Can multiple routes support a single prescriptive easement claim in Utah? M.N.V. Holdings v. 200 South Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed a significant question in prescriptive easement law: whether using multiple pathways across another’s property can satisfy the continuity requirement for establishing such an easement.

Background and Facts

M.N.V. Holdings owned two commercial parcels on State Street in Salt Lake City with limited parking. For over twenty years, MNV’s employees and customers accessed their rear parking area by crossing an adjacent fast-food restaurant’s parking lot owned by 200 South LLC. Due to the property’s corner location with three curb cuts, users employed three different routes depending on traffic patterns and convenience. When 200 South announced plans to construct a high-rise apartment building, MNV filed suit seeking recognition of a prescriptive easement over the parking lot.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether MNV’s use of three distinct routes satisfied the continuous use requirement for prescriptive easements. Under Utah law, claimants must prove by clear and convincing evidence that their use was open and notorious, continuous, and adverse for twenty years. The district court ruled that using multiple pathways destroyed continuity as a matter of law, relying on the 1908 case Lund v. Wilcox.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed, distinguishing Lund, which involved sequential use of different routes where neither was used for the full prescriptive period. Here, MNV claimed continuous use of all three routes throughout the twenty-year period. The court examined decisions from other jurisdictions and concluded that multiple distinct routes do not automatically defeat continuity. Instead, courts should analyze each claimed route individually, requiring “particular findings concerning the nature, frequency and duration of the use of each route.”

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah practitioners can pursue prescriptive easement claims even when clients have used multiple pathways, provided each route was used consistently over the prescriptive period. However, courts retain equitable discretion to limit the scope of any granted easement to avoid unduly burdening the servient estate. The case was remanded for factual findings regarding each specific route’s usage patterns.