The easement appurtenant form (form 15-1 in this chapter) contains the basic provisions for an easement benefiting a particular tract of land. The easement in gross form (form 15-2) contains the basic provisions for an easement benefiting a person or entity rather than a dominant estate. Although these forms may be used as written in appropriate circumstances, their primary purpose is as drafting tools from which to draft for the particular situation. This chapter also includes ancillary consent and subordination forms. Form 15-3 is a consent and subordination by lienholder. Form 15-4 is a consent and subordination by tenant. These forms may be used when the burdened property is subject to an existing lien or lease and the easement must be coordinated with that superior interest. Easement-related provisions and forms also appear elsewhere in this manual, including chapters 5, 16, 17, 23, 24, and 26, and should be reviewed when applicable to the transaction.
§ 15.1:1Court-Determined Rights and Obligations
Easements are often created by simple documents that fail to spell out most of the rights and obligations of the parties and their successors. If the intent to create the servitude is clear, failure to spell out its terms is not fatal, subject to the limits imposed by the statute of frauds. The terms of the servitude are supplied by the court’s interpretation of the document creating the easement.
Common Terms and Conditions Supplied by Courts: Some of the terms and conditions that often require interpretation of the wording of an easement by a court are “duration” (see section 15.2:1 below), “location” (see section 15.3:3 below), “dimensions” (see sections 15.3:5 and 15.3:6 below), “grantor’s rights” (see section 15.3:2 below), “grantee’s rights” (see section 15.3:2 below), “duties” (see section 15.3:8 below), and “assignability” (see section 15.1:7 below).
§ 15.1:2Terms Used in This Chapter
The following terms are defined in this chapter: “blanket easement” (see section 15.3:3 below); “dominant easement property,” “dominant estate,” or “benefited property” (see section 15.1:5 below); “easement” (see section 15.1:3 below); “easement appurtenant” (see section 15.1:5 below); “easement in gross” (see section 15.1:7 below); “easement property,” “servient estate,” or “burdened property” (see section 15.1:5 below); “easement purpose” (see section 15.1:4 below); “expansible easement” (see section 15.3:4 below); “grantor” and “grantors,” and “grantee” and “grantees” (see section 15.4:2 below); “incorporeal hereditament” (see section 15.1:4 below); “ingress and egress” (see section 15.3:1 below); “negative easement,” also referenced as an “implied negative reciprocal easement,” “implied equitable servitude,” or “implied negative restrictive covenant” (see section 15.1:6 below); and “right-of-way” (see sections 15.2:1 and 15.3:1 below).
§ 15.1:3Definitions of “Easement”
Texas Jurisprudence summarizes common classifications of easements as follows:
Easements are divided into two broad classes, easements appurtenant and easements in gross. More particularly, easements may be classified in several ways by applying different criteria. An easement is either appurtenant or in gross, depending on the existence of the dominant estate (§ 8 Easements appurtenant and in gross), apparent or nonapparent in terms of its visibility or obviousness (§ 10 Affirmative and negative easements; apparent and nonapparent), affirmative or negative in terms of the nature of the privilege (§ 10 Affirmative and negative easements; apparent and nonapparent) and continuous or discontinuous in its pattern of use (§ 11 Continuous and discontinuous easements).
31A Tex. Jur. 3d Easements & Licenses in Real Property § 7 (Classification of easements, generally).
The Restatement addressing easements underwent a major rewrite in Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 1.2 (2000). The approach proposed in the current Restatement to easements has been cited by Texas courts with approval. Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 1.2 (2000) defines “easement” as follows:
1.An easement creates a nonpossessory right to enter and use land in the possession of an-other and obligates the possessor not to interfere with the uses authorized by the easement.
2.A profit a prendre is an easement that confers the right to enter and remove timber, minerals, oil, gas, game or other substances from land in the possession of others.
3.The burden of an easement or profit is always appurtenant. The benefit may be either appurtenant or in gross.
4.As used in this Restatement, the term easement includes an irrevocable license to enter and use land in the possession of another and excludes a negative easement. A negative easement is included in the term “restrictive covenant” defined in § 1.3 (current Restatement: Covenant Running with Land, Affirmative, Negative, and Restrictive Covenants Defined).
§ 15.1:4Elements of an Easement
Easement Purpose: An easement grants a right of use to the grantee for a specific purpose (“easement purpose”), but no transfer of title is conveyed. An easement is a nonpossessory interest in real property. See Albert v. Fort Worth & Western Railroad Co., 690 S.W.3d 92, 97 (Tex. 2024); Redburn v. City of Victoria, 898 F.3d 486, 495 (5th Cir. 2018); Marcus Cable Associates v. Krohn, 90 S.W.3d 697, 700 (Tex. 2002), and other cases cited in section 15.3:1 below. See such term as used in the accompanying forms in this chapter.
Easement Area: See the term “easement area” as used in the accompanying forms to this chapter. See sections 15.1:5 and 15.3:2 below.
Incorporeal Hereditament: An easement is termed an “incorporeal hereditament” because it does not have physical existence. Because an easement grants a right of use, the easement holder does not have the same right as an owner of a possessory interest to exclude all others from the easement property. See Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 1.2 (2000) cmt. d (distinguishing between an easement, which permits its owner to use land only for specified purposes, and a possessory land interest, which permits its owner to make any use of the property); Miller v. Babb, 263 S.W. 253 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1924).
Commonly Used Terms for Easements Appurtenant: Easements appurtenant involve a dominant estate, to which the right belongs (variously referred to in cases as the “dominant easement property,” the “dominant estate,” the “dominant tenement,” or the “benefited property”), and a servient estate, upon which the obligation rests (variously referred to in cases as the “easement property,” the “servient estate,” the “servient tenement,” or as the “burdened property”). See Taylor Foundry Co. v. Wichita Falls Grain Co., 51 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, no pet.) (“servient estate holder” unreasonably prevented the “dominant estate holder” from using a railroad track on the servient estate holder’s property to load large-unit trains); West v. Giesen, 242 S.W. 312, 319–23 (Tex. App.—Austin 1922, writ ref’d).
Benefited Property: An appurtenant easement does not exist apart from the land to which it is attached. An appurtenant easement passes with title to the dominant estate that it benefits; a separate conveyance is not necessary because the appurtenant easement cannot be separately conveyed. It is common to use the words “and the rights and appurtenances thereto in anywise belonging” in the granting clause of a deed. See the general warranty deed in this manual, form 5-1. See also McWhorter v. City of Jacksonville, 694 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1985, no writ).
Reference of Appurtenant Easement on Plat: An easement created by reference to a plat is an appurtenance to the platted lots that cannot be separated from the owner’s rights in the lots and passes with conveyance of the lots. See Cook v. Nissimov, 580 S.W.3d 745, 751 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, pet. denied). See discussion of this case in section 15.3:2 below.
Unity of Title as to the Easement and the Dominant Estate: The same parties do not have title to the dominant estate and the servient estate, but there must be unity of title as to the easement and the dominant estate.
Burdened Property: 31A Tex. Jur. 3d Easements & Licenses in Real Property § 8 (Easements appurtenant and in gross) describes the relationship between the servient estate and the dominant estate as being generally in the form of a “negative easement,” an obligation of the servient estate not to interfere with the right of the owner of the dominant estate to use the servient estate for the easement purpose.
Extinguishing Easement Appurtenant on Merger of Estates: An easement appurtenant may be extinguished by merger of the dominant estate and the servient estate. Because the dominant estate and the servient estate must be held by different parties for an easement to exist, a merger of the two estates, as in the case of the dominant estate owner’s purchase of the servient estate (and vice versa) may extinguish the easement. It is often a practice to include non-merger language to avoid merger.
The Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 1.3 (2000) classifies “negative easements” as a form of “restrictive covenant.” The current Restatement’s classification of negative easements as restrictive covenants does not result in a substantively different case outcome than provided by Texas law. Texas law, however, classifies such an estate as an easement. See 31A Tex. Jur. 3d Easements & Licenses in Real Property § 10 (Affirmative and negative easements; apparent and nonapparent easements) (“If, on the other hand, the owner of the servient tenement is by reason of the easement restricted in some rights in respect of that tenement in favor of the owner of the dominant tenement, the easement is a negative one.”).
Personal Right: An easement in gross is a mere personal right or interest to use of the land of another. Easements in gross are personal easements benefiting a person, not benefiting a specific tract of land. Generally, public road, railroad, utility, and pipeline easements are in gross.
Assignability: In the absence of an assignment provision in an easement in gross permitting assignment of the grantee’s rights, the grantee’s rights under an easement in gross are not assignable; but the parties may create an assignable easement by a provision to such effect.
See the easement in gross, form 15-2 in this chapter.
A license is not an easement. A license is generally a personal, revocable, and nonassignable privilege to do acts on the land of another without possessing an estate or interest in the land. In some cases, licenses will not be revocable at will if expenditures have been made in reliance on the license. A “license coupled with an interest” is not revocable at the will of the licensor. A license coupled with an interest remains irrevocable only so long as necessary by its nature.
“Natural servitudes” are inherently part of land ownership. The following terms set out the scope of natural servitudes.
Ancient Lights: The common law doctrine of ancient lights, under which prescriptive rights to the light and air admitted by a window on the benefited property could be acquired, is not recognized in Texas.
Excavation: A landowner has a right to excavate the landowner’s property but must prevent the natural and unencumbered soil from sinking or falling away adjoining land. One who is contemplating making excavations near another’s boundary has a duty to make a reasonable investigation as to the character of the soil to be excavated. To recover for injuries to a building or structure resulting from excavations on adjoining land, it is necessary to show negligence or other culpable conduct of the excavator.
Lateral Support: “Lateral support” is the right to have soil in its natural state be supported by adjoining land. Owners of property in its natural state (not burdened with structures) are entitled to lateral support from the adjacent owner’s land. The right is one of property and attaches to and passes with the soil. No absolute right of lateral support for land exists where the natural condition has been altered through human activities to create a need for lateral support where none previously existed in nature.
Water Withdrawal, Impoundment, or Diversion: In the absence of negligence, willful waste, or intent to cause malicious injury, and subject to governmental regulations, a landowner has the right to withdraw all the water it can produce from its land even though it causes the neighbor’s land to subside.
§ 15.2Creation and Enforceability of Easements by Document
Statutes: An agreement creating an easement is a conveyance of an interest in land, and it must comply with the statute of frauds, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 26.01, and the statute of conveyances, Tex. Prop. Code § 5.021. Additionally, an easement must be for a lawful purpose and contain only legal provisions. See, e.g., Tex. Prop. Code § 5.020.
Authority to Grant: A co-owner may not give an effective easement without the consent or ratification of the other co-owners. A life estate owner may grant an easement only for as long as the life estate owner is alive.
Adequate Description of Burdened Property and Benefited Property: If the easement does not sufficiently describe the interest conveyed, the conveyance is void. An adequate property description must provide the means or data to identify the servient estate with certainty. See Schuhardt Consulting Profit Sharing Plan v. Double Knobs Mountain Ranch, Inc., 426 S.W.3d 800, 803 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, pet. denied). A court has held that the failure to describe the exact location of an easement did not affect validity of the easement because the servient estate was described by reference to a roadway across the servient estate, which already provided access to the dominant estate. Cummins v. Travis County Water Control & Improvement District No. 17, 175 S.W.3d 34, 51 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied).
Easement or Fee Simple: An instrument may convey either an easement or a fee simple estate, depending on its language.
Easement: The term “right-of-way” when used in the sense of a “right-of-passage” is virtually synonymous with the term “easement.” Grant of a right-of-way in these circumstances implies only those rights reasonably necessary to the fair enjoyment of the easement with as little burden as possible to the servient estate. See 31A Tex. Jur. 3d Easements & Licenses in Real Property § 9 (Easements appurtenant and in gross—Right-of-way).
Fee Simple: A deed purporting to “dedicate” rather than “grant” or “convey” may be a conveyance of fee simple. See Texas Electric Railway Co. v. Neale, 252 S.W.2d 451, 453 (Tex. 1952); see also Russell v. City of Bryan, 919 S.W.2d 698 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ denied).
Perpetual or Limited Duration: An easement may be perpetual or limited.
Time: An easement can be made for any duration of time—perpetual, for a term of years, or until a specified event.
Termination on a Specified Event: An easement granted for a particular purpose terminates when its purpose ceases to exist or is completed or when the easement is abandoned or rendered impossible of performance.
Valid Reservations: Properly crafted, a reservation creates a new severance in favor of the grantor and the grantor’s heirs, successors, and assigns.
Invalid Reservations to Third Parties: A reservation in favor of a third party is invalid.
It is good practice to record the easement document with the county clerk of the county where the burdened property is located. Recordation of the easement provides constructive notice to third parties of its existence. An interest in real property is void as to a creditor or to a subsequent purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice. Tex. Prop. Code § 13.001(a). An unrecorded instrument is binding on a subsequent purchaser who has notice of the instrument. Tex. Prop. Code § 13.001(b). Notice may be constructive or actual. Tex. Prop. Code § 13.001(c).
Shelter Rule: A corollary rule, referred to as the “shelter rule,” provides protection for purchasers with notice of the unrecorded agreement or claim if the purchaser purchases the property from a purchaser who purchased the property without notice of the unrecorded easement agreement. See 64 Tex. Jur. 3d Records and Recording Laws § 119 (Acquisition and precedence of creditor lien over unrecorded instrument); see generally Moran v. Adler, 570 S.W.2d 883, 885 (Tex. 1978) (citing cases).
Actual or Constructive Notice of an Unrecorded Easement: In Flack v. First National Bank of Dalhart, 226 S.W.2d 628, 631 (Tex. 1950), the Texas Supreme Court stated:
[N]otice embraces knowledge of all those facts which reasonable inquiry would have disclosed, the duty of inquiry extending only to matters that are fairly suggested by the facts really known. . .[I]f [a subsequent purchaser of property] had knowledge of any fact or circumstance sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry which, if prosecuted with ordinary diligence, would lead to actual notice of [the adverse claim], [the subsequent purchaser] [is] charged with such knowledge. In other words, whatever fairly puts a person upon inquiry is actual notice of the facts which would have been discovered by reasonable use of the means at hand.
In 425 Soledad, Ltd. v. CRVI Riverwalk Hospitality, LLC, 709 S.W.3d 551 (Tex. 2025), the Texas Supreme Court addressed whether an unrecorded parking agreement was binding on a property’s purchaser. Under the facts of this case, the court held that the purchaser had a duty of inquiry and that a reasonable exercise of that duty would have revealed the parking agreement, which required the property owner to provide parking spaces to a third party.
§ 15.3Scope, Location, and Extent of Easements
Broad Purpose: An easement’s express terms delineate the easement purpose, the purpose for which the grantee may use the easement property. See, e.g., Marcus Cable Associates v. Krohn, 90 S.W.3d 697, 700 (Tex. 2002) (holding that an easement for an electric transmission or distribution line or system did not permit cable-television lines). When the easement does not state a specific purpose, the scope of the easement may include reasonable use that is reasonably necessary and convenient and as little burdensome as possible to the grantor.
Specific Purpose: When an easement is granted for a particular easement purpose, no additional rights pass by implication to the grantees except those that are reasonably necessary to enjoy the rights that the easement expressly states. Courts have been willing to permit changes to accommodate technological changes. See 31A Tex. Jur. 3d Easements & Licenses in Real Property § 65 (Extent of use permitted by express easement of easement—Technological advances); see also Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 1.2 (2000) cmt. d (“The holder of the easement . . . is entitled to make only the uses reasonably necessary for the specified purpose.”), §§ 4.2 cmt. d, 4.10 cmt. a (noting that manner, frequency, and intensity of easement may change to take advantage of technological advances, but only for purposes for which easement was created).
Commonly Used Terms for Easements:
“Right-of-Way”: The term “right-of-way,” when used alone, can have more than one meaning; it may denote either a right-of-passage or the right-of-way strip of land itself. The use of the term “right-of-way” in a deed or other document does not necessarily define or limit the estate conveyed. See 31A Tex. Jur. 3d Easements & Licenses in Real Property § 9 (Easements appurtenant and in gross—Right-of-way).
“Ingress and Egress”: A general grant of “ingress and egress” with no restriction as to manner or purpose includes not only the use required at the time of the grant but also the right to use the easement for any purpose connected to the use of the dominant estate property. See Boerschig v. Southwestern Holdings, Inc., 322 S.W.3d 752, 760 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, no pet.) (general right of “ingress and egress” did not limit easement’s use to its use at time easement was entered into, which was to access ranch, not commercial resort); Shipp v. Stoker, 923 S.W.2d 100, 103 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1996, writ denied) (easement that contained no limit on its use could be used for both residential and business purposes). A general grant of “ingress and egress” authorizes only those activities reasonably necessary to come to and leave the stated destination; it does not confer other rights unassociated with ingress and egress, such as parking, installing structures, or lingering on the property for recreational purposes. Cummins v. Travis County Water Control & Improvement District No. 17, 175 S.W.3d 34, 51 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (easement to access water for domestic use and for ingress and egress did not give right to build or maintain structures or moor boat dock). For example, the court in Greenwood v. Lee, 420 S.W.3d 106, 113–14 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2012, pet. denied), held in construing the grant of an “easement and right-of-way,” “access road,” or “access easement,” without further definition, that it did not authorize installation of utility lines on, under, above, or in the easement property.
Parking:
Driveway Permitted Parking: Under a grant of an access easement, neither the grantor nor the grantee has an express right to park vehicles on the subject driveway, but each has a right to park on the driveway at such times and in such manner as does not interfere with use by the other. In Baer v. Dallas Theater Center, the grantee had the right to establish traffic lanes; construct side-walks as required for safety and convenience; and to grade, cut out, and use the entire width of the private way. See Baer v. Dallas Theater Center, 330 S.W.2d 214 (Tex. App.—Waco 1959, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
“Driveway Purposes” Does Not Include Parking Rights Unless Stated: Where the defendant was entitled to an easement for “driveway purposes” over and across a portion of the plaintiff’s premises, the two owners had a common easement over the driveway for ingress and egress, and neither owner had the absolute right to park vehicles on the driveway. Colborn v. Bailey, 408 S.W.2d 327 (Tex. App.—Austin 1966, no writ).
Access to and from Waterbodies: In Dail v. Couch, 99 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no writ), the court construed an easement reservation stated in general terms in a lakeshore property subdivision’s restrictive covenants. The court of appeals held that the trial court had discretion to establish the width of an easement for access to the lake at five feet of an adjoining property’s property line. The suit was an action for mandatory injunction brought by a property owner for removal of a neighbor’s patio deck built in alleged violation of the restrictive covenant. In Lakeside Launches, Inc. v. Austin Yacht Club, Inc., 750 S.W.2d 868 (Tex. App.—Austin 1988, writ denied), the court held that an easement was, as a matter of law, an easement of ingress and egress only because the only reasonable reading of the words “easement and right-of-way” in the grant was one in which the term “right-of-way” meant a right of passage over and across the servient estate’s land lying between the 670-foot contour line and the waters of the lake. Because the grant did not state the width of the right-of-way granted, the court was required to render the easement certain to the extent reasonably necessary to afford ingress and egress to the owner of the dominant estate and no more. The court of appeals also held that the trial court properly excluded parol evidence of the grantee’s intent because no ambiguity existed on the face of the instrument.
Pleasure and Recreation: An easement for use of servient estate property for “pleasure and recreation” may be detailed or not. Such easements may be appurtenant (e.g., a private park) or in gross (e.g., rights of pasture, fishing, hunting, and sports by members of a hunting club or other group). Easements for pleasure and recreation on a servient estate’s property may be of such an ephemeral nature as to fall within the category of easements known as “novelty easements.” The easement purposes for such an easement include access to the servient estate property to study nature, picnic, hike, ride horses, camp, and watch birds. These types of rights present problems even when they are created in writing. Court interpretation and enforcement can be difficult.
§ 15.3:2Right to Burden the Easement Property
Grantor’s Failure to Reserve Right to Burden: Failure of a grantor to reserve a right may result in the loss of that right. In Cook v. Nissimov, 580 S.W.3d 745, 751 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, pet. denied), for example, the court found that the subdivision developer, the grantor, did not reserve a right to grant access to subsequent lot purchasers to use an adjoining access easement having previously granted in the deed to some lot purchasers the exclusive right to use the access easement.
No Express Limitation of Grantor’s Right to Burden:
Gates: When a grant is silent or ambiguous about whether gates (locked or unlocked) or other obstructions are permissible, courts have generally looked at (1) whether obstruction-free passage is necessary and convenient for the grantee’s use of the easement; (2) whether the installation of gates or other obstructions would interfere with either party’s general rights against noninterference; and (3) the terms of the grant, its purpose, the nature and situation of the property, and the manner in which the property was used in the past (i.e., whether gates or other barriers existed at the time of the grant). Greenwood v. Lee, 420 S.W.3d 106, 118–20 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2012, pet. denied).
Bridges: In Brookshire Katy Drainage District v. Lily Gardens, LLC, 333 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. denied), the court found that there was no evidence that the property owners’ construction of improvements over a drainage district’s bridge interfered with the district’s right of ingress and egress to a drainage canal easement; or that it violated the district’s rights in the express easement; or that it violated the rights reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of the easement, namely, constructing, maintaining, operating, repairing, and reconstructing a drainage canal, as would be required to support the district’s claim that the owners were encroaching and infringing into the district’s easement and culverts without permission.
Limitations on Grantor’s Right to Burden:
Gates: When a grant gives the grantees “free and uninterrupted” use of an easement, courts have generally interpreted that to mean free and clear of any obstruction, including the installation of gates by the grantors.
Lateral Support: In San Jacinto Sand Co. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 426 S.W.2d 338 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1968, writ ref’d n.r.e.), the court found that the subject easements were entitled to necessary lateral and subjacent support of the burdened servient estate.
Trees: In Stuart v. Larrabee, 14 S.W.2d 316, 320 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1929, writ ref’d), the court held that the gates and trees on the burdened servient estate could be removed by the easement holder.
For an example, see form 15-2 in this chapter, section D.2.a. (Interfere with Grantees’ Possession).
Grantee’s Right to Burden:
No Express Limitations of Grantee’s Right to Burden: According to Texas Jurisprudence:
The existence of an easement in general terms implies a grant of unlimited reasonable use, such as is reasonably necessary and convenient, and as little burdensome as possible, to the servient owner. In other words, where the grant or reservation of an easement is made in general terms, use of the easement includes those uses that are reasonably necessary and convenient but is limited to those that burden the servient estate as little as possible. “Reasonable” in this connection is a relative term, and what is reasonable depends on the facts of each particular case. A reasonable use is one that does not unreasonably prejudice the rights of others.
31A Tex. Jur. 3d Easements & Licenses in Real Property § 63 (Extent of use permitted by express easement of easement—Grant in general terms). See also 31A Tex. Jur. 3d Easements & Licenses in Real Property § 64 (Extent of use permitted by express easement of easement—Grant for general purpose).
Grantee Entitled to Make Any Use Reasonably Necessary for Convenient Enjoyment: A grant or reservation of an easement in general terms includes the right to use the easement as reasonably necessary and convenient and in a manner as little burdensome as possible to the servient owner, unless otherwise expressly addressed in the easement. See, e.g., Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. Lynch, 595 S.W.3d 678, 686–88 (Tex. 2020) (involved a form of “general transmission line easement,” no width prescribed; specified a right to remove trees; specified a right to access landowner’s adjacent land for constructing, removing, reconstructing, and maintaining the transmission line). To the extent that an easement does not otherwise address, the burden imposed on the easement property by an easement is limited to a use which is reasonably necessary and as little burdensome to the easement property as possible. See also Thompson v. Williams, 249 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1952), aff’d, 256 S.W.2d 399 (Tex. 1953) (holding that grant of a roadway easement carried with it the right to prepare the roadway for proper use by grading or paving).
Changes in Manner, Frequency, and Intensity of Use by Grantee Permitted: Unless negated by specific language, an easement contemplates a future use consistent with the grant under different conditions so that the easement owner may carry out the object for which the easement was granted. See, e.g., City Public Service Board v. Karp, 585 S.W.2d 838 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1979, no writ) (holder of transformer easement was entitled to replace underground transformer with above-ground transformer to resolve maintenance problems due to seepage of water and mud); see also, e.g., Lower Colorado River Authority v. Ashby, 530 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. App.—Austin 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (holder of “easement to construct, reconstruct, and hang wire on all necessary or desirable appurtenances” was entitled to replace wooden supports with metal towers twice as high, add transmission lines, and increase voltage).
Limitation of Grantee’s Right to Burden:
General Rights Fixed on Installation: If a pipeline easement does not specify the “location” or the “size of the pipe,” the size of the pipe is made certain by the act of the grantee in laying the pipe. Once the pipe is laid with the acquiescence of the grantors, the grant, which was general and indefinite, becomes fixed and certain, and the grantee cannot change the easement either by relocating the pipe or by increasing its size. Houston Pipe Line Co. v. Dwyer, 374 S.W.2d 662 (Tex. 1964) (holding that the rights created by the easement had become fixed when the eighteen-inch line had been constructed and that the pipeline company had no right to remove the line and replace it with a thirty-inch high pressure line).
Grant’s Specification of Purpose Encompassed Technological Developments: In CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric LLC v. Bluebonnet Drive, Ltd., 264 S.W.3d 381, 387 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied), the court held that the words “electric transmission or distribution line consisting of variable numbers of wires” and “all necessary and desirable appurtenances,” including “towers or poles made of wood, metal or other materials, telephone and telegraph wires, props and guys” did not limit the easement to electricity transmission. The court held that the easement permitted the grantee electric transmission company to allow cable television transmission line on its poles. The court noted that the reference to “telephone and telegraph wires, props and guys” did not restrict the use of the facilities to those necessary and desirable for electric utility’s internal communications and that, under the technological-advancement doctrine, the easement encompassed technological developments.
Exercise of Rights Limited to Easement Property: In Phillips Pipe Line Co. v. Clear Creek Properties, Inc., 53 S.W.2d 389 (Tex. App.—Austin 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.), the court held that a twenty-foot-wide easement for pipeline installation, removal, and access did not include the right to remove trees and other vegetation outside the twenty-foot strip to install a new line within the strip.
Unreasonable Damage or Interference with Enjoyment of the Easement Property: In regards to unreasonable damage or interference with the enjoyment of the easement property, see 31A Tex. Jur. 3d Easements & Licenses in Real Property § 11 (Continuous and discontinuous easements). See, e.g., Lamar County Electric Cooperative Ass’n v. Bryant, 770 S.W.2d 921 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1989, no writ) (holder of a power-line easement had right to cut tree limbs as necessary to repair downed power line but was not entitled to cut down thirty-six trees at ground level).
Fencing Prohibited by Express Prohibition of Permanent Structures: In North Texas Municipal Water District v. Ball, 466 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.), the court held the grantor’s construction of a fence was not an exception to the permanent-structure prohibition of an easement governing a municipal water district’s water pipeline, although the easement stated that the district would pay for any damage done to fences, where the easement’s language concerning fences spoke only to the remedy of compensation for damage and not to additional rights reserved by the original landowner, and the district’s ability to “install, maintain, and repair” the water pipeline would have been undermined by a permanent structure, like a landowner fence installed within the easement boundaries after grant of the easement.
No Location Expressed:
Designation of Location Not Necessary to Create Easement: An exact designation of location is unnecessary as long as the tract of land that will be burdened by the easement is sufficiently identified. The general rule is that, if an easement does not specify its location and an existing route does not exist, the grantors can locate the easement if such location is reasonable; however, if the grantors do not establish the location of the easement, the grantees may do so with due regard for the convenience of the parties. Jones v. Fuller, 856 S.W.2d 597, 602 (Tex. App.—Waco 1993, writ denied).
Grantee Selects Location Under Blanket Easements: A variation of this type of no-location-expressed easement is a “blanket easement.” A blanket easement extends over the entire servient estate, allowing the grantee to select the route at a future time. A blanket easement is commonly used for long-route pipelines and electric power lines. See section 15.3:4 below for a discussion of expansible easements.
Change in Location Requires Consent: Once established, the location of the easement cannot be changed by either the grantees or the grantors without the consent of both parties, even when use of the easement where located becomes detrimental to the use of the grantor’s estate. See, e.g., Samuelson v. Alvarado, 847 S.W.2d 319 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1993, no pet.) (once improvements were installed or established, location could not be changed without consent of both grantor and grantee even though use of the easement, where located, became detrimental to use of the servient estate; servient owner could not unilaterally change easement location to a location less convenient to the dominant estate owner).
Relocation:
No Relocation Right Granted to Grantee: An established easement may be relocated only with consent of the parties. Sisco v. Hereford, 694 S.W.2d 3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The Sisco court held that an express easement may not be relocated by the easement holder despite the physical deterioration of the easement area, even though the proposed new location was more practical, convenient, and reasonable.
Relocation Right in Equity: Contrary to the general rule noted above, some courts have permitted relocation on equitable grounds.
Relocation Right Granted to Grantee: The terms “reconstruction” and “relocate,” as used in an easement granted to a utility company, have been held to be broad enough to include the right to increase the height of the poles and wire on reconstruction of the line. The Texas Supreme Court, in Vrazel v. Skrabanek, 725 S.W.2d 709, 712 (Tex. 1987), found that an easement dedicated by plat could be relocated by the servient estate owner, based on the implied consent of the dominant estate owner.
Multiple-Line Grants: Easements that grant the easement owner the right to place additional easement improvements across the servient estate from time to time are known as “expansible” or “multiple-line” easements. A grant of an easement for “pipeline or pipelines” creates a multiple line grant.
Flexibility in Placing, Moving, Altering, Replacing, or Removing: Expansible blanket easements can afford the grantees considerable flexibility in placing, moving, altering, replacing, or removing initial or additional utility lines at routes selected by the grantee. See, e.g., Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. Lynch, 595 S.W.3d 678, 688–89 (Tex. 2020); Atmos Energy Corp. v. Paul, 598 S.W.3d 431, 451–52 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2020, no pet.). The placement of a single line on an expansible blanket easement does not fix the location of the easement or prevent the grantees from later exercising the full extent of rights conveyed by the terms of the grant.
Future Exercise of Right: In determining whether an easement grants a right to lay additional pipelines, courts will consider whether the easement provides for future compensation for future lines.
No Time Limit on Right: The right to lay additional pipelines, not being a mere equitable right but an interest in land, is not barred by a delay of years in exercising it.
Not Expansible: An easement agreement granting a water authority an easement for the construction and use of a river water diversion point and containing a metes-and-bounds description corresponding with the location of the water intake and pipeline did not grant the water authority a right to construct a second water intake on the lake; the easement served only the purposes of allowing for the intake pipeline and for its restricted zone radius. Canyon Regional Water Authority v. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, 258 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008).
No Fixed Width, Length, and Dimensions Stated: Failure to state the width of an easement does not render the granting instrument ambiguous and justify introduction of parol evidence. In such case, the benefited property owner is entitled to a reasonable width dependent upon the facts and circumstances. See Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. Lynch, 595 S.W.3d 678, 689–91 (Tex. 2020). In Atmos Energy Corp. v. Paul, 598 S.W.3d 431, 462 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2020, no pet.), the court held that the only reasonable interpretation of the terms of the easement was that the plaintiff had the right to build multiple pipelines on the defendant’s property without restrictions, because the easement granted the plaintiff an expansible, blanket easement over the defendant’s property without regard to the original pipeline’s location, and contained no metes-and-bounds description specifying its location on the easement property. In Crawford v. Tennessee Gas Transmission Co., 250 S.W.2d 237 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1952, writ ref’d), the court held that a pipeline company had the right under the easement to lay a third pipeline on a route selected by the company over defendant’s land and was not restricted to a fifty-foot-wide strip.
Fixed Width: In Phillips Pipe Line Co. v. Clear Creek Properties, Inc., 553 S.W.2d 389 (Tex. App.—Austin 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.), the court held that where a pipeline easement specified a precisely described twenty-foot strip, the easement holder had no right to use an area outside of the described strip during construction of an additional line even though the easement area was too narrow for the purpose. The easement holder became a trespasser when it used land outside the twenty-foot strip and was held liable for damages.
Statutory Presumption as to Width: Regarding the presumed width of easements acquired by grant or condemnation judgments, see Tex. Nat. Res. Code § 111.0194.
No Height Limit Stated: In Lindemann Properties, Ltd. v. Campbell, 524 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, pet. denied), the court held that the dominant estate owner did not exceed the scope of the easement by replacing a 400-foot radio-transmission tower with a new 420-foot tower, eighteen feet from the original tower, within the same fenced 500’ x 500’ easement tract, and briefly operating both towers simultaneously; the new tower was not substantially larger than the first, it would not be possible to build the new tower in exactly the same place as the original tower without first removing the original tower, and the continued use of the tower during construction was crucial, as emergency services used the tower for radio communications.
Not Addressed: Power companies do not have a statutory or common law duty to build fences along an easement or to install gates, if they build a fence. Aycock v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., 175 S.W.2d 710 (Tex. App.—Galveston 1943, writ ref’d w.o.m.).
Addressed: In Arden v. Boone, 221 S.W. 265 (Tex. App. 1920), the court addressed the meaning of the easement’s requirement that the grantor was “to keep open” the easement property. The court found that “to keep open” was only in the broad sense so as to afford a party access to a public road from such party’s land, such access being afforded through gates constructed and maintained in such condition as not unreasonably to interfere with the right of passage. See 52 A.L.R.3d 9 (Right to maintain gate or fence across right of way).
§ 15.3:8Maintenance and Repair
Not Addressed: An easement owner must maintain the easement even if this responsibility is not addressed. Generally, if the grantees are given exclusive use of the easement, then it is common to expressly shift the maintenance responsibility exclusively to the grantees. If the grantees and grantors share the use of the easement, then it is common to share the expense. In Mapco, Inc. v. Ratliff, 528 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.), the pipeline easement provided that the grantees had a duty to construct and maintain the pipeline at sufficient depth to permit normal cultivation. The court held that the pipeline company was not entitled to damages for rupture of the pipeline by a plowing contractor using a deep-plowing practice common in the area.
Grantee Granted Right to Cut Vegetation: An easement agreement providing that a power company had the right to clear the electric utility right-of-way of all obstructions, to cut and trim trees within the right-of-way, and to cut down weak or leaning trees tall enough to strike wires unambiguously gave the company the right to remove trees completely within the right-of-way without regard to whether the trees hindered the flow of electricity, and to trim parts of trees extending into the right-of-way from the grantor’s adjoining property. DeWitt County Electric Co-op, Inc. v. Parks, 1 S.W.3d 96 (Tex. 1999).
Grantee Granted Right to Maintain: An easement granting the holder the right to “maintain” a radio-transmission tower included the right to remove and replace the tower, without terminating the easement, when the condition of the tower was such that in order to maintain it, replacement would be necessary. Tsakiris Properties, Ltd. v. Campbell, 524 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, pet. denied).
Liquor and Firearms: Tex. Prop. Code § 5.020(c) provides that an instrument granting an access easement may not restrict an easement owner or the easement owner’s guests from possessing, carrying, or transporting an alcoholic beverage or firearm on the servient estate while using the easement for the easement’s purpose, but this prohibition does not apply to a right-of-way easement for a pipeline, electric transmission line, or other utilities. The prohibitions in Tex. Prop. Code § 5.020 apply regardless of when the easement was created. See Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., ch. 907, §§ 2, 3.
§ 15.3:10Public or Private Dedication
Public Dedication: For a dedication to the public to occur, certain elements must be present: (1) an intention of the landowner to devote his land to public use, (2) a manifestation of the landowner’s intention through his words or acts, and a communication to the public or some portion thereof, and (3) an acceptance of the use of the property by the public. Privately-owned utility companies may be referred to as “public utilities” and are provided statutory, quasi-governmental condemnation powers, but they are privately-owned companies and their easements are private. Boyle v. Burk, 749 S.W.2d 264 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1988, writ denied). The Texas Utilities Code provides for use of public roads, streets, alleys, and other public property (with the consent of the governing body if a municipality) by gas companies (Tex. Util. Code §§ 181.005, 181.022), by electric utilities (Tex. Util. Code § 181.042), by telephone and telegraph companies (Tex. Util. Code § 181.082), and by television cable services (Tex. Util. Code § 181.102). The uses to which public right-of-way easements can be used, once created, have been broadly construed.
An easement for a road or street includes the right for the governing body to authorize the laying of utility lines. Hill Farm, Inc. v. Hill County, 436 S.W.2d 320, 321–22 (Tex. 1969). In Pittman v. City of Amarillo, 598 S.W.2d 941 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.), the court held that a city was entitled to pave a dedicated public street without paying to relocate a servient estate owner’s private sewer line; a servient estate owner’s rights cannot interfere with or restrict public use of a street easement. An easement in waterworks and sewer systems is not created for the benefit of lot owners by a deed, the legal effect and express purpose of which is to devote the property to a public use and not to private easements, the two purposes being incompatible. See West v. Probst, 6 S.W.2d 96 (Tex. App. 1928).
Private Dedication: The concept of a “private dedication,” in other words, the creation of an easement appurtenant or in gross by the acts of a property owner (an “implied dedication,” an “implied easement appurtenant,” or an “implied easement in gross”), as opposed to by a written easement of the property owner, was rejected in Drye v. Eagle Rock Ranch, Inc., 364 S.W.2d 196, 207–12 (Tex. 1962), in circumstances where a seller of ranchito lots advertised that lot purchasers as members of an associated club were entitled to use the facilities of the club located on an adjoining 1,000 acre ranch. Club members also included non-lot owners, and all members were required to pay dues for the upkeep of the club’s facilities. In Drye, the facilities were located on property owned by an entity owned or controlled by the seller different from the ranchitos seller. The ranch property was leased to the club. The club’s facilities on the leased ranch land included an airplane landing field, roads, bridle paths, and other facilities for pleasure or recreational use by the club’s members (perhaps even uses requiring no facilities but indigenous to ranch lands, such as nature study, picnic, hiking, horseback riding, camping out, and bird watching). The deeds to the buyers and the public plats of the lots did not reference an associated use of the 1,000-acre ranch for pleasure and recreational purposes attendant to the ranchitos. The court found that the lot owners acquired no rights by private dedication. Further, the court found that the lot owners did not acquire easements appurtenant over the ranch by implication to their deeds. Lastly, the court found that the facts in this case did not support the fixing of an easement by estoppel in pais and noted that the lot owners did not seek reformation of their deeds or sue for damages.
Private Easement: In West, 6 S.W.2d 96, the court held that an easement in waterworks and sewer systems is not created for the benefit of lot owners by a deed, the legal effect and express purpose of which is to devote the property to a public use and not to private easements, the two purposes being incompatible.
Form: For an example, see form 15-1 in this chapter, section B.6. (No Dedication to the Public), and the corresponding provisions in form 15-2.
By Grantors:
If Not Addressed: Failure to address a grantor’s remedies may limit remedies otherwise typically addressed. For instance, the court in Smith v. Huston, 251 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet. denied), held that the owners of an airstrip in an airstrip housing development could not resort to self-help and deny airstrip access to lot owners who did not pay the use and maintenance fees as required by the lot owners’ access easements, as the easements did not address the remedies available to the owner of the servient estate, i.e., the airstrip owners, in the event the owners of the dominant estates, the lot owners, did not pay their fees; the easements generally could not be forfeited by a grantee’s failure to abide by its terms and conditions; and, generally, an owner of a servient estate had no right to interfere with the rights of the dominant estate to the easement.
Damages: In order for the owner of the land to recover damages growing out of the use of an easement, the landowner must show that the easement owner was guilty of negligence in the use of the easement. See Texas Power & Light Co. v. Cassey, 138 S.W.2d 594 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1940, writ dism’d, judgment correct).
Forfeiture Provision: An easement may be created that provides that it will terminate on the breach or nonperformance of a condition, and this limitation ordinarily will be enforced unless it is not sufficiently definite and certain or is contrary to a law or public policy. In order to terminate a grantee’s interest in an easement because of a breach of a condition subsequent, it is essential that the grantor reenter or take equivalent action. The requirement of affirmative action by the grantor is not dispensed with by the fact that the clause embodying the condition subsequent contains language to the effect that the interest of the grantee will automatically revert to the grantor in case of a breach of condition. See Saunders v. Alamo Soil Conservation District, 545 S.W.2d 249 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
By Grantees:
Declaratory Judgment and Injunction: The proper remedies for interference with the easement are through declaratory relief pursuant to a breach of contract action. See 31A Tex. Jur. 3d Easements & Licenses in Real Property § 87 (Injunctive and declaratory relief to protect easement rights); 31A Tex. Jur. 3d Easements & Licenses in Real Property § 88 (Temporary injunction to protect easement rights).
Trespass to Try Title Not Proper Action to Take: An easement owner cannot bring a trespass-to-try-title action to prevent interference with the easement. See Lance v. Robinson, 543 S.W.3d 723, 736 (Tex. 2018).
Damages: The owner of an easement may recover damages for interference with the easement by the servient estate owner or by third parties. See 31A Tex. Jur. 3d Easements & Licenses in Real Property § 89 (Damages as remedy for interference with easement).
Right to Remove Obstructions: An obstruction on the easement may constitute a nuisance giving the easement owner a right to remove the obstruction without becoming liable for damages. See Tex. Jur. 3d Nuisances § 79 (Summary abatement of nuisance by private persons); Stuart v. Larrabee, 14 S.W.2d 316 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1929, writ ref’d).
§ 15.4:1Forms in This Chapter and Drafting Architecture
Following these practice notes are four forms for use in drafting easement-related documents. Form 15-1 is an easement appurtenant form; form 15-2 is an easement in gross form; form 15-3 is a consent and subordination by lienholder form; and form 15-4 is a consent and subordination by tenant form.
The forms use the following defined terms:
“Grantors”: Forms 15-1 and 15-2 provide in section A.2.a. (Grantor) that the person executing the easement as grantor is referred to in the instrument as the “grantor” (lowercase “g”). The grantor, together with the grantor’s heirs, successors, and assigns, is referred to in the instrument as the “Grantors” (capital “G”), and each such person is referred to individually as a “Grantor.” This convention permits the forms to distinguish between the person executing the instrument as the grantor and that same person together with that person’s heirs, successors, and assigns without repeatedly adding “heirs, successors, and assigns.” For example, in section B.1. (Grant of Easement), when the person executing the instrument as grantor is referenced, the word “grantor” is used; and when section D. (Grantors’ Obligations) refers to the persons bound to perform covenants applicable to the grantor and grantor’s heirs, successors, and assigns, the word “Grantors” is used without further statement that the covenant is to be performed by “the heirs, successors, and assigns.”
“Grantees”: The same convention used for “grantor,” “Grantors,” and “Grantor” is used in section A.3.a (Grantee) for references to “grantee,” “Grantees,” and “Grantee.” For example, in the forms’ section B.1. (Grant of Easement), the word “Grantees” is used to refer to the recipient of the granted easement, which term is defined in section A.3.a. (Grantee) as the “grantee together with grantee’s heirs, successors, and assigns.”
§ 15.4:3Specific Terms and Conditions
Easement Purpose and Permitted Use: In forms 15-1 and 15-2, section B.2. (Easement Purpose and Permitted Use), the concepts of the “easement purpose” and “permitted use” are introduced. Permitted use introduces the concept that there are limitations on the easement purpose as those limitations are set out in the easement.
Grantees’ Insurance and Indemnity: The easement forms permit the addition of insurance requirements, primarily to protect the grantors from injury or loss caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions of the grantees, their agents, and contractors. If liability insurance is to be addressed, the parties should consult their insurance advisors. The parties may also wish to address indemnity obligations.
Chapter 25 in this manual, Leases, contains two insurance addenda: forms 25-36 and 25-37. Chapter 19, Commercial Construction Contract Documents, contains an insurance addendum, form 19-1, and briefly addresses insurance and indemnity in sections 19.7:1 and 19.7:2. See chapter 17, Risk Allocation: Indemnity, Waiver, and Insurance, for a discussion of these risk management tools. See also chapter 26 for additional easement-related provisions and forms that may be relevant in specialized contexts.
Negating Public Dedication: For an example of negating a public dedication, see form 15-1, section B.6. (No Dedication to the Public), and the corresponding provisions in form 15-2.
Default, Remedies; General Provisions: For examples of default, remedies, and other general provisions, see form 15-1, section H. (Default; Remedies) and section I. (General Provisions) and the corresponding provisions in form 15-2.
§ 15.4:4Ancillary Subordination Documents
Existing Liens: The foreclosure of a lien that has priority over the easement will terminate the easement. See Michael E. Ma, Consider Liens When Acquiring an Easement, 49 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 249 (2017). See also Lesley v. City of Rule, 255 S.W.2d 312 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1953, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Cousins v. Sperry, 139 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1940, no writ). To avoid this result, the parties may consider obtaining the lienholder’s consent and subordination to the easement using form 15-3 in this chapter.
Existing Leases: Unless the rights of a future easement owner are expressly addressed by the terms of a lease, the tenant has an implied right of quiet enjoyment and possession of the property, which means the tenant’s rights generally may not be disturbed by the lessor or by persons deriving title from, or claiming rights paramount to, the tenant. Unless the lease reserves to the lessor the right to grant a future easement, the tenant can seek damages against the lessor if the granting of an easement interferes with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and possession of the property. To avoid this result, the parties may consider obtaining the tenant’s consent and subordination of the lease to the easement using form 15-4.
§ 15.5Cautions and Special Issues
Effective October 1, 1991, Procedural Rule P-37 was adopted by the Texas State Board of Insurance regarding insuring the right of access in a title insurance policy. All title policies issued after that date insure the right of access unless a specific exception is added. Neither the width of the access nor access to a public thoroughfare is insured.
Ad valorem tax liens are subordinate to a restrictive covenant running with the land or to an easement recorded before January 1 of the year the tax lien arose. Tex. Tax Code § 32.05.
Although wind and solar leases commonly in use in Texas today contain multiple easements, the instruments themselves are regarded generally as tenancies for years; however, no case law or legislation has classified wind and solar leases in Texas. Moreover, an examiner should not presume that wind or solar rights may be severed from the surface estate like mineral rights or presume how such a right should be classified—i.e., a form of easement, profit à prendre, or other interest. See generally Ernest E. Smith, Wind, Water, Oil, Gas, and Whitetails: A Comparison of Property Rights and Theories (Univ. of Tex. Sch. of Law 2010); Ernest E. Smith, Roderick E. Wetsel, Becky H. Diffen & Melissa Powers, Wind Law (2018). See section 25.13 in this manual concerning renewable energy, wind leases, and solar leases.
Note: The practice notes and forms in this chapter are adapted and abridged from work prepared by William H. Locke, Jr. His article provides a fuller discussion of the issues addressed here, additional drafting context, and additional forms. For the full article, see Locke, “More on New Chapter 15 Easements Texas Real Estate Forms Manual,” listed below.
Attorney General of Texas, Landowner’s Bill of Rights (Nov. 2025), www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/files/divisions/general-oag/landowners-bill-of-rights-25.pdf.
Bigbee, Ryan J. “The Surface Estate and Common Easement and Lease Issues.” In Advanced Real Estate Drafting Course, 2017. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2017.
Bruchez, Ernest V. “Easements and Access to Fee Estates, Severed Estates, Co-Owned Estates and Encumbered Estates.” In Advanced Oil, Gas and Energy Resources Law Course, 2006. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2006.
City of Austin, Easement and Restrictive Covenant Templates, www.austintexas.gov/department/forms-applications#spanclassckanchorideasementspanEasementandRestrictiveCovenantTemplates.
Conoly, David Z. “Reciprocal Easement: Providing Driveways and Parking in Centers with Multiple Owners.” In Advanced Real Estate Drafting Course, 2016. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2016.
Elder, Allison W. “An Introduction to Conservation Easements.” In John Huffaker Agricultural Law Course, 2015. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2015.
Fitch, Charles E. “Easements.” In Real Estate Law 101 Course, 2015. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2015.
Haley, Steven C., and Christopher S. Hardy. “Involuntary Extinguishment of Easements—Merger, Reverse Prescription, Impossibility, Failure of Purpose, Abandonment.” In Advanced Real Estate Drafting Course, 2016. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2016.
Hollimon, Stuart C. “Comparison of Surface Access Issues in Rural and Urban Areas.” In Advanced Real Estate Strategies Course, 2015. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2015.
Johnson, James N. “Modifying and Terminating Easements.” In Advanced Real Estate Drafting Course, 2008. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2008.
Johnson, Russell, and Brook B. Brown. “Common Carriers and Uncommon Issues—Resources and Case Law for the Real Estate Lawyers.” In Advanced Real Estate Law Course, 2015. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2015.
Koppenheffer, Julie, and Grant Ellis. “Conservation Easements.” In Advanced Real Estate Law Course, 2008. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2008.
Locke, William H., Jr. “More on New Chapter 15 Easements Texas Real Estate Forms Manual.” In Advanced Real Estate Drafting Course, 2026. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2026.
Miller, Steven L., Jr. “Striking the Delicate Balance Between Easement and Fee Owners.” In Advanced Real Estate Drafting Course, 2018. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2018.
Nunley, J. Ken. “Pipeline Easements: Protecting the Landowner and You in Negotiations with Common Carriers/Producers and Other Issues and Thoughts.” In Advanced Real Estate Law Course, 2012. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2012.
Santoyo, Paul P. “Easements—A Refresher.” In Oil, Gas and Mineral Title Examination Course, 2016. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2016.
Spencer, Richard L., and Reid C. Wilson. “Uniform Easement Relocation Act.” In Changing Face of Water Course, 2024. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2024.
Texas General Land Office, Application for New Right-of-Way, www.glo.texas.gov/sites/default/files/2026-02/Application%20for%20New%20Right-of-Way.pdf.
University Lands, University of Texas System, Operations Forms, https://university-lands.utsystem.edu/Operations/Forms.
Weller, Philip D. “Drafting Confidentiality Agreements and Access Agreements.” In Advanced Real Estate Drafting Course, 2014. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2014.
West, Robert G. “Bob”, and Lisa C. Leaton. “Pipeline Easements from the Landowner’s Perspective.” In Advanced Real Estate Strategies Course, 2015. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2015.
Wilson, Reid C. “Texas Supreme Court: Easements by Estoppel.” In Advanced Real Estate Strategies Course, 2025. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2025.
———. “Texas Supreme Court: Easements by Prescription.” In Advanced Real Estate Strategies Course, 2025. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2025.
———. “Texas Supreme Court: Implied Negative Reciprocal Easements.” In Advanced Real Estate Strategies Course, 2025. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2025.
———. “Texas Supreme Court: Interpretation of Express Easements.” In Advanced Real Estate Strategies Course, 2025. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2025.
———. “Texas Supreme Court: Necessity and Prior Use Easements.” In Advanced Real Estate Strategies Course, 2025. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2025.
———. “Texas Supreme Court’s Take on Easements.” In Advanced Real Estate Strategies Course, 2025. Austin: State Bar of Texas, 2025.