Under the wire

[ICE]

DWP charges way too much. A Home Depot crew could be under the freeway before lunchtime.

 

[conarb]

I don't think eminent domain would work because there is no "public" good involved. What usually does work is an "easement-by-necessity", if you go back far enough (even Spanish land grants) most adjoining parcels were part of one larger parcel and were subdivided, requirements for an easement-by-necessity:

1) The two parcels of land were once owned by the same party. (This party could still be one of the two parties involved.) 2) The need for the easement existed at the time the parcels became owned by different parties.

3) The need for the easement is very high, and outweighs the burden imposed on the servient tenement.¹

A court would have to be involved including appraisals to determine the fair market value of the easement to pay the servient tenement.

¹http://www.constitutionaldaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=469roperty-easement-by-necessity

 

[tmurray]

We allow building permits within easements. We have the property owner(s) sign a "hold harmless agreement" which is then registered against the property, basically indicating that they cannot hold the municipality liable if they are required to relocate/remove the structure if access is required. It also notifies any future owners that this is a requirement before they purchase the property. I think that is probably the big thing with most jurisdictions not allowing construction in easements without a letter of consent from the easement holder. The municipality could be exposed to some liability without the letter since they are issuing the permit so they just don't do it.