B BarPrepPlay
Real Property sample analysis

MBE Real Property Easement by Necessity Landlocked Parcel

Study an easement-by-necessity question with examiner-style analysis on prior unity of title, severance, strict necessity, and alternative-access arguments.

Last reviewed April 22, 2026
Study format MBE sample analysis

Fact pattern

For decades, Rowan owned two adjacent tracts: a roadside parcel and a rear parcel bordered on three sides by steep ravines and on the fourth by the roadside tract. The only practical route to the rear parcel was a gravel lane crossing the roadside tract. Rowan then sold the rear parcel to Dana by warranty deed, but the deed said nothing about access rights. After the sale, Rowan sold the roadside parcel to Ellis, who immediately locked the gravel-lane gate and told Dana to build a helicopter pad or negotiate a new deal. Dana shows that she could theoretically reach the rear parcel by constructing a costly bridge over one ravine and clearing a path through rocky terrain, but doing so would cost more than the land is worth. Dana sues for an easement by necessity over the gravel lane.

Quick answer

Dana should receive an easement by necessity over the gravel lane because the severance left the rear parcel effectively landlocked and the supposed alternatives are not reasonably practical access. An easement by necessity may be implied when a single owner once held both parcels, severed them, and the severance left one parcel with no practical access to a public road or other legally usable outlet. The doctrine rests on presumed intent and public policy against landlocking property. The claimant must show prior unity of title, severance of that title, and necessity at the time of severance. Mere convenience is insufficient, but strict necessity does not require literal impossibility if the alternatives are so unreasonable, unavailable, or disproportionate that the parcel is effectively landlocked.

IRAC model answer

Issue

Is Dana entitled to an easement by necessity over Ellis's parcel even though the deed was silent and some physically possible but wildly impractical access alternatives exist?

Rule

An easement by necessity may be implied when a single owner once held both parcels, severed them, and the severance left one parcel with no practical access to a public road or other legally usable outlet. The doctrine rests on presumed intent and public policy against landlocking property. The claimant must show prior unity of title, severance of that title, and necessity at the time of severance. Mere convenience is insufficient, but strict necessity does not require literal impossibility if the alternatives are so unreasonable, unavailable, or disproportionate that the parcel is effectively landlocked.

Application

Dana has a strong easement-by-necessity claim. Rowan plainly owned both parcels before the sale, satisfying prior unity of title. The necessity arose at severance because the rear parcel had relied on the gravel lane as its only practical route to the public road. The deed's silence does not defeat the claim; the entire point of implication is to supply the access right a reasonable transaction assumes when land would otherwise be trapped. Ellis will argue that Dana is not strictly landlocked because a bridge and alternate path are physically possible. But necessity doctrine is not defeated by absurdly expensive or functionally unusable alternatives. If the only other route costs more than the parcel itself and requires extraordinary construction over ravines, the parcel is effectively landlocked. The gravel lane is therefore the route most closely tied to the conditions existing at severance, and the law will imply an easement sufficient for ordinary access.

Conclusion

Dana should receive an easement by necessity over the gravel lane because the severance left the rear parcel effectively landlocked and the supposed alternatives are not reasonably practical access.

Numbered reasoning steps

  1. Prove prior unity of title first.
  2. Show that necessity existed at the time of severance, not just later inconvenience.
  3. Distinguish true necessity from mere convenience.
  4. Evaluate alternative access for practical reasonableness, not literal physical possibility alone.
  5. Tie the implied easement to the route that best reflects the parcel's access pattern at severance.

Why wrong answers fail

Dana loses because the deed did not expressly reserve an easement.

An easement by necessity is implied precisely because the deed is silent yet the severance creates landlocked conditions.

Dana loses because any physically possible alternative defeats necessity.

Courts look for practical necessity. An absurdly expensive or functionally unusable route does not necessarily defeat the claim.

Dana automatically wins because she previously used the lane openly.

Prior use may support an easement implied from prior use, but easement by necessity requires unity of title, severance, and necessity.

Ellis cannot be bound because Ellis was not part of the original sale.

The burden of an implied easement runs with the servient estate to later owners who take the roadside parcel.

Issue-spotting checklist

  • State unity of title, severance, and necessity as separate elements.
  • Measure necessity at the time the common owner split the parcels.
  • Do not confuse necessity with convenience or prior use.
  • Analyze alternative access realistically, not abstractly.
  • Explain why the chosen route best matches the implied-access rationale.

Primary law and source anchors

  • Othen v. Rosier, 226 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. 1950) A standard authority on easements by necessity and the requirement of necessity at severance.
  • Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes Section 2.15 Modern formulation of easements implied by necessity from severance of land.
  • Cornell Wex: Easement General overview of easements by necessity and implication doctrines.
  • Finn v. Williams, 33 N.E.2d 226 (Ill. 1941) An oft-cited necessity-easement case emphasizing practical access rather than purely theoretical alternatives.