What You Need to Know

• A recorded easement may be deemed abandoned under New Jersey law based on the easement holder’s long-term conduct, even in the absence of a formal written release.
• Non-use of an easement, when combined with affirmative actions such as physical segregation of the easement area and decades of acquiescence, can support a finding of abandonment.
• Courts will look beyond the language of recorded instruments and closely examine historical use, physical conditions, and the parties’ course of dealing over time.
• Equitable principles, including estoppel, may bar an easement holder or its successor from asserting rights where prior conduct induced reasonable reliance by the servient owner.
• The decision underscores the importance of thorough due diligence in New Jersey real estate and title insurance matters, including review of both recorded documents and actual property use.

Overview of PC Clark Property LLC v. Halstead Realty LLC

In a January 13, 2026 opinion, the New Jersey Appellate Division found that a holder of a recorded parking easement abandoned same by its action and inaction over the course of decades. PC Clark Prop. LLC v. Halstead Realty, LLC, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 52 (Super. Ct. App. Div. Jan. 13, 2026).

What Led to the New Jersey Parking Easement Dispute

In the mid-1970s, Anthony and Helen DiGiovanni purchased three contiguous parcels designated as Parcels 1213, 1219 and 1225 in Westfield, New Jersey. After the purchase, the DiGiovannis transferred Lots 1219 and 1225 to their children, Tony and Maria, who then put the two parcels in the name of a holding company they formed, Halstead Realty Company, on behalf of American Specialty Plumbing, Heating & Air, LLC, d/b/a  Good Tidings and Good Tidings International Franchising, Inc. (“Good Tidings”). In 1987, the DiGiovannis entered into a long-term lease for Parcel 1213 with Clark Nursing and Convalescent Associates (“Clark Nursing”) to develop a nursing facility. To enable the development, the DiGiovannis  granted Clark Nursing a parking easement for Parcel 121. The plans presented to Westfield for the facility’s approval included fencing, curbing and paving for 14 spaces on Parcel 1219, which was needed to remedy a parking shortfall for the development  After the initial development, the DiGiovannis rented five parking spots to tenants unrelated to Clark Nursing in a portion of Parcel 1219 that was outside of the fenced-in area for the 14 spots. They also maintained and used that area for their business purposes. That use continued for more than the 30-year period required for adverse possession in New Jersey. See J & M Land Co. v. First Union Nat'l Bank ex rel. Meyer, 166 N.J. 493, 496 (2001).

In 2022, PC Clark Property LLC and Complete Care at Clark LLC (PC Clark”) acquired Parcel 1213. Soon thereafter, PC Clark asserted a claim to an easement over all of Parcel 1219. It also insisted on the removal of the fencing and all improvements built in the area where the five parking spots were. This action ensued.

The Bench Trial

The trial court conducted a bench trial. PC Clark’s witness admitted that he had no historical knowledge of the use of the easement area. Good Tidings’ witnesses testified that the 14 spaces were needed for zoning requirements and that “curbing and layout was done by the site contractors for the nursing home.” In that context, PC Clark’s witness conceded that Good Tidings had not interfered in its use of the 14 spaces that were fenced in. Good Tiding’s witness further testified that Clark Nursing never used the five spaces in the disputed area.

The trial court credited the essentially unrebutted testimony of Good Tidings’ witnesses and held that Clark Nursing had abandoned the easement and PC Clark was equitably estopped from asserting any rights on the disputed area. This appeal followed.

Court Affirms Easement Abandonment and Equitable Estoppel Under New Jersey Law

PC Clark argued that abandonment of a recorded easement cannot be established by non-use or physical modifications and it requires nothing less than a formal release or express renunciation. They further maintained that equitable estoppel was inapplicable because the rights of a recorded easement run with the land. In applying a deferential standard to the trial court’s factual findings while still reviewing the questions of law de novo, the Appellate Division had little difficulty in affirming the decision and rejecting PC Clark’s argument.

First, it found that while PC Clark’s predecessor Clark Nursing (the dominant estate) was entitled to a larger easement by the terms of the recorded instrument, it made a conscious decision to limit its use to 14 spaces by first, segregating those spaces from the rest of the portion of Lot 1219 with fencing and curb cuts. Next, it allowed Good Tidings (the servient estate) to maintain the remainder of Lot 1219 without objection for over thirty years. In fact, Clark Nursing even pursued alternative parking arrangements elsewhere without ever laying claim to the disputed are. By doing so, the Court held that PC Clark and its predecessors abandoned any easement rights it had to the disputed area.

Second, relying on Restatement (Third) of Property, Servitudes 7.6, the Appellate Division affirmed the estoppel ruling. It found that by fencing and only using the 14 spots and not objecting to Good Tidings’ use of the disputed area and placement of improvements thereon, Clark Nursing and its successor (PC Clark) are also estopped from doing so now as matter of equity.

Takeaways

This case is significant, first, as it shows that despite the words of a recorded instrument (in this case, an easement), how the parties use and possess land over an extended period of time matters. It also provides a lesson for litigants that, when challenging title to property, it is important to know the complete history of the property and conveyances that includes recorded instruments and actual use of the property. Finally, it is an excellent example of how a court uses its equitable powers to fashion a remedy when one side sits on its rights.

For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com or Keshav Agiwal at kagiwal@riker.com.