Must property abut the road with view-impairing structures to recover severance damages? UDOT v. Admiral Beverage Corporation Explained

In UDOT v. Admiral Beverage Corporation, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical question in eminent domain law: whether a landowner can recover severance damages for loss of view when their remaining property does not directly abut the road containing the view-impairing structure.

Background and Facts
Admiral Beverage Corporation owned two adjacent lots west of Interstate 15 in Salt Lake County. The property did not directly abut I-15 but instead abutted 500 West, a surface street that served as a frontage road between Admiral’s property and the interstate. When UDOT condemned a portion of Admiral’s property for the massive I-15 reconstruction project, the taking was used to widen 500 West rather than I-15 itself. Admiral sought to present evidence of severance damages, arguing that the reconstruction’s elevation of I-15 had diminished the value of its remaining property by impairing its view and visibility.

Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Admiral could recover severance damages for loss of view when its remaining property abutted 500 West but not I-15, where the view-impairing elevated structure was constructed. The trial court granted three motions in limine that precluded Admiral from presenting this evidence.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals applied the correctness standard to review the trial court’s legal conclusions underlying the motions in limine. The court reinforced the established abutment rule, holding that a landowner’s remaining property must actually abut the property containing the view-impairing structure to recover severance damages. While acknowledging that Ivers v. Utah Department of Transportation allowed severance damages for view impairment in certain circumstances, the court distinguished that case because the landowner’s property in Ivers actually abutted the reconstructed road. The court emphasized that the “rights of access, light, and air are easements appurtenant to the land of an abutting owner,” citing Utah State Road Commission v. Miya.

Practice Implications
This decision reinforces the importance of the bright-line abutment rule in Utah eminent domain practice. The court acknowledged that applying this rule might seem harsh given Admiral’s close proximity to I-15, but emphasized that “the ease of application and the predictability engendered by a bright-line rule” justify its continued application. The court noted that any moderation of the abutment rule must come from the Utah Supreme Court rather than the Court of Appeals.