Opinion ID: 1723161
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Impairment of Access

Text: Whether property has been damaged under the constitution is a question of law. Westgate, Ltd. v. State, 843 S.W.2d 448, 452 (Tex.1992); City of College Station v. Turtle Rock Corp., 680 S.W.2d 802, 804 (Tex. 1984); DuPuy, 396 S.W.2d at 110. Likewise, whether access rights have been materially and substantially impaired is a question of law. Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d at 777; State v. Wood Oil Distrib., Inc., 751 S.W.2d 863, 865 (Tex.1988); City of Waco v. Texland Corp., 446 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.1969); DuPuy, 396 S.W.2d at 110. It is incumbent upon the trial court to make this determination prior to trial and to control the admission of evidence accordingly. Wood Oil, 751 S.W.2d at 865. Although Schmidt , Wood Oil, Texland , and DuPuy involve inverse condemnation, the same rules apply to condemnation proceedings as apply in inverse condemnation proceedings. Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d at 777. The result in this case, thus, turns on whether the Heals have established that their access rights have been impaired to the extent that their property has been damaged under Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution. To permit recovery, the trial court must first determine that access rights have been materially and substantially impaired. This threshold determination is not specifically found in the record, however, it was impliedly made because the trial court submitted damages issues to the jury. Conclusions of law which are necessary, but not made, are deemed in support of the judgment. Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex.1992); Burnett v. Motyka, 610 S.W.2d 735, 736 (Tex.1980). The State challenges the trial court's determination that the Heals' remainder incurred constitutional damages. We review questions of law without deference to a lower court's conclusion. Barber v. Colorado Indep. Sch. Dist., 901 S.W.2d 447, 450 (Tex. 1995); In re Humphreys, 880 S.W.2d 402, 404 (Tex.1994); see Richards v. Lulac, 868 S.W.2d 306, 310-12 (Tex.1993). The Texas Constitution provides: No person's property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made.... TEX. CONST. art. I, § 17 (emphasis added). In DuPuy v. City of Waco , this Court held: It is the settled rule in this state that an abutting property owner possesses an easement of access which is a property right; that this easement is not limited to a right of access to the system of public roads; and that diminishment in the value of property resulting from a loss of access constitutes damage [under Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution]. 396 S.W.2d at 108. We concluded that a landowner is entitled to compensation when a public improvement destroys all reasonable access, thereby damaging the property. Id. at 109. We also recognized that no right to compensation extends to a property owner who has reasonable access to his property after the construction of the public improvement because the benefits of private ownership have been preserved. Id. Although DuPuy involved commercial property, there is no compelling reason, under the facts of this case, for formulating a different test for evaluating impaired access of residential property. DuPuy is the seminal case on impaired access damages. It involved the construction of a viaduct that left the landowner without any reasonable access to his property because, consistent with the construction arrangement, the street on which DuPuy's property fronted was barricaded, thus leaving him in a cul de sac. Id. at 110 (citing Lee v. City of Stratford, 125 Tex. 179, 81 S.W.2d 1003 (1935), for the proposition that a property owner left in a cul de sac after a public improvement is entitled to compensation). Prior to the viaduct's construction, DuPuy's property fronted on a well-travelled street and was fully accessible. Afterward, DuPuy could access his property only by traversing underneath the viaduct, between the support columns and dead-ending at his property. Id. at 104. We concluded these facts indicated that all reasonable access had been denied, when compared to the pre-construction route, even though DuPuy could still physically get to the system of public roads from his property. Several years later, we gave greater definition to the rule by holding that a landowner could recover compensation whenever access is materially and substantially impaired. Texland, 446 S.W.2d at 2. We held that the construction of a viaduct constituted materially and substantially impaired access by reducing the clearance and making it difficult and almost impractical to bring trucks onto the property. Id. at 4. The material and substantial test of Texland and the no reasonable access test of DuPuy are quite similar and can be reconciled by considering the fact specific problem in Texland , which necessitated the articulation of a more exact test. Texland involved a company in the business of warehousing. The company's warehouse was located beneath a recently constructed viaduct. The viaduct was supported by piers which were located close to the warehouse. One pier was even located directly in front of the loading dock. Several witnesses testified that the location of the piers created a serious interference. As the company was in the business of warehousing and transporting stored goods, which necessarily involved large commercial delivery trucks, these piers severely impeded the trucks' maneuverability with respect to backing up and parking. Id. The lack of maneuverability reached such a level that the warehouse was virtually unusable for its intended purpose because trucks capable of transport could not access the premises. Therefore, we further articulated the DuPuy test to acknowledge situations where normal access remained reasonably available, but access for which the property was specifically intended was rendered unreasonably deficient. Another case illustrating the circumstances necessary before compensation for impaired access is required is City of Beaumont v. Marks, 443 S.W.2d 253 (Tex.1969). In Marks , we held that a railroad grading project impaired access to property. The property fronted on Orleans Street, a one-way street running north, and Gilbert Street, a two-way street running east and west. A single railroad track ran along the middle of Gilbert Street. The city expanded the existing railroad tracks, and rerouted Orleans Street to proceed underneath the railroad tracks, thus forming new Orleans. Although old Orleans still intersected Gilbert Street at the corner where Marks' property was located, Orleans remained one-way and terminated at, rather than crossed, Gilbert. Additionally, the Gilbert roadway was narrowed considerably to allow another railroad track. These changes caused Marks' property to experience considerable access problems. One of the problems created was the narrow turning radius at the corner of old Orleans and Gilbert, such that large trucks necessary to the business of warehousing and transporting could not negotiate the turn. Id. at 256. If a vehicle reached the intersection and discovered it could not negotiate the turn, its driver was put in a precarious situation as old Orleans remained one way, thus preventing the driver from reversing his path of travel. Further, vehicles had difficulty maneuvering along Gilbert Street because each lane was now only 10 feet wide. But more importantly, vehicles could not safely traverse Gilbert when a train was on the south track. Id. Similar to Texland , the reconfiguration of the roadway in Marks created a virtually impassable obstruction which entitled Marks to compensation. The plaintiff and his customers' automobiles could still access the property, provided, (1) no train was on the tracks, (2) no car was parked on Gilbert Street, and (3) they were not driving a large truck and needed to turn onto Gilbert from Orleans. Although the Heals' complaint of impaired access tangentially involves aspects of the previously discussed cases, the present case is more akin to the conceptual reasoning of Archenhold Auto. Supply Co. v. City of Waco , a case in which one means of access was completely impaired while another remained open. 396 S.W.2d at 114. There we held that damages for diminishment of the means of access is not compensable provided suitable access remains. Id. We decided Archenhold before we replaced the DuPuy test for impaired access with the Texland material and substantial impairment test. However, because Texland merely enunciated a more exact test, we are convinced that the same outcome would have been reached in Archenhold had the more exact test been used. As it was in Archenhold , so it is in the present case. For reasons we discuss below, we conclude that the Heals are not entitled to additional compensation because their access rights will not be materially and substantially impaired. A review of the record shows that the Heals will not experience materially and substantially impaired access. The Heals' value expert, Leon Hurse, offered evidence demonstrating that the new configuration might create some confusion, be more hazardous, and result in more difficulty in turning left into the Heals' driveway because of increased traffic and the bottleneck that would form in front of their property. To bolster Hurse's conclusion, the Heals introduced the North Central Expressway Cross Street Operational Analysis into evidence, which reflected that traffic could increase up to 60% after completion of the project. While this may be evidence of inconvenience, it does not constitute material and substantial impairment. All of our prior impaired access cases involved physical obstructions created by a public improvement. Here, the Heals allege that traffic will impair their access. The primary factual difference is that traffic will fluctuateat times there will be congestion and at other times there will be free access. And even when there is congestion, access is not materially and substantially denied. Nevertheless, at this time we need not hold, as a matter of law, that traffic can never materially and substantially impair access such that a constitutional taking or damaging occurs. Rather, we hold only that, under these facts, traffic will not impair the access to the Heals' property enough to justify severance damages.