New Jersey Appellate Division Declines To Find “Quasi-Easement” On Commercial Property, Providing Clarity As To The Doctrine’s Application

May 7, 2024

By: Carl L. Engel

The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, in the case Yuri Investment & Development, Inc. v. 322 Commercial Ave., LLC, has just affirmed a trial court’s decision not to grant a commercial-property owner a “quasi-easement” that would allow it to park cars on a portion of its neighbor’s property. When the neighbor complained, the owner had alleged that there had been a longstanding agreement between the previous owners dating back to 1967, which allowed it to use the space for parking. The courts sided with the neighbor, however, because the prior owners’ agreement was silent as to parking and, as explained below, the doctrine of “quasi-easement” does not apply in situations where the two properties were not previously part of a single parcel.

In February 2013, 332 Commercial Ave., LLC, purchased a property with that address in Palisades Park, New Jersey. In December 2016, Yuri Investment & Development, Inc., purchased the adjacent property located at 342 Commercial Ave.

In 1967, the previous owners of the two properties had executed and recorded an easement, which memorialized that (i) the building on 332 Commercial Ave. encroached onto 342 Commercial Ave., (ii) the owner of 342 Commercial Ave. agreed “not to institute suit to compel the removal of the encroachment,” and (iii) the owner of 332 Commercial Ave. was allowed to encroach onto 342 Commercial Ave. to make repairs to its building.

In July 2018, Yuri Investment sent 332 Commercial a cease-and-desist letter, in which Yuri Investment demanded that 332 Commercial’s workers stop parking on its property and that it remove a dumpster which had been placed there without authorization. Yuri Investment also asked 332 Commercial to provide proof that the building which encroaches onto its property had been built before July 2008.

After some negotiation, the parties reached an impasse and Yuri Investment filed a complaint, bringing claims of trespass and unjust enrichment. 332 Commercial filed a counterclaim, asking that the court enter a declaration that the space used for the dumpster and parking was its property or, alternatively, that it had a valid easement to use it.

After a bench trial, the judge ruled that the 1967 easement did not allow 332 Commercial to place a dumpster or to park on 342 Commercial Ave. The court also refused to find that there was a “quasi-easement” that would allow 332 Commercial to use the space. The court awarded Yuri Investment damages equal to the cost to rent ten parking spaces, which is how much space 332 Commercial had been using. 332 Commercial’s counterclaim was dismissed. 332 Commercial then appealed, arguing that the trial court had erred by refusing to find a “quasi-easement.”

On May 3, 2024, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court. It began its analysis by observing that an “easement” is defined as “a nonpossessory incorporeal interest in another's possessory estate in land, entitling the holder of the easement to make some use of the other's property.” Easements sometimes can be created by implication, either “by necessity” or through a “quasi-easement.” A “quasi-easement” arises in certain circumstances where an owner uses part of their property to service another part, and then sells the first part to someone else. To prove the existence of a “quasi-easement,” the user must demonstrate the following: (i) the visible use of the property to service their own property, (ii) the use has been continuous in nature, (iii) the use is intended to be permanent, and (iv) the use is reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of the user’s property. 

An easement “by necessity,” on the other hand, is appropriate only where absolutely needed to avoid “landlocking” a property away from road access. While both implied easements require an element of “necessity,” a “quasi-easement” need only be “reasonably necessary,” and applies where an owner has been using an adjacent property to access their own property, even though there is another less-convenient point of access. Courts view “quasi-easements” unfavorably, whereas easements “by necessity” are likely to be granted.

The Appellate Division found that 332 Commercial’s claim for a “quasi-easement” failed, because it admitted that its property had not previously been combined with 342 Commercial Ave. in a single property. Further, there was no way for 332 Commercial to obtain an easement “by necessity,” because it had other road access. The Appellate Court concluded, therefore, that the trial judge was correct to award Yuri Investment damages for 332 Commercial’s trespass onto its property.