I seem to recall that the owner of a landlocked parcel could sue to force an easement. No idea how it would be determined who had to provide the easement if there were multiple other properties causing it to be landlocked.
To jtgain:
In most cases, the easement would be a strip description.
UNLESS–you are talking about property that is NOT in a PLSS (Public Lands Survey System) state, typically states west of Ohio.
States using colonial land surveys require all legal descriptions to be metes and bounds.
Ugh.
~VOW
If there’s no question about minimum acreage, just offer to buy the 150 sq. ft. of land. Then the dreaded E-word isn’t involved. Depending on your locality, you may need a variance to build anything that close to a property line anyway, so check that out first.
If you’re going to buy the property instead of asking for an easement, you’re asking for a lot line adjustment, where a piece of property is released from one owner and absorbed by another at the same time. No separate parcel is created. As mentioned above, be careful of setbacks, fencelines, minimum lot size,etc. Moving a line 3 feet can produce all kinds of ripples. You will still need all the nonsense you’d need for an easement, except now you pay the taxes and insurance.
Lot line adjustment, splitting a lot, whatever you want to call it: DAMNED expensive. It may not even be allowed, depending on local zoning. It involves hiring a surveyor, having both properties researched, surveyed, and a Parcel Map filed. If it causes a reduction in lot width, a variance may be necessary, and it isn’t always granted.
~VOW
That’s definitely true in some jurisdictions. I had to “sue” (wasn’t a lawsuit per se, but it was a legal dispute settled administratively) to be allowed to build an access road to my hunting cabin because I built it on property that had been in my family for many years but happened to be land locked. The woman who owned the property land locking us refused to be cooperative, but in the end she was forced to allow it.
I have to say this thread helped me out. As I posted above, Mrs Cad has 40 acres within 20-40’ of the county road. rather than getting an easement, we’ll probably ask to buy the 1320’ long stretch between her property and the road. They own 120 acres and the tract would be just under an acre.
Why buy? An easement would probably be cheaper.
People hate easements. It lowers your property value even if there is no rational reason why. It is required to be revealed when a property is sold, which makes it sound like a problem. It’s an encumbrance once granted that is difficult to remove. And the parties often end up hating each other. Purchasing settles the issue and leaves both parties satisfied. Of course you would want the easement on someone else’s property, but they often don’t like the idea.
An easement would be cheaper.
It depends on what you value.
Not if the other party refuses to consider *any *offer.
If that happens, buying isn’t an option, either, right?
No, it’s usually an indication they don’t want to give you something for nothing.
Or, the owner doesn’t want to deal with a perpetual issue regarding his ability to use his land. Better to get a fair price for the land, and let you use it as you see fit, rather than retain the land and have potential problems with it down the road.
Easements make sense if it’s impractical to divide up the parcel for sale, or if shared use is superior to divesting. I’m not sure I’d agree to one if the only result is you giving me less money.