Severance:  The time of necessity may be an issue, one court held that the relevant time to judge necessity is when the severance of the dominant and servient estates took place.
5.	Grantee Asserts the Right:  Person seeking the easement is usualy the grantee of property, thoug here it is the grantor.  As grant of land grants all fo the benefits and burdens existent at the time of conveyance. 
	The principle is that the conveyor cannot derogate from his own grant after the fact.  When used as a factor, rather than a rule, it simply increases the necessity when it is the grantee asserting the right.
B.	Treatment:  There are several ways to treat these elements.
1.	Rule of Law:  The old common law rule was that each element had to be demonstrate upon preponderance of the evidence and should any one not be met, then the suit would fail.  This would utterly prevent the application for grantors.
2.	Balancing Test:  Each element is placed on a scale and balanced to provide an equitable result.  This rule is more flexible.  The rule applied in Granite Properties Ltd. v. Manns.  
3.	Not Recognized:  The court in Mitchell v. Castellaw stated that the doctrine was a derogation of the recording statutes and the Statute of Frauds, and refused to recognize the cause of action in the absence of strict necessity.
C.	Inference of Intention:  The restatement of property justify the doctrine by an inference of intention coming from the circumstance of the conveyance.  They site eight important circumstances:
1.	Conveyor/Conveyee:  Whether claimant is conveyor or conveyee.
2.	Terms:  The terms of the conveyance.
3.	Consideration:  Consideration given for the tract of land.
4.	Claims against others: Whether claim is made against a simultaneous conveyee.
5.	Necessity:  The extent of the necessity of the claimant.
6.	Benefits: Whether recipricol benefits result between the parties.
7.	Manner of Use:  The manner in which the land was used prior to conveyance.
8.	Notice:  The extent to which the manner of use gave notice to the parties.
C.	Creation By Prescription:  An easement may be acquired through use over an extended period of time without contest by a possessor with an enforceable to bar you from such use.
1.	Prescriptive Easements in General:  This doctrine is purely judicial by analogy to adverse possession, as in almost every state there are adverse possession statutes but many do not have prescriptive easement statutes. 
A.	Elements:  What the elements of this doctrine is not specifically clear, but by analogy to adverse possession.
1.	Open and Obvious:  The use must be of the character that is open and obvious, of such a character to override the need for a writing to prevent unfair surprise.
2.	Continuous:  The use must be continuous over the duration of the statute for adverse possession.  This requirement precludes seasonal, or periodic use easements by prescription.
3.	Adverse to Owner:  The owner must have a cause of action against the use, such as trespass for a way easement, to make the use adverse and get the statute running.
B.	Coverage:  In the US prescriptive easement generally only cover a restricted set of the traditional ones, being ways, support, water, and fence.  
1.	Scenic Easement:  The US courts do not allow a presecriptive easment in light and air.  This is due to the failure of factors (1) and (2), that someone looking over one’s land is not an open and obvious use, and that the owner has no cause of action to start the statute running.  There is also the policy toward development that was created in the days of rapid US expansion, that is now not so convincing.
2.	Lost Right Theory:  The UK permits the easment in light and air, or the scenic easment.  They function under the lost right theory, which is similar to the customary practice doctrine, and which is quite restrictive on development in restricting the height of buildings being bound by the surrounding buildings.  Harsh on new high rise construction technology allowing higher buildings.
C.	Perpetuity:  The problems of perpetuity in prescriptive easements is dealt with by two main mechanisms:
1.	Changed conditions:  When the conditions change such that the easement cannot be use in the manner it was intended for at its creation, then it terminates.
2.	Abandonment:  When the easements cease to have value to the owner of the easement, that person is likely to abandon it.  Abandonment for some duration will also terminate the easement.
3.	Death?:  A third one not mentioned in the book, but that seems sensical to me, is that prescriptive easements may be in gross, and thus causing attrition upon the death of the owner.  Though, I have no idea how many this would cover, and may simply constitute and abandonment (permenantly.
D.	Policy:  
1.	Argument Pro:  Easements by prescription encourages use of the land, by giving rights in those that use, and encourages care and oversight of the land by the owner.
2.	Argument Con:  Express easement need to be in writing for good reason, the writing prevents unfair surprise to successors in title, and limits the right of the owner ot the easement to specific behavior.  
A.	Clouded Titles:  Without the writing records examiners cannot tell if there is any easement, thus cloudiing titles.  
B.	Defined Rights:  Without the writing the owner of the easement has more opportunity to argue uses and more ability to expand them over time.
2.	Public Easements Created by Use:  There are at least three types addressed in the casebook, of easements that can be positively acquire by the public making use of land.
A.	Easement by Implied Public Dedication:  Dedication is founded on intent whether express, or as in this type, implied. A private owner of land has to open up a part of the land in a manner not just to individuals.  It has to be treated like public property, such as city maintenance, government agents using it, as well many groups of people.
	There are some problems with application of this type of easement.
1.	Knowledge of Ability: Intent is an essential element, and therfore where the a beachfront landowner allows the public to walk along her frontage, the owner may not know that it could be prevented and therefore there is a hard case for constructive intent, State ex rel. Thornton v. Hay. 
2.	Inference of Intent:  Many courts will never infer an intent, and will require some affirmative acts or a showing of knowledge and permission by owner, while others may infer it from acquiesence to enforce actions of trespass while the people walk along the persons beach.
B.	Easement in Public by Prescription:  The public can acquire an easement by prescription in the same manner as an individual.  However, this easement is only valid and res judicata for the land at issue in the suit, and does not apply to surrounding, similar areas.  Thus it is of limited use to assert wide public rights.
	A state may not recognize this right in the public outside of acquiring public roads, or recreational areas. This type of easement has some hurdles to jump in a court:
1.	Lack of Adverse Nature:  Note that there may be some difficulty in bringing a suit for trespass against the general public, one may need to put up signs and fences.
2.	Lack of Ability to Receive Grant:  The general public is incapable of receiving a grant and the court must be willing to vest the easement in the government on behalf of the public.
3.	Easements in Gross:  Where the easement is of the type usually in gross, such as a right of foot passage, the court may deny its application to a class of people in the absence of some statutory authority.
C.	Easement by Custom:  For the acquisition of a wider right over many tracts of land, or specific types of land regardless of ownership, the right may be asserted by ancient custom of usuage. Most of our law is created by legislation, or judicial creation, but custom plays some role in how the law develops. The elements are:
1.	Ancient:  The use must be long and general in character, such as an institutionalized system of usage.
2.	Continuous:  The use must have been excersized without interruption, though not necessarily continuously, by a person with a paramount right.
3.	Undisputed:  The use need be peacable and free from dispute.
4.	Appropriateness:  The use must be appropriate in manner for the type of land.
5.	Clearly Bounded:  There must be easiliy defineable bounds to the right.
6.	Obligatory:  The right cannot variably applied by individual owners, it must be obligatory upon each and every.
7.	Legal:  The use must not be repugnant or inconsitant with any laws or other customs.
	This Where this might be applicable outside of Beaches?  I would guess with river passage, lakes, and others similar.  Note that there are alternate approaches, such as that offered by the Thornton concurring opinion base upon equitable considerations:  (1) long usage by public, (2) universal belief that the right exists, (3) long acquiesence by the owners, and (4) extreme desireability of the right.
	This doctrine has passed Constitutional inspection at least at the federal appellate level.  However, this precedent has not necessarily been followed, and has been criticized.
3.	Real Covenants and Equitable Servitudes:
A.	Real Covenants: A covenant is bound to the estate in land, as differentiated from a contract which is between people.  Parties making contracts with regards to the use of land, and in conjuction with the sale of land, place upon the property a covenant or a servitude that becomes appurtenant to the land rather than simply binding as a contract upon the parties to its formation.
	This issue originally came up in the context of leases in land.
1.	Rule in Spenser’s Case:  This was the origin of covenants on land. The rule had the effect of requiring the express words of inheritance when the covenant was to concern a thing not yet in existence.  Almost every court has rejected it as having no basis in logic or even in the holding of the case.  However, do not ignore the absence of “heirs, successor, and assigns” in a covenant, courts may still treat it as evidence that the covenant was not to run with the land.
	The old requirements were:
A.	In Esse:  That the covenant is appurtenant to a thing in being at the time of the demise, and not something to be later created.  Thus a covenant concerning a thing not yet constructed binds only the covenantor and not the covenantee/assignee.
B.	Words of Inheritance:  There must be express words to bind the heirs to the titles of both tracts of land, when the covenant concerns a thing not yet in existence.
2.	Traditional Elements of Real Covenants:  For a contract to be a covenant it must meet four criteria traditionally, with the requirement of type privity varying significanlty between jurisdictions.
A.	Touch a Concern: The agreement must deal with matters concerning land. The agreement goes to a right or obligation that is given rise to by the estate in land.
B.	Intent:  There must be intent by the parties to attach the agreement to the land, as for the benefit thereof.  If you are creating an estate by lease, it is very strongly indicative that the payment of the rent is a good example of an obligation intended to be bound to the estate, usually explicitly stated in the lease with heirs and assigns after lessee’s name.
C.	Privity:  The two parties must be in privy with regard to the estate or land in concern.  The concept of privity exist in several senses:  Mutual, Vertical Privity, and Horizontal.
1.	Mutual Privity:  The privity that exist between co-owners of the same property. Mutual privity must be a covenant between parties with interest in the same land, with regards to interest in that same land. Can be between lessor and lessee, or cotenants.
	Covenants in connection with easement are honored as mutual. When the covenant is made at a time when no interest in land is being created, the theory is that it can still be a covenenant provided that it relates to a piece of land that both parties have an interest in.
2.	Horizontal privity:  The privity that arises at the time the estate is granted, and is held between the parties to the agreement.  This is the privity between the original convenantor and covenantee.  
3.	Vertical privity:  The between the person who has succeeded to the interest in land at issue in the covenant, coming down by succession from the horizontal privity.  A leases to B, they have privity.  B then subleases to C, C has an interest in the land but has not succeeded in title from B by rules of leasehold and thus there is no privity.
	Some privity is require by many courts, though the type required is widely varying, and some courts make no clear rule in this regard.  The modern view is that only vertical privity is required, and not the firs two, though some still require horizontal leaving the covenant a contract effectively.
D.	Writing: The agreement must be in writing. Probably required for Statute of Frauds, notice, and like reasons.
3.	Application:  In application a covenant has the effect of severing all liability under such a contractual relationship when sale of the land is made.
A.	Exception:  There is an exception made where the the original covenantor’s credit was an important factor to the parties. In that event the coventant would no longer run with the land.
B.	Affects on Liability for Other Actions:  The liability is upon the owner of the land for any burdens under covenant, however, this liability would not preclude any suit based upon an indemnity agreement made with the original covenator, nor any suit based upon fraud for misrepresentation of an unencumbered title, etc...
C.	Enforcement by Homeowners Association:  The proper parties to enforce a covenant are those bound by the it, thus in privity with each other.  However, there may be an attempt to distinguish between the parties in privity and an corporate entity such as a homeowners association created for their benefit and to assert their rights.  The courts have held that this distinction is moot, as the corporate entity exist for the purposes of such assertion of rights, and thus there is privity in substance if not in form, Neponsit Property Owner’s Ass’n v. Emigrant Industrial Sav. Bank.
D.	Benefit & Burden Requirement:   Traditionally a covenant would not run unless it benefitted as well as burdened LAND, the idea being some balance existed and that it must be appurteant.
1.	Benefits to Persons:  Where the public or persons rather than land is benefitted, it would not run.  Such as with a covenant not to build along a highway, as the benefit did not go to the strip of land occuppied by the highway, but to the public.
2.	Covenants and Serivtudes in Gross:  The US rule is that easements can be in gross, and the argument is that by analogy in gross covenants and servitudes are permissible.  However, one distinction is that easements in gross do not allow veto power over servient land, but are typically pipelines, RR corridors, and rights of way; they are usually clearly defined, limited interests of the affirmative type.  There is usually no limitation upon the fundamental right to use property, but only some small burden upon the land.
3.	Covenants to Pay money:  To touch and concern land the land itself need not be affected so much as the interest therein.  The NY court stated that the distinction between the promise to pay to have something done and the requirement that it be done was null; therefore the requirement to pay to the subdivision to keep the grass mowed or the requirement to keep the grass mowed oneself are essentially the same thing.  However, such a covenant to pay or perform an affirmative act must be connected with the use of the land to pass the touch and concern test.
E.	Creation:  The only person that an make this kind of covenant is a subdivider.  The only other way would be to do a huge strawman transaction.
F.	Termination:  Ending a real covenant was tradionally only accomplished by unanimous repeal.  Now, however, there are statutes that limit the duration, with the option to continue upon a large majority (usually 60%+) for another statutory period.  Others include duration not the covenant itself, or a means of termination.  Antoher way is to treat it as an equitable servitude.
B.	Equitable Servitudes: The British Courts have refused to enforce these covenants as they looked to much like all of the complexities of feudal incidents.  What happened then is the same as what happened with real interests in land with uses created by the courts of equity, and so in the 19th century when the English courts wouldn’t recognize the real covenenants they went to the court of chancery to recognize it as an equitable interest.  Thus we get equitable servitudes.
1.	Generally:  A contract made by an owner of land concerning its use is enforceable upon subsequent purchasers who take the land with notice, either actual or constructive, Tulk v. Moxhay.
A.	Intent:  The parties to the contract intended the use to be binding upon subsequent purchasers.
B.	Touch and concern:  The contract regards the use of the land.
C.	Equitable Enforcement:  The contract for the use need be equitable to enfore, or make sense to do.  This makes the sevitude easier to get rid of than the covenant by changed conditions, unforeseen results, poor judgment, abuse of bargaining power, etc.
D.	Notice:  Real, constructive, or inquiry notice need be had by the purchaser.
1.	Actual:  The definition should mean what it says, that the purshaser subjectively and actually knows of the restriction.
2.	Constructive: The definition is that the person should reasonably have known from the circumstances, (or as the next one at least had a strong enough idea to ask about it).
3.	Inquiry:  Have or should have had enough knowledge to suspect that there might be some restriction on a deed, thus putting the purchaser in a position under which you should inquire.
A.	Extent of Inquiry: Once on notice a person may be required to inspect deeds.  This requirement may go up when the property is in a subdivision with deeds legion but suposedly uniform, Sanborn v. McLean.  The extent might be less when the homes are all independent from one another and the deeds unrelated.  Sanborn read strictly might require a reading of every deed.
B.	Reasonableness of Inquiry:  The basis of the inquiry is reasonable, and is probably a question for the jury.  If the seller, broker, and a few neighbors are asked, and the title to the property is clear of any mention, that would probably be sufficient, but we have no authority on this.
2.	Recipricol Negative Easements:  Another place for application of a servitude is where the subdivider forgets to put the covenant in one deed but puts in many others.  Every deed after the first one sold with the covenant will be held binding as a recipricol negative easement.
A.	Vertical Privity:  The recipricol negative easement must start with a common owner and is not retroactive.  It binds all subsequent purchaser following the first to contain the covenant, and is likewise binding upon the subdivider so long as he retains any portion of the lots.
B.	Other Elements:  The other elements are the same as 1-3 above.  Note that the notice here required can consist of statements made in advertisements or brochures about any common plan for development.
3.	Importance: This device plays an important role for two reasons:
A.	No Privity Requirement:  There is no requirement of privity between the parties, only equity of enforcement.
B.	Strict Jurisdictions:  In jurisdictions taking the strict view on covenant, requiring horizontal or mutual privity, this is another method of enforcment where that privity is absent.
4.	Rationale: Supposing that the owner then sold a portion of it, he could bind that person in contract at the time of selling, but any subsequent buyer would not be bound and the value of the land would be enhanced, and someone would get the windfall that the orignal owner could not.
4.	Natural Intersts in Land
A.	Nuissance & Related Doctrines:  Nuissance
B.	Rights in Sunlight:
IV.	Public Land Use, Planning, and Control
A.	Traditional methods of Controlling Land Use
1.	Zoning:
2.	Acquisition by the Public:
3.	Admistration of Land Use Controls:
4.	Permissible and Impermissible Goals:
2.	Conflict Between Private Property and Public Control