Hawaii Easements, Landlocked Property and Eminent Domain (2026)

In Hawaii, a prescriptive easement generally takes 20 years of use that is adverse, open, notorious, continuous and uninterrupted, among other elements. Hawaii courts require the same elements as adverse possession of title and borrow the 20-year limit on actions to recover land in HRS 657-31, but no prescriptive right can arise across Land Court registered land (HRS 501-87). On the eminent domain side, article I, section 20 of the Hawaii Constitution says private property "shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation," and neither that clause nor Hawaii's general condemnation statute, HRS chapter 101, contains an express limit on takings for economic development, a question Kelo v. City of New London (2005) left to each state.

This page covers both halves of Hawaii 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 2026-10-20. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Hawaii state law on private easements (prescriptive easements, implied easements and ways of necessity, the Land Court and recreational-use limits, conservation easements) and on condemnation of private property under the Hawaii Constitution and HRS chapter 101, with the related relocation and federally assisted acquisition chapters (HRS chapters 111 and 113). It does not cover adverse possession of title in depth (see Hawaii squatters' rights and adverse possession), homeowners' association covenants, zoning or regulatory takings beyond a short note on deadlines, federal condemnation (see our eminent domain laws by state guide), or county ordinances.

How Long Does a Prescriptive Easement Take in Hawaii?

Twenty years. A prescriptive easement is a right to keep using a path or strip of someone else's land, earned through long use rather than granted in a deed. Hawaii courts borrow the period that applies to recovering land. HRS 657-31 provides:

"No person shall commence an action to recover possession of any lands, or make any entry thereon, unless within twenty years after the right to bring the action first accrued."

The period has been twenty years since a 1973 amendment (L 1973, c 26). The annotations to HRS 657-31 note a 1982 decision holding that the amendment's saving clause required the prior law's ten-year period in an adverse possession case, so a use governed by the earlier law can fall under the ten-year period.

The elements come from case law. In The Nature Conservancy v. Nakila (1983), Hawaii's Intermediate Court of Appeals stated that "the same elements necessary to prove acquisition of title by adverse possession are required to establish an easement by prescription," and summarized the requirement this way: "the use must be adverse, continuous and uninterrupted, and for the prescriptive period." Applying that rule, the court reasoned that even if a use beginning in 1969 was adverse, continuous and uninterrupted, it "was not for the prescriptive period of twenty years." The same opinion stated that permissive use "could not have created an easement by prescription."

The Hawaii Supreme Court listed the elements in full in Tagami v. Meyer (1956): the use "must be adverse, under a claim of right, continuous and uninterrupted, open, notorious and exclusive, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the owner of the servient tenement and must continue for the full prescriptive period." The court added that "a party asserting a claim to an easement has the burden of proof," that "the casual use by a number of neighbors would not result in an easement," and that "permissive use of the land at the inception of defendant's occupation carries with it the presumption that such use continues permissive."

In Malulani Group, Ltd. v. Kaupo Ranch, Ltd. (2014), the Intermediate Court of Appeals added that "because a prescriptive easement must be proved by elements similar to an adverse possession claim, the same statute of limitations applies to both such claims."

How this differs from adverse possession of title

Claiming ownership of land, rather than a right to use it, is adverse possession, covered on our page on Hawaii squatters' rights and adverse possession. Hawaii adds limits to title claims that go beyond the 20-year period. The five-acre rule starts in the Hawaii Constitution. Article XVI, section 12, adopted in 1978, provides: "No person shall be deprived of title to an estate or interest in real property by another person claiming actual, continuous, hostile, exclusive, open and notorious possession of such lands, except to real property of five acres or less. Such claim may be asserted in good faith by any person not more than once in twenty years." The statutes add:

• Five acres or less, once in twenty years. Under HRS 657-31.5, a person defending a recovery action who claims by adverse possession may make that claim only "(1) If the real property which is the subject of the action is five acres or less; and (2) Where the person claiming by adverse possession has not asserted any similar claim, in good faith, within the past twenty years," subject to the rest of that section.
• Good faith for a quiet title action. HRS 669-1(b) allows an action to establish title to "a parcel of real property of five acres or less" by a person "in adverse possession of the real property for not less than twenty years," and requires the claimant to show good faith, meaning "a reasonable person would believe that the person has an interest in title to the lands in question and such belief is based on inheritance, a written instrument of conveyance, or the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction."

Nakila and Malulani speak of borrowing the adverse possession elements and the 20-year period. Neither decides whether article XVI, section 12 or the five-acre and good-faith limits of HRS 657-31.5 and 669-1 also govern a claim to a prescriptive easement (the constitution speaks of an "interest in real property" but also of "possession"), so that question remains open in Hawaii case law.

Where a Prescriptive Easement Cannot Arise

Land Court registered land

Land registered in the Land Court under HRS chapter 501 is protected from prescription. HRS 501-87 provides that "No title, right, or interest in, to, or across registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession." The words "or across" reach rights of way. Our page on Hawaii property records explains how to look up a parcel's records.

Recreational use

HRS 520-7 provides: "No person shall gain any rights to any land by prescription or otherwise, as a result of any usage thereof for recreational purposes as provided in this chapter." The protection follows the terms of chapter 520, Hawaii's recreational use statute.

Public easements by implied dedication

The public can still gain an easement under the common law of implied dedication. In Gold Coast Neighborhood Ass'n v. State (2017), the Hawaii Supreme Court relied on "the historical significance and deep roots of implied dedication in this jurisdiction as evidenced by nearly 150 years of this court's precedent" and concluded that the lower courts "correctly determined that the State obtained an easement over and across the Seawall by common law implied dedication." The court added that "Under the common law, formal acceptance is not required to effectuate an implied dedication."

How to Prevent a Prescriptive Easement in Hawaii

The statutes that govern prescription in Hawaii (HRS 657-31, 657-31.5, 669-1, 501-87 and chapter 520) contain no posted-sign or recorded-notice procedure for stopping a prescriptive easement from running. What the law does provide:

• Permission. Because the use must be adverse, permissive use "could not have created an easement by prescription" (Nakila, 1983). Use that was permissive at the start is presumed to stay permissive (Tagami, 1956). In Tagami, a neighbor who had paid the owners for use of a roadway for nine years gained no prescriptive easement.
• Recreational use. Recreational use as provided in chapter 520 creates no rights by prescription (HRS 520-7).
• Land Court registration. Registered land cannot be burdened by prescription (HRS 501-87).

Landlocked Property: Easements by Necessity and Implied Easements

Hawaii's general condemnation chapter, HRS chapter 101, contains no procedure for a landlocked owner to condemn a private road across a neighbor's land. A landlocked owner's access instead rests on common-law implied easements.

Way of necessity

In Palama v. Sheehan (1968), the Hawaii Supreme Court, quoting its earlier decision in Kalaukoa v. Keawe (1893), described the rule this way:

"A way of necessity is merely a way created by an implied grant or reservation, the necessity being only evidence of the intention of the parties to make the grant or reservation * * *. And even where there is not a strict, but only a reasonable necessity, as where some other way is possible though very difficult or expensive, this, if coupled with additional evidence of a way actually used and which is apparent and of a continuous nature, has been held to be sufficient evidence of an intention to grant or reserve a way."

The court concluded that "By reason of necessity, the defendants are entitled to a right of way through plaintiffs' land as a means of ingress and egress."

Implied easements from a prior common owner

In Malulani Group v. Kaupo Ranch (2014), the Intermediate Court of Appeals quoted the Hawaii Supreme Court's statement in Association of Apartment Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co. (2002) that "[i]t is often said" that, for a previously existing quasi-easement to ripen into an implied easement, it "must have been: (1) apparent; (2) permanent; and (3) either (a) 'important for the enjoyment of the conveyed quasi-dominant parcel,' or (b) 'strictly necessary' for the enjoyment of the dominant parcel." The Supreme Court added that these factors "are but one method of ascertaining 'the presumption of grant arising from the circumstances of the case.'"

Two parts of Malulani matter for Hawaii land in particular:

• The Kingdom counts as a common owner. The court held that, "under the circumstances of this case, the Kingdom of Hawaii's prior ownership of both the Malulani Parcel and the Kaupo Parcel satisfies the unity of ownership requirement for an implied easement claim."
• The 20-year statute does not cut off an implied easement claim. The court concluded that HRS 657-31 "addresses recovery of possession of land and does not apply to claims seeking to imply an easement on another's land."

Statutory and customary rights of way

HRS 7-1 provides: "The people shall also have a right to drinking water, and running water, and the right of way. The springs of water, running water, and roads shall be free to all, on all lands granted in fee simple; provided that this shall not be applicable to wells and watercourses, which individuals have made for their own use." It sets up no court or county petition procedure for a landlocked parcel.

In Palama v. Sheehan (1968), the Hawaii Supreme Court applied the 1859 Civil Code section that HRS 7-1 now carries. The owners claiming access there held kuleana parcels, and the court held that testimony about their families' use of a mauka trail "was sufficient evidence on which the trial court could find that an ancient Hawaiian right of way through plaintiffs' land existed and was used as such by defendants' predecessors in title." The right was raised in a quiet title suit. The court also declined to limit the right of way to the trail use of earlier times where a road already existed: "We do not find sufficient grounds to diminish the burden on the plaintiffs' land by restricting the right of way from the presently existing road adapted to vehicular traffic to a trail for equestrian and pedestrian uses only."

Article XII, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution separately protects "all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua'a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the State to regulate such rights." Those are native Hawaiian customary rights, not a general remedy for any landlocked lot.

Conservation Easements

Hawaii's conservation easement statute, HRS chapter 198, makes these easements permanent property interests. HRS 198-2 provides that "(b) A conservation easement shall be perpetual in duration," and that it "shall not be deemed personal in nature and shall constitute an interest in real property notwithstanding the fact that it may be negative in character."

Express Easements

No action may be brought on a contract for the sale of lands "or of any interest in or concerning them" unless the contract or a memorandum of it is in writing and signed by the party to be charged (HRS 656-1(4)). Conveyances of real estate "shall be recorded in the bureau of conveyances," and an unrecorded conveyance "is void as against any subsequent purchaser, lessee, or mortgagee, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, not having actual notice" whose conveyance is recorded first (HRS 502-83). Land Court registered land follows the registration rules of HRS chapter 501. See Hawaii property records for where recorded documents are kept.

How an Easement Ends in Hawaii

Two statutes set termination rules. A conservation easement under chapter 198 is perpetual (HRS 198-2(b)). A right-of-way an irrigation corporation obtains by condemnation under HRS 101-41 and 101-42 "shall lapse and immediately revert to the previous owner" on the events listed in HRS 101-44, including the corporation's failure during a period of one year to use the right-of-way for the purposes the statute sets.

An easement created by deed is not lost by nonuse alone. Quoting the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in Fleming v. Napili Kai (1967), the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Childs v. Harada (2013) stated that "mere nonuser, even for the prescriptive period, will not extinguish an easement created by grant, deed, or reservation," that "[t]he intention to abandon is the material question," and that "[t]he burden of proving abandonment is upon the party alleging it and must be established by clear and unequivocal evidence of decisive and conclusive acts."

Childs also noted that "there is no case law in Hawai'i addressing termination by prescription of an existing easement" and considered other jurisdictions, quoting the Colorado Supreme Court's rule that the servient owner's use of the easement area must be adverse to the holder's use, open or notorious, and continuous for the adverse possession period, and that "[t]o be adverse, use of the easement area must be incompatible or irreconcilable with the easement holder's right to use the easement."

Eminent Domain in Hawaii

Eminent domain is the government's power to take private property for public use on payment of just compensation. For how Hawaii compares with other states and with federal condemnation, see our guide to eminent domain laws by state.

Article I, section 20 of the Hawaii Constitution provides: "Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation."

The general statute is HRS chapter 101. HRS 101-2 provides that "Private property may be taken for public use," and allows the State or a county to take more than the project needs "in cases where small remnants would otherwise be left or where other justifiable cause necessitates such taking to protect and preserve the contemplated improvement, or public policy demands such taking in connection with the improvement." Under HRS 101-5, "a fee simple estate or any lesser estate may be acquired," so a condemnor may acquire an interest less than full ownership.

In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the takings challenged there satisfied the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement because the city's plan "unquestionably serves a public purpose," while stating that "nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power." In Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984), the Court said that "where the exercise of the eminent domain power is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose, the Court has never held a compensated taking to be proscribed by the Public Use Clause."

Can Hawaii Take Property for Private Development?

Hawaii law has no express post-Kelo limit. Chapter 101 does not define "public use" and contains no ban on takings for economic development or private transfer, and article I, section 20 has no such clause. In 2006 the House passed HB2233 HD1, which "Prohibits the exercise of the powers of eminent domain by the State and counties for economic development resulting in the development of nongovernmental improvements"; it was referred to Senate committees on March 9, 2006 and did not advance further that session.

The main check is judicial. In County of Hawai'i v. C & J Coupe Family Ltd. Partnership (2008), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that "although our courts afford substantial deference to the government's asserted public purpose for a taking in condemnation proceeding, where there is evidence that the asserted purpose is pretextual, courts should consider a landowner's defense of pretext." On remand the trial court rejected the pretext claim, and in 2010 the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed, holding that "the County's asserted public purpose for Condemnation 2 was not a pretext for a primarily private benefit."

Hawaii also authorizes condemnation to convert residential leaseholds to fee simple. Under HRS chapter 516, the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation may, after a public hearing, designate a development tract and acquire the leased fee interest in residential house lots by eminent domain once "twenty-five or more lessees or the lessees of more than fifty per cent of the residential lease lots within the development tract, whichever number is the lesser," have applied (HRS 516-22). If it does not acquire the property or file suit within twelve months of the designation, the fee owner is reimbursed for "actual out-of-pocket expenses of appraisal, survey, and attorney fees," and that cost shifts to a lessee whose withdrawal or failure to buy caused the lapse (HRS 516-23). The chapter rests on legislative findings in HRS 516-83 that "There is a concentration of land ownership in the State in the hands of a few landowners who have refused to sell the fee simple titles to their lands and who have instead engaged in the practice of leasing their lands under long-term leases."

Who Can Use Eminent Domain in Hawaii?

• The State and the counties, under HRS chapter 101 (HRS 101-2). A county must first authorize the suit by a resolution of its council or governing board, published with the ayes and noes before final action (HRS 101-13).
• Public utilities and carriers. HRS 101-4 grants the power to "every person, operating a public utility, and engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight or any commodity by rail or bus, or by any other means, or the conveyance or transmission of telephone messages, or the production, conveyance, transmission, delivery, or furnishing of electricity, power, water, gas, or oil, within the State," and requires that it "be exercised only in compliance with, and under, the conditions and procedures set forth in this part."
• Irrigation corporations with at least $50,000 in paid-in capital may condemn rights-of-way for ditches, tunnels, flumes and pipelines in one county (HRS 101-41, 101-42), but only after the Public Utilities Commission finds "that the proposed condemnation is in the public interest, that the proposed condemnation is necessary, and that the corporation will use the property for its operations as a public utility" (HRS 101-43). Those rights-of-way lapse and revert to the previous owner on the events in HRS 101-44.
• The Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, for leased fee interests in residential house lots under HRS chapter 516 (HRS 516-22).
• The Agribusiness Development Corporation, since July 1, 2026, under Act 168 (see Recent Changes below).

The Condemnation Process and Its Deadlines

A condemnation case is a lawsuit. Under HRS 101-15, it is "commenced by filing a complaint and issuing a summons thereon," and "All persons who are owners or claimants of the property sought to be condemned shall be joined as defendants." HRS 101-11 provides that "Except as otherwise expressly provided in this part, the procedure shall be the same as in other civil actions." Chapter 101 contains no requirement that the condemnor make a written offer or deliver an appraisal before filing suit.

When the State acquires property for a project that uses federal or federal-aid funds, HRS 113-5 adds duties: the property must be "appraised before the initiation of negotiations" (except for donations, conveyances for nominal value and property worth $2,500 or less), the owner may accompany the appraiser, the State must offer an amount not "less than the approved appraisal of the fair market value," and, "to the greatest extent practicable," no lawful occupant is required to move from a dwelling, business or farm "without at least ninety days' written notice from the date by which such move is required." HRS 113-2 also directs reimbursement, to the extent the State deems fair and reasonable, of recording fees, transfer taxes, mortgage prepayment penalties and prorated property taxes on those acquisitions.

Possession before judgment. When the condemnor asks for possession early, HRS 101-28 requires the court to issue an order "returnable not more than twenty days from the date of the filing of the motion, requiring the defendants to appear and show cause why the motion should not be granted." Where the condemnor is not the State or a county, the court may, on a defendant's motion and good cause, require an additional deposit or a surety bond. For the State or a county, HRS 101-29 provides that the possession order "shall become effective upon the expiration of ten days after service thereof," although for good cause shown within those ten days the court may vacate or modify the order or postpone its effective date. Under HRS 101-30, "No order of possession shall issue unless the plaintiff has paid to the clerk of the court" the estimated compensation stated in the motion.

Ten days to contest public use. HRS 101-34 is the deadline owners most often need to know. A public use challenge may be set "for immediate trial, without a jury," and:

"Failure of the defendant to raise the issue within ten days after service of an order granting immediate possession shall be deemed an admission that the use is a public use or a superior public use, as the case may be."

The ten days run from service of the possession order, not from service of the complaint. An interlocutory appeal from the decision on the public use issue lies as of right (HRS 101-34).

Withdrawing the deposit waives defenses. Under HRS 101-31, taking money out of the deposit "shall be held to constitute an abandonment by the party of all defenses interposed by the party, excepting the party's claim for greater compensation or damages." If the final award is higher, the court enters judgment for the deficiency. HRS 101-32 applies the same rule after judgment: a defendant who has appealed may take the amount paid into court only "upon filing a receipt therefor and an abandonment of all defenses to the action or proceeding, except as to the amount of compensation or damages that the defendant may be entitled to if a new trial shall be granted."

How Just Compensation Is Calculated in Hawaii

• Valuation date. Under HRS 101-24, the right to compensation is "deemed to have accrued at the date of summons," and the property's "actual value at that date shall be the measure of valuation." "No improvement put on the property subsequent to the date of the service of summons shall be included in the assessment of compensation or damages."
• Partial takings and severance damages. HRS 101-23 provides for damages when the part taken is severed from the rest of a tract, offset by benefits to the remainder: if the benefit "shall be equal to the amount of compensation assessed for the property taken, and for damages by reason of its severance," the owner gets no compensation, and if the benefits are less, they are deducted.
• Payment and interest. Under HRS 101-25, the condemnor must pay "within two years after final judgment" or lose all rights obtained by the judgment, and "if such payment is delayed more than thirty days after final judgment, then interest shall be added at the rate of five per cent a year."
• Interest after early possession. When the condemnor is let into possession before judgment, the final judgment includes interest at the HRS 101-25 rate from the date of the possession order, but generally not on money deposited with the court from the date of deposit (HRS 101-33).
• Tax-appeal valuations count against the owner. Under HRS 101-12, "the valuation claimed by the taxpayer in any appeal regarding the assessment of real property tax shall be admissible in evidence as an admission of the fair market value of the real property as of the date of assessment," with exceptions in that section, including where the appeal was brought by a person contractually obligated to pay the tax assessed against the fee owner.
• No home bonus. Chapter 101 contains no percentage add-on for a home or principal residence.

Attorney Fees, Relocation and Leftover Land

When fees are recoverable. HRS 101-27 applies when proceedings "are abandoned or discontinued before reaching a final judgment, or if, for any cause, the property concerned is not finally taken for public use." A defendant who would have been entitled to compensation may then recover "all such damage as may have been sustained by the defendant by reason of the bringing of the proceedings and the possession by the plaintiff," including "the defendant's costs of court, a reasonable amount to cover attorney's fees paid by the defendant in connection therewith, and other reasonable expenses," and possession is restored. A jury trial on those damages must be demanded within ten days from the order or judgment allowing discontinuance, dismissing the proceedings or denying the right to take. In Coupe (2008), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that a landowner "is entitled to damages under HRS § 101-27 where the property at issue is not finally taken in the context of a particular condemnation proceeding, irrespective of whether the government attempts to take the land through subsequent condemnation proceedings."

For acquisitions with federal financial assistance, HRS 113-3 directs the State, in the circumstances that section describes, to pay the owner "such sums as will, in the opinion of the State, reimburse such owner for the owner's reasonable attorney, appraisal and engineering fees actually incurred because of the condemnation proceedings."

No fees in inverse condemnation suits against the State. In Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State (2025), an inverse condemnation case in which landowners sought attorneys' fees from the State under the private attorney general doctrine, the Hawaii Supreme Court held: "Because our just compensation clause does not contemplate attorneys' fees, we hold that an award of attorneys' fees against the State is barred by sovereign immunity." The court said the State is immune from fee awards absent a "clear relinquishment" of immunity. The decision did not address HRS 101-27, which directs the State or county to pay a judgment under that section when a condemnation case is abandoned or the property is not finally taken.

Possession on federally assisted projects. HRS 113-5(4) provides that "No owner shall be required to surrender possession of real property before the agreed purchase price is paid or before there is deposited with the state court" an amount not less than the approved appraisal of fair market value or the amount of the judgment.

State relocation payments. HRS chapter 111 sets relocation payments for persons a state agency displaces:

• Actual and reasonable moving expenses, or instead, for a household moving from a dwelling, a moving allowance of up to $300 plus a $200 dislocation allowance (HRS 111-3(b), (c)).
• For an owner who occupied a one- to three-family home for at least one year before the agency's first written offer, a replacement housing payment that, added to the acquisition payment, equals the average price required for a comparable dwelling, "not to exceed $15,000," paid only if the owner buys and occupies a replacement dwelling within one year after the required move date (HRS 111-4(a)).
• For other occupants who lawfully lived in the dwelling at least ninety days before the first written offer, up to $4,000 toward rent for up to two years or a down payment (HRS 111-4(b)).
• In place of moving expenses, a business or farm fixed payment "equal to the average annual net earnings of the business or farm operation, or $5,000, whichever is the lesser"; a business qualifies only if it cannot be relocated without a substantial loss of its existing patronage and is not part of a commercial enterprise having at least one other establishment, not being acquired by the state agency, that is engaged in the same or similar business (HRS 111-3(d)).

For federal relocation rules, see the national eminent domain guide.

Displaced commercial tenants. Under HRS 101-3.5, a lessee "engaged in commercial or industrial uses" displaced by a State or county taking "shall have the right of first refusal to enter into a lease in an industrial park created under chapter 171, or on other state land, which has been designated as an appropriate relocation site."

Leftover land and repurchase. HRS 101-2 provides that where excess property taken by the State or a county "is less than the minimum lot size requirements of the applicable zoning regulations," is of a configuration or topography that in the judgment of the county zoning authority cannot be put to a reasonable use, "or lacks proper access to a street, it shall be offered to the owner or owners of the abutting land for a reasonable price based on an appraisal." Chapter 101 gives the former owner no general right to buy back condemned land the government later does not use.

Inverse Condemnation Deadlines

When the government takes or damages property without filing a condemnation case, the owner's claim is often called inverse condemnation. For claims against the State, the deadline is two years. In 2021 the legislature amended HRS 661-1 to cover "All claims against the State founded upon ... article I, section 20, of the Hawaii State Constitution" (Act 16, 2021), so HRS 661-5 applies: "Every claim against the State, cognizable under this part, shall be forever barred unless the action is commenced within two years after the claim first accrues," except that a person under a legal disability may sue within one year after the disability ends. Act 16 states its purpose as "to establish a two-year statute of limitations for an inverse condemnation claim brought against the State."

Act 16 took effect on its approval, May 20, 2021, and "does not affect rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun before its effective date." The legislature acted in response to DW Aina Le'a Development, LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Commission (2020), in which the Hawaii Supreme Court had held that "the statute of limitations for a regulatory taking is six years, pursuant to the catch-all" statute, HRS 657-1. Act 16 amended only the statute on claims against the State; it does not address claims against a county. Our page on the Hawaii statute of limitations covers Hawaii's filing deadlines more generally.

Recent Changes

• Act 16 (2021), effective May 20, 2021. Act 16 (HB357) amended HRS 661-1 so that claims against the State founded upon article I, section 20 of the Hawaii Constitution fall under the two-year limit in HRS 661-5. It does not affect rights that matured or proceedings begun before its effective date.
• Act 168 (2026), effective July 1, 2026. Act 168 (SB2169 CD2) adds HRS 163D-4(a)(7), authorizing the Agribusiness Development Corporation to "Acquire by condemnation pursuant to chapter 101 any real property, including fixtures and improvements, or any interest in real property, except real property owned in a county with a population of more than 125,000 but less than 195,000 and public lands as defined in section 171-2." The corporation must determine "that the property is necessary for the corporation's immediate or future use for agricultural irrigation systems or agricultural purposes," and "Private property sought to be acquired under threat of the exercise of the power of eminent domain shall only be acquired through negotiated purchase," among the conditions the act sets.

Hawaii Easement and Eminent Domain Rules at a Glance

Related

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

This article provides general legal information about Hawaii easement and eminent domain law as of 2026-10-20. It is not legal advice. For advice about a specific property or condemnation, contact a lawyer licensed in Hawaii.

Last updated: 2026-10-20.

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Generally twenty years. Hawaii courts require the same elements as adverse possession, including use that is adverse, under a claim of right, open, notorious, exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted (Tagami v. Meyer, 1956), and borrow the 20-year period in HRS 657-31 (Nature Conservancy v. Nakila, 1983; Malulani Group v. Kaupo Ranch, 2014). The period became twenty years in 1973, and the earlier ten-year period can apply to use governed by the prior law. No prescriptive right can be acquired across Land Court registered land (HRS 501-87).

Can you get a prescriptive easement over Land Court property in Hawaii?

No. HRS 501-87 provides that no title, right or interest in, to or across registered land in derogation of the registered owner's title shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.

Does permission stop a prescriptive easement in Hawaii?

The use must be adverse, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals held in Nature Conservancy v. Nakila (1983) that permissive use could not have created an easement by prescription, and the Hawaii Supreme Court held in Tagami v. Meyer (1956) that use permissive at the start is presumed to stay permissive. Hawaii's prescription statutes contain no posted-sign or recorded-notice procedure; recreational use as provided in chapter 520 creates no rights (HRS 520-7).

What can a landlocked property owner do in Hawaii?

HRS chapter 101 has no procedure for condemning a private way across a neighbor's land. A landlocked owner relies on common-law implied easements and ways of necessity; in Palama v. Sheehan (1968) the Hawaii Supreme Court upheld an ancient Hawaiian right of way for kuleana owners and held that they were entitled by reason of necessity to a right of way through the plaintiffs' land.

Is there a time limit to claim an easement by necessity in Hawaii?

The 20-year limit in HRS 657-31 does not apply. In Malulani Group v. Kaupo Ranch (2014), the Intermediate Court of Appeals held that HRS 657-31 addresses recovery of possession of land and does not apply to claims seeking to imply an easement on another's land.

Can Hawaii take private property for economic development?

Neither article I, section 20 of the Hawaii Constitution nor HRS chapter 101 bars takings for economic development, and chapter 101 does not define public use. The Hawaii Supreme Court defers substantially to the government's asserted purpose but held in County of Hawai'i v. C & J Coupe (2008) that courts should consider a landowner's pretext defense where there is evidence of pretext.

What is the deadline to challenge public use in a Hawaii condemnation?

Under HRS 101-34, failure to raise the issue within ten days after service of an order granting immediate possession is deemed an admission that the use is a public use or a superior public use.

What happens if an owner withdraws the condemnation deposit in Hawaii?

Under HRS 101-31, a payment out of the deposit is an abandonment of all defenses the owner raised, except the claim for greater compensation or damages. If the final award is higher, the court enters judgment for the difference.

Does Hawaii pay attorney fees in eminent domain cases?

HRS 101-27 lets the owner recover damages, court costs, a reasonable amount for attorney fees and other reasonable expenses when the proceeding is abandoned or discontinued before final judgment or the property is not finally taken. HRS 113-3 provides for fee reimbursement on federally assisted acquisitions in the circumstances it describes. In an inverse condemnation suit, the Hawaii Supreme Court held in 2025 that attorneys' fees cannot be awarded against the State because of sovereign immunity (Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State); that decision did not address HRS 101-27.

What is the deadline for an inverse condemnation claim against the State of Hawaii?

Two years after the claim first accrues, with one year after a legal disability ends. Act 16 of 2021 amended HRS 661-1 to cover claims against the State founded upon article I, section 20 of the Hawaii Constitution, which brings them under HRS 661-5. The act took effect May 20, 2021, does not affect rights that matured or proceedings begun before that date, and does not address claims against a county.

How is just compensation valued in a Hawaii eminent domain case?

Under HRS 101-24, the property's actual value at the date of summons is the measure, and improvements made after service of summons are not included. HRS 101-23 allows severance damages for the remaining land, reduced by benefits to it, and chapter 101 contains no percentage add-on for a home.