18131 Ventura Blvd v. 5223 Lindley CA2/7, B304458

Two adjoining Tarzana commercial parcels: 18131 Ventura Blvd (dominant) and 5223 Lindley Ave (servient). In 1989 Lindley’s predecessor granted Ventura an "exclusive perpetual easement" over the northerly three feet of the servient tenement for installation and use of underground utility lines.
Before the easement was recorded, the servient parcel already had underground utilities placed in the same northerly three-foot strip.
In 2014 Ventura redeveloped its parcel and planned a gravity-fed drainage line across the easement; discovery showed Lindley’s utilities sat above Ventura’s drainage line and blocked the planned gravity system.
Lindley refused to relocate its utilities; Ventura installed a more costly pump-fed system and sued for declaratory relief, injunction, and damages claiming the easement gave it exclusive use of the underground area.
The trial court found the grant ambiguous, admitted extrinsic evidence, concluded the parties intended the easement to be the exclusive grantable easement (not to exclude the servient owner from using the area), and held Lindley’s continued use did not unreasonably interfere. Judgment for Lindley was entered and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the phrase "exclusive perpetual easement" excludes the servient owner from using the easement area	"Exclusive" means Ventura has exclusive underground use of the entire 3-foot strip	"Exclusive" means no further easements will be granted; it does not preclude the servient owner from using the area	Phrase ambiguous; extrinsic evidence shows parties intended servient owner to retain utility use — easement did not exclude Lindley
Whether Lindley’s existing utilities unreasonably interfered with Ventura’s easement use (entitling Ventura to relocation/damages)	Lindley’s utilities blocked Ventura’s gravity drainage plan, causing increased construction cost and loss	Utilities preexisted/dated from construction; servient use was longstanding and shareable; relocation was not required	Substantial evidence that Lindley’s use was reasonable and did not unreasonably interfere with Ventura’s rights

Zissler v. Saville, 29 Cal.App.5th 630 (2018) (easement definition and limits on using undisclosed subjective intent in interpretation)
Scruby v. Vintage Grapevine, Inc., 37 Cal.App.4th 697 (1995) (nonexclusive easement owner limited to use that does not unreasonably interfere with servient owner)
City of Pasadena v. California-Michigan Land & Water Co., 17 Cal.2d 576 (1941) (exclusive easement that excludes servient owner requires clear intent)
Gray v. McCormick, 167 Cal.App.4th 1019 (2008) (repeated "exclusive" language, plus maintenance/indemnity, can evidence intent to exclude servient owner)
Winslow v. City of Vallejo, 148 Cal. 723 (1906) (general grant language does not allow dominant owner to expand number/size/location of pipes beyond historical use)
Winet v. Price, 4 Cal.App.4th 1159 (1992) (extrinsic evidence of surrounding circumstances admissible to interpret ambiguous easement language)
Inzana v. Turlock Irrigation Dist. Bd. of Directors, 35 Cal.App.5th 429 (2019) (factfinder determines whether servient owner’s use unreasonably interferes; appellate review for substantial evidence)