Courts balance necessity of easement with its burden on servient tenement
Courts are less likely to grant negative easements
Van Sandt v. Royster (1938) – Court could grant easement of sewer line for drafter if other parties were aware of the easement. Nelson disagrees that buyers were aware of easement
Estate of Waggoner v. Gleghorn (1964) – Easements of necessity are not created by necessity but by custom.
Maioriello v. Arlotta (1950) – Court less likely to grant easement of light, air, and view b/c not as necessary as a sewer pipe which affects more significantly the use of land also sewer line less of a burden because it goes underground.
3) Easement by prescription
Acquired in much the same way that title is acquired by adverse possession, only here is based on use rather than possession
Do not allow this easement because restrict development of property (especially in cites) and other person can do nothing to stop you from enjoying light and air adversely to stop statute of limitations from running
Parker v. Foote (1838) – No negative easements by prescription
Dartnell v. Bidwell (1916) – Do not have to be using easement at every instant. All owner of servient tenement has to do to stop the statute of limitations from running is write you a letter saying stop using X as easement
Romans v. Nadler (1944) – Should also be continuous and hostile and under claim of right like adverse possession.
Infrequent trespasses by neighbors are not easement but just allowed because assume it is a neighborly thing to do