When can property owners recover severance damages for loss of view in Utah condemnation cases? Ivers v. Utah Department of Transportation Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Ivers v. Utah Department of Transportation clarifies when property owners can recover severance damages for loss of view in eminent domain proceedings, establishing important guidelines for practitioners handling condemnation cases.

Background and Facts

UDOT condemned 0.048 acres of Arby’s 0.416-acre property to construct a frontage road as part of a project to widen and elevate Highway 89. The elevated highway blocked both Arby’s view to the east and the visibility of Arby’s property from the highway. Critically, the elevated highway was not built on the condemned land—only the frontage road occupied the condemned property. Arby’s sought severance damages for both loss of view from their property and loss of visibility of their property, but the trial court granted UDOT’s motion in limine, precluding evidence of such damages.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two distinct issues: (1) whether Utah law recognizes a protectable property interest in visibility of one’s property from an abutting road, and (2) when severance damages are recoverable for loss of view when the view-impairing structure is built beyond the boundaries of the condemned land.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court distinguished between loss of visibility and loss of view. For visibility, the court held that property owners have no protectable interest in the visibility of their property from an abutting highway, noting that such claims are essentially speculative business profit claims not protected by the Utah Constitution. However, for view impairment, the court recognized that Utah law protects an easement of view from one’s property. The court established that severance damages are appropriate when condemned land is “essential” to a project that impairs view, applying a “but for” causation standard—if the project could not have been completed without taking the condemned land, then damages are recoverable even if the obstructing structure is built elsewhere.

Practice Implications

This decision provides crucial guidance for practitioners in eminent domain cases. When representing property owners, focus on establishing that condemned land was essential to the overall project through factual development showing the project’s interconnected nature. The court’s rejection of the “integral and inseparable” standard in favor of the more restrictive “essential” test means practitioners must build stronger causation arguments. For government entities, this decision limits exposure to severance damages claims while still protecting legitimate property interests in view.