Select Page

Property I
University of Kansas School of Law
Glicksman, Robert L.

Property II
Land Use Controls
Glicksman – 2007 – Spring

I. Introduction 3
b. Trespass v. Nuisance. 3
i. Trespass 3
ii. Nuisance 3
II. Nuisance. 3
a. Generally 3
b. Private Nuisance. 3
i. Intentional Private Nuisance. 3
ii. Unintentional Private Nuisance. 5
c. PUBLIC NUISANCE. 5
d. REMEDIES 5
i. NO ACTION. 5
ii. INJUNCTION. 5
iii. Damages to plaintiff5
iv. Injunction on Δ IF compensation 6
II. PRIVATE LAND USE RESTRICTIONS. 6
1. GENERALLY 6
a. Definitions.6
b. Common issues.6
c. Land use restrictions vs. estates in land & future interests. 6
2. EASEMENTS 7
a. Statute of Frauds requirement7
b. License 7
i. Revocation. 7
ii. Irrevocable licenses. 7
c. Methods of Creation. 7
i. Easement by express grant.7
ii. Easement by irrevocable license. 7
iii. Easement by exception or reservation 7
iv. Implied easements 8
1. Easement by implication 8
a. Elements 8
b. Function 8
c. Creation 8
d. Scope 8
2. Easement by necessity 8
a. Elements 8
b. Function 9
c. Creation 9
d. Duration.9
e. Scope 9
f. Third parties 9
g. Title/lien theories 9
h. Compensation 9
v. Easement by prescription 9
1. Elements. 9
2. Scope 9
3. Public easements 9
d. Types 10
i. Negative easements 10
ii. Appurtenant Easements 10
iii. Easements in gross 10
iv. Profit in gross.11
e. Scope and Effect11
f. Termination.11
3. REAL COVENANTS AND EQUITABLE SERVITUDES 11
4. Running of the burdens of real covenant at law 12
a. Valid original contract12
b. Intent12
c. Notice.12
d. Touch & concern. 12
e. Privity of estate. 13
i. Horizontal privity of estate 13
ii. Vertical privity of estate 13
5. Running of the burden of real covenant at equity (equitable servitude)13
a. Common law. 13
b. Elements 13
i. Valid original contract between the parties.13
ii. Intent13
iii. Notice 14
iv. Touch & concern 14
1. Majority view (for gross benefits)14
2. Majority view (for appurtenant benefits)14
a. Tests 14
b. Purpose 14
c. Restatement 3d 14
3. English/NY/Minority view 14
c. Original promisor’s Liability. 15
d. Original promisee’s ability to enforce. 15
6. Running of the benefits at law & equity. 15
a. Valid original covenant between the parties. 15
b. Intent15
c. Touch & concern. 15
d. Privity 15
e. Notice not a problem.. 15
7. Enforcement of real covenants and equitable servitudes in residential subdivisions. 16
a. 3 Theories of enforcement16
i. Running of the benefit theory 16
ii. Reciprocal Negative Easement Theory. 16
iii. Third Party Beneficiary Theory. 16
b. When do you use each of these three theories?. 16
c. The use of a common plan 17
8. Termination 17
III. PUBLIC LAND USE RESTRICTIONS. 17
1. Introduction 17
2. Taking. 17
d. 2 Requirements for taking 18
i. Public Use. 18
ii. Just Compensation 18
3. Zoning. 18
4. Regulation 19
a. Non-Compensable Police Power Regulation.19
i. Hadacheck v. Sebastian 19
ii. Just v. Marinette County. 19
iii. Keystone v. DeBenedictis 19
b. Compensable Regulatory Taking 19
i. Physical Taking 19
ii. Penn Central Taking 20
1. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon 20
2. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York.20
iii. Land Use Extracti

t permission; an action to protect the landowner’s right to exclusive possession to his/her land. Π need not prove substantial harm; traditionally strict liability offense; KS SC requires π prove “intent to enter onto the land in question.
2. Nuisance: Cause of action to protect a landowner’s right to use and enjoyment of his land. Π must prove substantial harm to his property as a result of the nuisance. (Not strict liability.)
a. Nuisance per se (at law): An act, occupation, or structure which is a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, regardless of location or surroundings.
b. Nuisance per accidens (in fact): Becomes a nuisance by reason of location or the manner in which it is constructed, maintained, or operated.
ii. Steps to determine the result of a nuisance
1. Is there a nuisance – Look at the tree test
2. Balance the equities – who gets the control of disputed right
3. What is the remedy – how do we allocate that right
b. Private Nuisance: Can be intentional or unintentional.
i. Intentional Private Nuisance: Elements (Morgan v. High Penn Oil Co.)
1. His or her act or omission causes
2. Interference w/private use and enjoyment of land
3. Substantial present harm to property (can’t be in future)
Property value: courts are split whether decline in property value constitutes a substantial harm