When can landowners recover severance damages for visibility loss in Utah condemnation cases? UDOT v. Target Corporation Explained

In UDOT v. Target Corporation, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified when property owners can recover severance damages for loss of visibility in condemnation proceedings. This decision provides important guidance for practitioners representing landowners in eminent domain cases.

Background and Facts

UDOT condemned small portions of the Alpine Valley Shopping Center to construct a freeway interchange using an innovative “diverging diamond” design. The new interchange was much larger and taller than the previous one, requiring raised on-ramps, retaining walls, and an elevated overpass. While only tiny portions of the shopping center property were actually taken (totaling less than 11,000 square feet), the new interchange significantly impaired visibility of the shopping center from the freeway and eliminated a heavily-used right-turn exit. A jury awarded the property owners $87,910 for the taken property and $2.3 million in severance damages.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether landowners could recover severance damages for visibility loss when most of the view-impairing structure was built on property other than what was condemned. Under Utah law, there are two methods to prove causation for severance damages: (1) presumed causation when the view-impairing structure is built on the condemned property, or (2) proving the condemned property was “essential to the completion of the project as a whole” when the structure is built elsewhere.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that a view-impairing structure need not be entirely constructed on condemned property to trigger presumed causation—partial construction is sufficient. The court defined the relevant “structure” as the entire interchange rather than individual components, reasoning that breaking an interchange into parts would be “unduly artificial.” Since part of the interchange’s slope support was built on the condemned property, causation was presumed for visibility damages from the entire interchange. The court also affirmed damages for loss of the right-turn exit, noting that property owners can present severance damages using simple before-and-after valuations rather than itemizing specific components.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly benefits condemnation claimants by establishing that even minimal use of condemned property can support substantial severance damage awards. Practitioners should carefully analyze whether any portion of a view-impairing structure utilizes condemned property, as this triggers the favorable presumed causation standard. When presenting damages evidence, the holistic before-and-after approach endorsed by the Utah Supreme Court in Admiral Beverage remains preferable to attempting to itemize specific damage components, which courts recognize as speculative and difficult.