This Court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals to consider whether its decision in this case
1
conflicts with
Tift County v. Smith,
The relevant facts are set forth in the writings of the Court of Appeals. Leon Bridges owns an undeveloped tract of land, zoned for commercial use, which abuts Chumley Circle, a public road, near its intersection with Canton Road, also a public thoroughfare. Bridges regarded Chumley Circle as his primary access to Canton Road. Three other properties abut Chumley Circle but the Bridges property is the only one with a Chumley Circle address and which does not also abut another public road. The Department of Transportation (DOT) closed Chumley Circle at its intersection with Canton Road for safety reasons. The closing did not diminish Bridges’ access to Chumley Circle but lengthened (by three parcels of property) his access to Canton Road, and necessitated a route through residential streets. Chumley Circle connects with other public roads in a residential subdivision, and the closure also cut off the most direct route to Canton Road for other property owners.
In Tift County, which also involved the dead-ending of the public road abutting the landowner’s property, this Court observed that,
the rights of the [landowner] fall into two categories: general rights, which [the landowner has] in common with the public, and special rights, which [the landowner holds] by virtue of . . . ownership of [the] property. In order to constitute a taking or damaging of [the landowner’s] property, it is the special rights that must have been violated.
Id. at 72. It is without question that an owner of property contiguous
*259
to a public road has a right of access or easement of access to that public road as a right arising from the ownership of the land, and that the landowner cannot be deprived of this right without just and adequate compensation.
MARTA v. Datry,
But that is not the situation in this case. Bridges has not been deprived of his right of access to contiguous Chumley Circle. It remains unchanged. The complaint here, as it was in
Tift County,
is based upon inconvenience of access not to the roadway abutting the landowner’s property, but rather to a particular place, in this case Canton Road. Such inconvenience of access is compensable only if it is determined that the inconvenience is special to the landowner and not that shared by the public in general.
Durpo,
supra, citing
Dept. of Transp. v. Taylor,
A majority of the Court of Appeals found Bridges’ inconvenience to be special, indeed, his property to be “unique” because of the closure’s impact on the commercial nature of the property. However, as noted in the dissenting opinion of the Court of Appeals, the majority distorts the concept of “uniqueness.” It is a quality of property which allows the landowner enhanced compensation. See
MARTA v. Leibowitz,
While it can certainly be said that Bridges’ inconvenience from the dead-ending of Chumley Circle may be greater in degree than that of the general public, he has lost no property right for which he is entitled to compensation. Tift County at 73. Accordingly, the find *260 ing to the contrary by the majority of the Court of Appeals cannot stand. 2
Judgment reversed.