Arizona Easements, Landlocked Property and Eminent Domain (2026)

In Arizona, a prescriptive easement takes ten years of actual and visible use that began and continued under a claim of right and was hostile to the owner's title. That rule comes from Arizona case law (Paxson v. Glovitz, 2002; Spaulding v. Pouliot, 2008), which borrows the ten-year adverse-possession period in A.R.S. 12-526. On eminent domain, the Proposition 207 article (A.R.S. 12-1131 to 12-1138) defines public use so that it does not include the public benefits of economic development, and the Arizona Constitution makes the public character of a taking a question for the courts (Ariz. Const. art. 2, s. 17).

This page covers both halves of Arizona law: easements between private landowners first, then the government's power to take private property. For other states, see our guide to easement laws by state.

Information last verified on 2026-10-19. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Arizona state law on private easements (prescriptive easements, landlocked property and implied ways of necessity, express and conservation easements) and on condemnation of private property (Ariz. Const. art. 2, s. 17; A.R.S. title 12, chapter 8, articles 2, 2.1 and 3). It does not cover adverse possession of title (see our Arizona squatters' rights and adverse possession guide), HOA covenants, zoning, federal condemnation (covered in our national guide) or city and county ordinances.

Prescriptive Easements in Arizona

A prescriptive easement is a right to keep using a path, driveway or similar route across someone else's land, earned by long use rather than granted in a deed. Arizona's adverse-possession statutes speak of recovering "lands, tenements or hereditaments" and do not mention easements (A.R.S. 12-521, 12-526); the easement rule comes from the courts, which apply the same ten-year period.

The Arizona Court of Appeals has stated the test this way (Paxson v. Glovitz, 203 Ariz. 63 (App. 2002), quoting Harambasic v. Owens, 186 Ariz. 159 (App. 1996), and repeated in Spaulding v. Pouliot, 218 Ariz. 196 (App. 2008)). A claimant:

"must establish that the land in question has actually and visibly been used for ten years, that the use began and continued under a claim of right, and [that] the use was hostile to the title of the true owner."

The ten-year period mirrors A.R.S. 12-526(A), which requires an action to recover land from a person "having peaceable and adverse possession thereof, cultivating, using and enjoying such property" to be brought "within ten years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward." Adverse possession of ownership itself can run on that ten-year statute or on shorter periods, such as three years for a possessor "under title or color of title" (A.R.S. 12-523) and five years for one who pays the taxes and claims "under a deed or deeds duly recorded" (A.R.S. 12-525); our Arizona squatters' rights guide covers title claims.

These limitation periods do not run against the state: "Except as provided in section 12-529, the state shall not be barred by the limitations of actions prescribed in this chapter" (A.R.S. 12-510).

The presumption of a claim of right

Arizona makes the claimant's job easier once the use is shown. In Spaulding, the Court of Appeals said that once the claimant shows the use during the statutory period was "'open, visible, continuous, and unmolested,'" Arizona law "presumes that the use was under a claim of right and not permissive." The burden then shifts to the owner. The Arizona Supreme Court adopted this rule in Gusheroski v. Lewis, 64 Ariz. 192 (1946), quoting a Montana decision: "In order to overcome this presumption, thereby saving his title from the incumbrance of an easement, the burden is upon the owner to show that the use was permissive." In Harambasic, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the presumption and held that the owners "had the burden of proving the use was permissive."

Large rural tracts can be treated differently. Spaulding explained that the rule from England v. Ally Ong Hing, 105 Ariz. 65 (1969), which Arizona courts have described as "the law in Arizona regarding the grazing of [livestock] on unenclosed land," is limited to "prescriptive claims over large, unenclosed, rural parcels of land," and that Arizona courts "have never applied England to prescriptive easement claims outside the context of large, open, rural properties."

How an owner can prevent a prescriptive easement

Arizona's adverse-possession statutes (A.R.S. 12-521 to 12-526) contain no sign-posting or recorded-notice procedure for blocking a prescriptive easement. Under the case law, the issue is permission. Spaulding states that a use that begins permissively cannot "'ripen into a prescriptive right'" by the mere passage of time, and, under the presumption above, the owner is the one who must prove the use was permissive once open, visible, continuous and unmolested use for ten years is shown.

Landlocked Property and Ways of Necessity

Arizona gives a landlocked owner two routes, and they work in sequence: a common-law implied way of necessity and a statutory private condemnation. The statutory right to condemn "comes into existence only if no other access exists by common law implication" (College Book Centers, Inc. v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Ass'n, 225 Ariz. 533 (App. 2010), quoting Bickel v. Hansen, 169 Ariz. 371 (App. 1991)).

Condemning a private way of necessity (A.R.S. 12-1201 to 12-1203)

The Arizona Constitution bars taking private property for private use, "except for private ways of necessity, and for drains, flumes, or ditches, on or across the lands of others for mining, agricultural, domestic, or sanitary purposes" (Ariz. Const. art. 2, s. 17). The legislature built on that exception in A.R.S. 12-1202(A):

"An owner of or a person entitled to the beneficial use of land, mines or mining claims and structures thereon, which is so situated with respect to the land of another that it is necessary for its proper use and enjoyment to have and maintain a private way of necessity over, across, through, and on the premises, may condemn and take lands of another, sufficient in area for the construction and maintenance of the private way of necessity."

A "private way of necessity" covers more than a road. A.R.S. 12-1201 defines it as a right of way "for means of ingress and egress, and the construction and maintenance thereon of roads, overhead transmission lines, pole lines, power lines, canals, ditches, flumes, shafts, tunnels, pipe lines, drains," and similar works "for mining, milling, lumbering, agricultural, domestic or sanitary purposes." Where the way crosses another's range lands, the area condemned "shall be strictly defined," and livestock driven over it must be kept under the control of enough drivers or herders to confine them to the condemned area (A.R.S. 12-1202(B)).

How much necessity is enough? In Dabrowski v. Bartlett, 246 Ariz. 504 (App. 2019), the Court of Appeals quoted the Arizona Supreme Court's 1949 decision in Solana Land Co. v. Murphey: the condemnor "need not show an absolute necessity for the taking, a reasonable necessity being sufficient." The court added that "the mere fact that an alternate legal outlet is available" does not, as a matter of law, bar the condemnation; instead, "the court looks to whether the proponent of the private condemnation has an alternative legal route that is both adequate and reasonable." Under College Book Centers, a person seeking a private way must prove "the absence of any other reasonable access, including that no implied way of necessity existed."

The landlocked owner pays for the way. The Constitution provides that no private property "shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation having first been made," paid into court or secured by bond (Ariz. Const. art. 2, s. 17). Separately, A.R.S. 12-1111(15) lists "Byroads leading from highways to residences and farms" among the uses for which eminent domain may be exercised.

Dabrowski also describes how the route is set. The condemnor makes the initial selection, which, in words Dabrowski quoted from Solana, "in the absence of bad faith, oppression or abuse of power" will be upheld, and Dabrowski held that a finding that a more reasonable route exists through the property counts as "bad faith, oppression, or abuse of power"; the neighbor may present evidence about the route; and the final judgment "must include the route, decided by the court if contested, and the amount of compensation for that route." The condemnor has "no rights to the land until after he compensates" the owner. On upkeep, the court quoted an earlier decision (Freeman v. Sorchych): "the owners of the easement have the shared duty to repair and maintain the easement." A person violating A.R.S. 12-1202 "is guilty of a petty offense and shall be liable to the injured person for any damages incurred" (A.R.S. 12-1203).

Implied way of necessity (common law)

An easement can also be implied when a single owner splits land and leaves one part with no way out. In College Book Centers, Inc. v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Ass'n, 225 Ariz. 533 (App. 2010), the Court of Appeals, citing Bickel v. Hansen, 169 Ariz. 371 (App. 1991), required proof that:

1. the dominant property and the servient property were under common ownership;
2. the property was severed;
3. the dominant property had no outlet at that time; and
4. access across the other land was reasonably necessary when severance occurred.

The court treated this implied way of necessity as distinct from the statutory private way of necessity under A.R.S. 12-1202.

Easement implied from prior use

Arizona courts also recognize an easement implied when one owner divides a tract that already had a visible use. In Koestel v. Buena Vista Public Service Corp., 138 Ariz. 578 (App. 1984), the Court of Appeals quoted the elements from Porter v. Griffith, 25 Ariz. App. 300 (1975): "(1) The existence of a single tract of land so arranged that one portion of it derives a benefit from the other, the division thereof by a single owner into two or more parcels, and the separation of title; (2) before separation occurs, the use must have been long, continued, obvious or manifest, to a degree which shows permanency; and (3) the use of the claimed easement must be essential to the beneficial enjoyment of the parcel to be benefitted." Such an easement "can only be made in connection with a conveyance," the rule "applies also to a severance by judicial proceedings such as a sale by foreclosure," and the implication "is never made where the evidence shows the absence of such intent."

Express Easements, Recording and Special Easements

For easements created by agreement, two statutes matter. Arizona's statute of frauds covers an agreement "for the sale of real property or an interest therein" (A.R.S. 44-101(6)), and under A.R.S. 33-411(A) no instrument affecting real property "gives notice of its contents to subsequent purchasers or encumbrance holders for valuable consideration without notice, unless recorded as provided by law in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the property is located." Our Arizona property records guide explains how to search county recorder records for easements on a parcel.

Ending an easement. Abandonment is hard to prove. For an easement granted by deed, the Arizona Court of Appeals has held that acts indicating abandonment "must decisively, conclusively and unequivocally establish the holder's clear intent to abandon the easement," and that non-use "is insufficient to prove intent to abandon, regardless of the length of non-use" (Scalia v. Green, 229 Ariz. 100 (App. 2011)); in that case, acquiring or building another access route was not abandonment. The owner of an easement created by express grant "is under no duty to make use of the easement in order to retain his entitlement" (Squaw Peak Community Covenant Church v. Anozira Development, Inc., 149 Ariz. 409 (App. 1986)). The sale of a real property tax lien "does not extinguish any easement on or appurtenant to the property" (A.R.S. 42-18115(A)).

Conservation easements. Under A.R.S. 33-272(A), a conservation easement "may be created, conveyed, recorded, assigned, released, modified, terminated or otherwise altered or affected in the same manner as other easements," and it must be "voluntarily created" and "shall not be required by a political subdivision or governmental entity." Except as A.R.S. 33-273(B) provides, it "is unlimited in duration unless the instrument creating it otherwise provides" (A.R.S. 33-272(C)).

Solar energy. Any covenant, restriction or condition in a deed or other instrument "which effectively prohibits the installation or use of a solar energy device" is "void and unenforceable" (A.R.S. 33-439(A)). Instruments entered into before April 17, 1980 are not covered (A.R.S. 33-439(B)).

Eminent Domain in Arizona

Eminent domain is the power to take private property for public use with compensation. In Arizona it rests on article 2, section 17 of the Arizona Constitution, the Proposition 207 article (A.R.S. 12-1131 to 12-1138), and the condemnation procedure in A.R.S. 12-1111 to 12-1129. For federal law and other states, see our guide to eminent domain laws by state.

The takings clause

Article 2, section 17 provides that "No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation having first been made, paid into court for the owner, secured by bond as may be fixed by the court, or paid into the state treasury for the owner on such terms and conditions as the legislature may provide." Compensation is "ascertained by a jury, unless a jury be waived as in other civil cases in courts of record, in the manner prescribed by law." Because the clause covers property "taken or damaged," it reaches damage to property as well as outright takings.

The same section puts public use in the courts' hands: "Whenever an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial question, and determined as such without regard to any legislative assertion that the use is public."

Limits on taking property for private development (Prop 207)

In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a city's economic-development taking under a comprehensive plan satisfied the Fifth Amendment's public-use requirement, while emphasizing that "nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power."

Arizona's Proposition 207 (2006), a voter initiative, is such a restriction. Because the voters adopted it, Proposition 105 (1998) protects it: the legislature may not repeal it, and may amend it only if the change "furthers the purposes of such measure" and at least three-fourths of the members of each house vote for it (Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 1, s. 1(6)(B)-(C)). A.R.S. 12-1131 provides that "Eminent domain may be exercised only if the use of eminent domain is authorized by this state, whether by statute or otherwise, and for a public use as defined by this article." A.R.S. 12-1136 then defines "public use" to mean:

• "The possession, occupation, and enjoyment of the land by the general public, or by public agencies";
• "The use of land for the creation or functioning of utilities";
• "The acquisition of property to eliminate a direct threat to public health or safety caused by the property in its current condition, including the removal of a structure that is beyond repair or unfit for human habitation or use"; or
• "The acquisition of abandoned property."

The definition "Does not include the public benefits of economic development, including an increase in tax base, tax revenues, employment or general economic health" (A.R.S. 12-1136).

Slum clearance. In an eminent domain action for slum clearance and redevelopment, the government must "establish by clear and convincing evidence that each parcel is necessary to eliminate a direct threat to public health or safety caused by the property in its current condition, including the removal of structures that are beyond repair or unfit for human habitation or use, or to acquire abandoned property and that no reasonable alternative to condemnation exists" (A.R.S. 12-1132(B)).

Who can use eminent domain in Arizona

A.R.S. 12-1111 provides that, "Subject to the provisions of this title, the right of eminent domain may be exercised by the state, a county, city, town, village, or political subdivision, or by a person," for listed uses. They include "Electric light and power transmission lines, pipe lines used for supplying gas, and all transportation, transmission and intercommunication facilities of public service agencies" (12-1111(10)), "Byroads leading from highways to residences and farms" (12-1111(15)) and "Pipe lines to carry petroleum, petroleum products or any other liquid" (12-1111(17)). Any taking must still meet the Prop 207 public-use rule in A.R.S. 12-1131.

Before property may be taken, A.R.S. 12-1112 requires that, except as provided by A.R.S. 28-7102, it appear that:

1. the use is a use authorized by law;
2. the taking is necessary to that use; and
3. if the property is already appropriated to a public use, the new public use is a more necessary public use.

What is taken depends on the use: A.R.S. 12-1113 lists a fee simple for public buildings or grounds, permanent buildings, rights-of-way and certain mining and irrigation uses, and "An easement when taken for any use other than those set forth in paragraph 1."

The condemnation process and deadlines

Condemnation cases are brought "as other civil actions in the superior court in the county in which the property is located" (A.R.S. 12-1116(A)). Key steps:

• Offer and appraisal first. At least 20 days before filing, the condemnor must deliver to the owner of record "A written offer to purchase the property or interest in the property and to pay just compensation for the property or interest in the property and for any compensable damages to any remaining property," plus "One or more appraisals that support the amount of the proposed compensation" (A.R.S. 12-1116(A)). The superior court may waive this requirement "if the court determines that the plaintiff will suffer immediate and irreparable harm that outweighs the property owner's or lessee's interest" (A.R.S. 12-1116(F)).
• Responding. The summons gives "Notice to defendants to appear and show cause why the property described should not be condemned as prayed for in the complaint," and "in all other particulars shall be as provided in civil actions" (A.R.S. 12-1119), so the civil rules set the time to respond. Anyone claiming an interest in the property, "though not named, may appear, plead and defend" (A.R.S. 12-1120).
• Immediate possession. When it files the complaint, or any time after, the condemnor may ask the court for an order letting it take possession (A.R.S. 12-1116(E)). At the hearing, if the use is a necessary use, the court receives evidence of probable damages and may let the condemnor into possession on a deposit of money, on direct payment to each owner, or, for the state or a local government, on posting a court-approved bond (A.R.S. 12-1116(H)).
• Vesting. The final order is recorded with the county recorder, "and thereupon the property described shall vest in plaintiff" (A.R.S. 12-1126(B)). If the award cannot be collected on execution, the court "shall set aside and annul the entire proceedings" and restore possession to the owner (A.R.S. 12-1124).
• State highway projects. After the State Transportation Board adopts a highway corridor and a resolution of necessity, if the Arizona Department of Transportation has not presented a written offer within six months, the owner may file an inverse condemnation action to make the department take the property and pay for it, or to recover damages for interference with possession and use caused by the resolution. That action must be commenced "not later than eighteen months after the date the board adopts the resolution of necessity," and it is not available if the department files a condemnation case or the board rescinds the resolution first (A.R.S. 28-7102(B)-(C)).

Owner deadlines and traps

How just compensation is calculated

Value means "the most probable price estimated in terms of cash in United States dollars or comparable market financial arrangements that the property would bring if exposed for sale in the open market, with reasonable time allowed in which to find a purchaser, buying with knowledge of all of the uses and purposes to which it was adapted and for which it was capable" (A.R.S. 12-1122(C)).

• Valuation date. The right to compensation and damages "shall be deemed to accrue at the date of the summons, and its actual value at that date shall be the measure of compensation and damages" (A.R.S. 12-1123(A)).
• Interest. If the court orders immediate possession before final judgment, the award draws interest from the date that order is entered (A.R.S. 12-1123(B)).
• Partial takings. Damage to the remaining land is offset by any special benefit from the project. "If the benefit is equal to the damages assessed under paragraph 2 of this subsection, the owner of the parcel shall be allowed no compensation except for the value of the portion taken"; if the benefit is smaller, it is deducted from the damages (A.R.S. 12-1122(A)(3)). For a right of way taken for a corporation other than a municipal one, the Constitution requires full compensation "irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by such corporation" (Ariz. Const. art. 2, s. 17).
• State transportation projects. In acquisitions under the state transportation title, a decrease or increase in market value before the valuation date "caused by the public project for which the property is to be acquired or by the likelihood that the property would be acquired for the project shall be disregarded" (A.R.S. 28-7097).
• Homes. Arizona's condemnation article (A.R.S. 12-1111 to 12-1138) contains no percentage increase for a home. In slum-clearance and redevelopment takings of "an individual's principal residence," the occupants must be provided a comparable replacement dwelling that is decent, safe and sanitary, or, at the owner's election, just compensation of not less than the cost of buying one (A.R.S. 12-1133).

Attorney fees and costs

• An owner "is not liable to this state or any political subdivision of this state for attorney fees or costs in any eminent domain action or in any action for diminution in value" (A.R.S. 12-1135(A)). Where a private person condemns, costs are in the court's discretion (A.R.S. 12-1128(A)), and a defendant who obtains a new trial but fails to obtain greater compensation bears the costs of the new trial (A.R.S. 12-1127(D)).
• An owner "shall be awarded reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses in every eminent domain action in which the taking is found to be not for a public use" (A.R.S. 12-1135(B)).
• In slum-clearance and redevelopment actions, the owner is awarded reasonable attorney fees "in every case in which the final amount offered by the municipality was less than the amount ascertained by a jury or the court if a jury is waived by the property owner" (A.R.S. 12-1135(C)).
• The court must reimburse an owner's reasonable costs, disbursements and expenses, "including reasonable attorney, appraisal and engineering fees, actually incurred because of the condemnation proceeding," if the final judgment is that the plaintiff cannot acquire the property by condemnation, or if the plaintiff abandons the proceeding on its own motion (A.R.S. 12-1129(B)). If the case is dismissed because the parties agreed to settle, each side pays its own costs and fees unless the settlement agreement says otherwise (A.R.S. 12-1129(C)). A condemnor that has a case dismissed without prejudice before paying the award may not start another eminent domain proceeding for the same property for the same or a related project for at least two years after the verdict or judgment (A.R.S. 12-1129(A)).
• As the general costs rule, "Costs may be allowed or not, and if allowed may be apportioned between the parties on the same or adverse sides, in the discretion of the court" (A.R.S. 12-1128(A)).

Relocation assistance

Arizona's relocation statutes (A.R.S. 11-961 and following) require the "displacing agency" to make relocation payments. That term means "the state or state agency and any political subdivision or person carrying out a program or project with federal financial assistance, or with the approval of the governing body of the acquiring agency, state or local financial assistance, which causes a person to be a displaced person" (A.R.S. 11-961).

Payments include actual reasonable moving expenses (A.R.S. 11-963(A)(1)), up to $2,500 to search for a replacement business or farm, and up to $25,000 to reestablish a displaced farm, nonprofit organization or small business (A.R.S. 11-963(A)(3)-(4)). An eligible business or farm may instead elect a fixed payment of not less than $1,000 nor more than $40,000 (A.R.S. 11-963(C)). A displaced person who owned and occupied the dwelling for at least 90 days before negotiations began may receive an additional payment of not more than $31,000 (A.R.S. 11-964(A)), but only if the person purchases and occupies a comparable replacement dwelling within one year after receiving final payment for the acquired dwelling or after the agency's housing obligation under A.R.S. 11-971 is met, whichever is later, unless the agency extends the period for good cause (A.R.S. 11-964(B)). A "comparable replacement dwelling" must be decent, safe and sanitary; adequate in size; within the displaced person's financial means; functionally equivalent; in an area not subject to unreasonably adverse environmental conditions; and in a location generally not less desirable than the displaced person's dwelling (A.R.S. 11-961).

Land-use laws that reduce property value (A.R.S. 12-1134)

Prop 207 also created a claim that is not a condemnation at all. Under A.R.S. 12-1134(A), if existing rights to use, divide, sell or possess private real property are reduced by a land use law enacted after the property was transferred to the owner, and that reduces the property's fair market value, the owner is entitled to just compensation from the state or political subdivision that enacted the law. The statute lists exceptions, which include laws that "Limit or prohibit a use or division of real property for the protection of the public's health and safety" and laws that "Establish locations for utility facilities" (A.R.S. 12-1134(B)).

The deadlines matter:

• 90-day demand. The owner first makes "a written demand in a specific amount for just compensation." If the law still applies more than ninety days later, the owner may sue in the county where the property is located, unless the government and the owner agree on compensation or the government amends, repeals or issues a binding waiver of the law for that parcel (A.R.S. 12-1134(E)).
• Three-year bar. The action "must be made or forever barred within three years of the effective date of the land use law, or of the first date the reduction of the existing rights to use, divide, sell or possess property applies to the owner's parcel, whichever is later" (A.R.S. 12-1134(G)).
• Fees. A prevailing plaintiff "may be awarded costs, expenses and reasonable attorney fees" (A.R.S. 12-1135(D)), which is discretionary, unlike the mandatory awards above.

For other limitation periods in Arizona, see our Arizona statute of limitations guide.

Arizona Easement and Eminent Domain Rules at a Glance

Related Arizona guides

• Easement laws by state
• Eminent domain laws by state
• Arizona squatters' rights and adverse possession
• Arizona property records
• Arizona statute of limitations

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about Arizona easement and eminent domain law as of 2026-10-19. It is not legal advice. Easement and condemnation disputes turn on specific facts, deeds and deadlines; for advice about a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in Arizona.

Last updated: 2026-10-19.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long does it take to get a prescriptive easement in Arizona?

Arizona courts require ten years of actual and visible use that began and continued under a claim of right and was hostile to the owner's title (Paxson v. Glovitz, 2002; Spaulding v. Pouliot, 2008). The ten years come from the adverse-possession limitation period in A.R.S. 12-526; no statute sets a separate period for easements.

Can I get an easement if my property is landlocked in Arizona?

Arizona law lets an owner of land that needs a way across another's land for its proper use and enjoyment condemn a private way of necessity (A.R.S. 12-1202; Ariz. Const. art. 2, s. 17). The condemnor must show reasonable necessity and pay just compensation, and an adequate and reasonable alternative legal route defeats the claim (Dabrowski v. Bartlett, 2019). A common-law implied way of necessity can arise when a commonly owned tract was split and left a part with no outlet, and the statutory right to condemn exists only if no such implied way exists (College Book Centers v. Carefree Foothills, 2010).

How do I stop someone from getting a prescriptive easement in Arizona?

Under Arizona case law, permissive use does not ripen into a prescriptive easement, and a use that began with permission cannot ripen by the passage of time alone (Spaulding v. Pouliot, 2008). Once a claimant shows open, visible, continuous and unmolested use for ten years, the owner carries the burden of proving the use was permissive.

Can Arizona use eminent domain for private development?

Under A.R.S. 12-1136, public use does not include 'the public benefits of economic development, including an increase in tax base, tax revenues, employment or general economic health,' and eminent domain may be used only for a public use as that article defines it (A.R.S. 12-1131). The definition does include utilities, public possession and use, removing a direct threat to public health or safety, and acquiring abandoned property.

Can a pipeline company use eminent domain in Arizona?

A.R.S. 12-1111 lists pipelines for gas, petroleum, petroleum products and other liquids among the uses for which the state, local governments 'or a person' may exercise eminent domain, subject to the rest of title 12. Prop 207 counts 'the use of land for the creation or functioning of utilities' as a public use (A.R.S. 12-1136), and courts decide whether a use is really public (Ariz. Const. art. 2, s. 17).

How is just compensation calculated in Arizona eminent domain?

Value is 'the most probable price' the property would bring if exposed for sale in the open market (A.R.S. 12-1122(C)), measured at the date of the summons (A.R.S. 12-1123(A)). In a partial taking, damage to the remaining land is reduced by any special benefit from the project, and if the benefit equals the damage the owner receives only the value of the part taken (A.R.S. 12-1122(A)(3)). For a right of way taken for a corporation other than a municipal one, the Constitution requires full compensation irrespective of any benefit from the corporation's improvement (Ariz. Const. art. 2, s. 17).

Does Arizona pay more for taking a home?

Arizona's condemnation article contains no percentage increase for a home. In eminent domain actions for slum clearance and redevelopment that take an individual's principal residence, the occupants must be provided a comparable replacement dwelling, or at the owner's election compensation of not less than the cost of one (A.R.S. 12-1133).

Who pays attorney fees in an Arizona eminent domain case?

An owner is not liable to the state or any political subdivision for attorney fees or costs (A.R.S. 12-1135(A)). The owner is awarded reasonable fees if the taking is found not to be for a public use (12-1135(B)), if the final judgment is that the condemnor cannot acquire the property or the condemnor abandons the case on its own motion (12-1129(B)), though not when the case is dismissed because the parties settled (12-1129(C)), and in slum-clearance cases where the municipality's final offer was below the award (12-1135(C)). Under A.R.S. 12-1128(A), costs as a general matter may be allowed or not in the court's discretion, which governs where a private person condemns.