Opinion ID: 1312367
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Right of direct access

Text: The Parrishes argue that (1) one of the property rights they possessed prior to the condemnation was the right of direct access to the section line easement; (2) the State took this property right; and (3) they should be compensated for this taking. Further, they argue that the rule of reasonable remaining access does not apply when a right of direct access is taken. We address whether the Parrishes ever possessed such a property right. The general rule in Alaska is that an abutter to a public highway owns a right of reasonable access to it. Triangle, Inc. v. State, 632 P.2d 965, 967 (Alaska 1981). In Triangle, we stated: All jurisdictions recognize that an owner of abutting land has a right of access to and from a public street or highway. In Alaska, this incident of ownership is limited to a right of reasonable access. This rule is in accord with that adopted by a majority of jurisdictions. In B & G Meats [Inc. v. State, 601 P.2d 252 (Alaska 1979)] we set forth the principles controlling a claim of taking caused by a change in access to streets or highways: No hard and fast rule can be stated, but courts must weigh the relative interests of the public and the individual and strike a just balance so that government will not be unduly restricted in its function for the public safety, while at the same time, give due effect to the policy of eminent domain to insure the individual against an unreasonable loss occasioned by the exercise of the police power... . While an abutter has the right of access to the public highway system, it does not follow that he has a direct-access right to the main traveled portion thereof; circuity of travel, so long as it is not unreasonable, is non-compensable. Id. (citations and footnote omitted; emphasis in original). We concluded that Triangle, Inc. never possessed a right of direct access to the adjacent highway; its only right was to reasonable access. Id. (emphasis omitted). Triangle and B & G Meats involved changes in access to prior existing highways, while the instant case involves construction of a highway where none existed before. Ordinarily, landowners have no guaranteed right of access to a newly constructed highway. Schnider v. State, 38 Cal.2d 439, 241 P.2d 1, 3 (1952); Moore v. State Highway Comm'n, 191 Kan. 624, 383 P.2d 549, 551 (1963); Smick v. Commonwealth, 268 S.W.2d 424 (Ky.App. 1954); D'Arago v. State Roads Comm'n, 228 Md. 490, 180 A.2d 488, 489-91 (1962); Morehead v. State, Dep't of Roads, 195 Neb. 31, 236 N.W.2d 623 (1975); State v. Calkins, 50 Wash.2d 716, 314 P.2d 449, 450-51 (1957). However, where construction of a new limited access highway cuts off some preexisting access to other streets, that loss of access is compensable. Small v. State Roads Comm'n, 246 Md. 646, 229 A.2d 408, 409, 410 (1967) (landowner entitled to compensation where construction of new limited access street cut off preexisting right-of-way to Viers Mill Road). In the instant case the section line easement provided the Parrishes with a potential means of access to Peger Road, because under appropriate circumstances a landowner may build a privately financed access road on a section line easement. See Andersen v. Edwards, 625 P.2d 282, 284-85, 286 n. 6 (Alaska 1981). As a result of the condemnation, however, this potential access no longer exists, and their only access to Peger Road is through one of a variety of alternative routes discussed below. Under our holdings in Triangle and B & G Meats, the Parrishes are entitled to compensation if the remaining access is unreasonable. The Parrishes argue that because they had direct access to and a fee interest in the former easement, they should now have direct access to the highway. We disagree. Nothing in AS 19.10.010 suggests that the owners of the servient estates of section line easements are guaranteed a right of direct access to any highways that may be built on these easements. Moreover, such a rule would be inconsistent with the purpose of the statute, which was to provide easements on which it would be relatively easy and inexpensive for the state to build highways. Compensation for loss of direct access would have the opposite effect: it would greatly increase the cost of constructing controlled access highways on section line easements. Indeed, this cost could conceivably be higher than the cost of acquiring a fee interest where no easements and thus no rights of access exist, leading to the absurd result that it could be more expensive for the state to build new highways on section line easements than elsewhere. We thus interpret AS 19.10.010 consistently with its purpose and hold that a section line easement does not guarantee the owner of the servient estate a right of direct access to any highway the state may choose to build there. It follows that when the state condemns the fee interest in land in which it owns a section line easement, as in the instant case, it owes no compensation for the loss of access to the easement, since no preexisting right was taken. Only if the taking deprives the landowner of reasonable access to the network of streets to which it previously had access would the state owe compensation. See Small, 229 A.2d at 410. We affirm the superior court's determination that the Parrishes' loss of direct access is not compensable. The Parrishes are entitled to compensation only for any loss of reasonable access to Peger Road brought about by the condemnation of the former section line easement.