Implied when a split leaves a parcel landlocked
Easement by necessity
Dispute doctrine
- Unity of title — the parcels were once commonly owned
- Severance — the common parcel was divided
- Necessity arising at the time of severance (strict- or reasonable-necessity depending on state)
- No other legal means of access to a public road
An easement by necessity is implied to prevent land from being rendered useless. It typically requires that the dominant and servient parcels were once held in common ownership, that the parcels were severed, and that at the moment of severance the access need arose — most often because the conveyance left one parcel landlocked. States split sharply on how much necessity is required: some demand strict necessity (the parcel must be truly landlocked with no other legal access), while others recognize easements based on reasonable necessity. A handful of states also provide a separate statutory way-of-necessity procedure that lets a landlocked owner petition for a route rather than rely solely on the common-law doctrine. Texas's framework is often taught through Othen v. Rosier; Florida's statutory route lives in its way-of-necessity statute.
The elements
- Unity of title — the parcels were once commonly owned
- Severance — the common parcel was divided
- Necessity arising at the time of severance (strict- or reasonable-necessity depending on state)
- No other legal means of access to a public road
Necessity routes by state (Wave 1)
Verified against primary-source statutes on 2026-06-16. Wave-2 and Wave-3 states are coming — we do not publish unverified state-specific figures.
| State | Route | Statute |
|---|---|---|
| California | Common law | common law |
| Texas | Common law | common law |
| Florida | Common law + statute | Fla. Stat. §704.01 |
| New York | Common law | common law |
| Pennsylvania | Common law + statute | Private Road Act, 36 P.S. §2731 et seq. |
| Illinois | Common law | common law |
| Ohio | Common law | common law |
| Georgia | Common law + statute | O.C.G.A. §44-9-40 |
| North Carolina | Common law + statute | N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-69 (cartway) |
| Michigan | Common law + statute | Private Road Act of 1909, MCL §229.1 et seq. |
Landmark case-law
Verified citations are the moat. Below are the case slots for this doctrine across our Wave-1 states — real cites where verified, and an honest “pending” marker everywhere else. We never invent a case name.
Texas
Othen v. Rosier
verified June 16226 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. 1950) · Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court set out the elements for an easement by necessity (and addressed prescriptive use): the claimant must show unity of ownership of the alleged dominant and servient estates, that the roadway is a necessity (not a mere convenience), and that the necessity existed at the time the two estates were severed. A widely-cited teaching case for both necessity and prescription analysis.
Read the primary source (opens in a new tab)Case-law pending verification
Landmark case-law for this doctrine in this state has not yet been verified against a primary source and signed off by our reviewing attorney (Gate 3). We do not publish unverified case names — invented citations are the one thing this site refuses to do.
Sources cited on this page
- Fla. Stat. §704.01 (opens in a new tab)verified June 16
- Private Road Act, 36 P.S. §2731 et seq. (opens in a new tab)verified June 16
- O.C.G.A. §44-9-40 (opens in a new tab)verified June 16
- N.C. Gen. Stat. §136-69 (opens in a new tab)verified June 16
- Private Road Act of 1909, MCL §229.1 et seq. (opens in a new tab)verified June 16
Primary sources are state-legislature and Cornell LII pages. Justia, Nolo, and FindLaw are used only as supplementary cross-checks, never as the primary citation.