NH Supreme Court Affirms Implied Access Rights on Private Roads from Subdivision Plan
Who has the right to use private roads shown on a subdivision plan when a deed says nothing? When a deed conveys a lot by reference to a subdivision plan showing roadways, the law implies a right to use those roads. Those rights, however, may not extend to other common areas, such as a beach, absent a clear basis. A recent New Hampshire Supreme Court opinion explains why.
Background
The land in question is located by Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire. A 1959 subdivision plan shows several roads and creates many lots, along with a “Play Area” and a “Boat and Beach Area.” The defendant, a nonprofit corporation (the “Association”), owns the roads and the Boat and Beach Area and reserves their use for its members. Deeds for individual lots shown on the 1959 plan include language granting the right to use the roads shown on the 1959 plan, along with the right to use the Boat and Beach Area. The deeds also state “said rights to be enjoyed in common with other lot owners within the subdivision and subject to the rules and regulations of Far Echo Harbor Club.”
In 1972, the successor to the original developer subdivided the Play Area. The plaintiff (the “Lot Owner”) owns Lot 3 as shown on the 1972 plan. The 1972 plan depicts two roads, both of which presumably were owned by the developer’s successor.
The developer’s successor then conveyed Lot 3. The deed references both an abutting road, Park Lane, and the 1972 subdivision plan. (The second road depicted on the 1972 plan, Far Echo Road, does not abut Lot 3 but is shown on the 1972 plan.) Unlike the deeds for the lots shown on the 1959 plan, the deed for Lot 3 did not grant any express rights to use the roads shown on the 1959 plan or to use the Boat and Beach Area.
The dispute centered on whether Lot 3 has the right to use the Boat and Beach Area and all or some of the roads depicted on the 1959 or 1972 plans.
Superior Court
The Lot Owner claimed Lot 3 had the right to use all the roads shown on both plans as well as the Boat and Beach Area. In the alternative, he claimed a prescriptive easement.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the Association. It ruled Lot 3 did not have the right to use any of the subdivision roads, including those shown on the 1972 plan. It also ruled the Lot Owner did not have the right to use the Boat and Beach Area. The court reasoned Lot 3 was not part of a common scheme that included the rights granted to the original subdivision lots. It also ruled the Lot Owner could not establish any implied right to use the roads and Boat and Beach Area. Finally, it rejected the prescriptive easement claim because the Lot Owner did not identify any prior owner of Lot 3 who used the roads or the beach adversely for twenty years. The Lot Owner appealed.
Supreme Court
The Court first addressed whether Lot 3 has the right to use Park Lane and Far Echo Road, the two roads depicted on the 1972 plan. The deed conveying Lot 3 references the 1972 subdivision plan. That plan shows Lot 3 abutting Park Lane and also depicts Far Echo Road. When a deed conveys a lot by reference to a plan showing a road owned by the grantor, the law implies a right to use that road. The grantor cannot later deny that right. Applying that rule, the Court held Lot 3 has the right to use Park Lane and Far Echo Road.
The Court next addressed whether Lot 3 has the right to use the Boat and Beach Area based on a common scheme of development, the argument put forward by the Lot Owner. The Lot Owner argued the 1959 plan created a common scheme of development that included shared rights to the roads and Boat and Beach Area. The Court rejected that argument, explaining that a common scheme may support enforcement of restrictions (“equitable servitudes”), but it does not create rights to use land.
By contrast, the deeds for the original subdivision lots granted the right to use the roads and the Boat and Beach Area expressly. (If those deeds had not included those rights, it is unclear whether those lots would have had the right to use the Boat and Beach Area, although they likely would have had the right to use the roads under the “shown on a plan” analysis.) The deed for Lot 3 did not include those rights, and nothing in Lot 3’s chain adds those rights. The Court held Lot 3 does not have the right to use the Boat and Beach Area or any roads other than Park Lane and Far Echo Road.
The Court then addressed the Lot Owner’s prescriptive easement claim. To prove a prescriptive easement, a claimant must show twenty years of adverse, continuous, and uninterrupted use. The Lot Owner relied on general observations of use by prior owners. He could not identify specific users or specific acts of adverse use. He also could not show use for the required period. The Court held the evidence was insufficient, and the prescriptive easement claim fails.
Martin v. Far Echo Harbor Club, Inc., 2026 N.H. 6.
For assistance with easements, roads and other access issue, real estate, or civil litigation, please contact Alfano Law at (603) 856-8411 or by filling out our Contact Form. The firm offers free or low-cost initial consultations for most matters.