Nevada Easements, Landlocked Property and Eminent Domain Laws

In Nevada, a prescriptive easement takes five years of adverse, continuous, open and peaceable use, and the Nevada Supreme Court requires proof by clear and convincing evidence (Jordan v. Bailey, 1997). On eminent domain, a 2008 voter initiative added article 1, section 22 to the Nevada Constitution, which says public use does not include transferring condemned property from one private party to another and puts the burden of proving public use on the government.

This page covers both halves of Nevada 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 October 19, 2026. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: Nevada state law on private easements and on the condemnation of private property: the Nevada Constitution (art. 1, ss. 8 and 22), NRS chapter 37 (eminent domain), NRS chapters 11, 111 and 111A, NRS chapter 342 (relocation) and Nevada Supreme Court decisions. Out of scope: adverse possession of title (see our Nevada squatters rights page), HOA covenants and common-interest community rules, zoning and regulatory takings, federal condemnation (covered in our national eminent domain guide) and city or county ordinances.

What an Easement Is Under Nevada Law

An easement is a right to use part of someone else's land for a limited purpose, such as a driveway, a utility line or a footpath. An easement differs from ownership of the land itself, which is why a claim to an easement and a claim to title (adverse possession) follow different rules in Nevada.

Nevada easements arise in several ways: by a written grant, by long use (prescription), by implication when land is divided, and by necessity when a parcel has no access. The sections below take each in turn.

Express Easements: Writing and Recording

An easement is an interest in land, so Nevada's statute of frauds applies. Under NRS 111.205(1), no estate or interest in land (other than a lease of one year or less) may be created, granted, assigned or surrendered "unless by act or operation of law, or by deed or conveyance, in writing, subscribed by the party creating, granting, assigning, surrendering or declaring the same, or by the party's lawful agent thereunto authorized in writing."

Recording matters for later buyers. Under NRS 111.320, a conveyance recorded as chapter 111 prescribes imparts notice to all persons of its contents from the time it is filed for record, and "subsequent purchasers and mortgagees shall be deemed to purchase and take with notice." Recorded easements show up in a title search; our Nevada property records guide explains how to search county recorder records.

Nevada also has a statute for one specialized express easement. Under NRS 111.370, an easement for the collection of solar energy may be granted by a neighboring owner, is an interest in real property, and must be in a written instrument signed by the grantor; once acknowledged, it must be recorded in the county where the burdened and benefited lands lie.

Recorded documents also matter for Nevada's county road statutes. As used in NRS 405.193 and 405.195, NRS 405.191(3) counts as a "public road" any way shown on a recorded plat, subdivision, parcel map or record of survey that is not specifically designated a private or nonpublic road, and any way a recorded conveyance describes as a public road or reserves for public road purposes. Under NRS 405.193(1), no public agency is required to accept any public road as a county road, or to maintain a road that is public only because it is a way laid out or maintained by a government agency or a federal R.S. 2477 right-of-way accepted by public use (subsections 1 and 2 of NRS 405.191).

Prescriptive Easements: The Five-Year Rule

A prescriptive easement is acquired by using another person's land for long enough, in the right way, without permission. In Jordan v. Bailey (1997), the Nevada Supreme Court stated the rule:

"In Nevada, adverse, continuous, open and peaceable use for a five-year period are the requisite elements for claiming an easement by prescription. ... Exclusivity is not a requisite element. ... Adverse use is established by asserting a right to use the land. ... The standard of proof in establishing an easement by prescription is clear and convincing evidence."

The rule comes from Nevada Supreme Court decisions, which trace it to Stix v. La Rue (1962). In practice, that means:

• Five years of use that is adverse, continuous, open and peaceable, all four together.
• Exclusive use is not required. The owner and others may also use the same path.
• Adverse use is shown by asserting a right to use the land.
• Clear and convincing evidence is the burden, which is higher than the ordinary civil standard.

Permission defeats a prescriptive claim. Long, open use is generally presumed adverse, but in Turrillas v. Quilici (1956) the Nevada Supreme Court held that where a road is "established or maintained by a landowner for his own use," a neighbor's use of it that does not interfere with the owner's own use is presumed to be "permissive and the result of neighborly accommodation." The presumption is rebuttable, and the court applied it again in Wilfon v. Cyril Hampel 1985 Trust (1989). In Jordan v. Bailey, the court added that "a permissive use cannot ripen into an adverse use absent specific notice to the owner of the servient estate that such use is henceforth adverse for purposes of creating a prescriptive easement."

A prescriptive easement is ordinarily a limited right of use. In Jones v. Ghadiri (2024), the Nevada Supreme Court considered "comprehensive" prescriptive easements, which would effectively exclude the owner, and held: "Considering both our caselaw and California caselaw, we are persuaded that exceptional circumstances may warrant comprehensive prescriptive easements. However, we stress that such relief is rare."

Prescriptive easements and adverse possession are different claims. Adverse possession transfers title, and Nevada adds a tax condition for it: under NRS 11.150, adverse possession is not established unless the land "has been occupied and claimed for the period of 5 years, continuously," and the claimant and predecessors "have paid all taxes, state, county and municipal, which may have been levied and assessed against the land for the period mentioned, or have tendered payment thereof." That statute is written for adverse possession; the elements the court lists for a prescriptive easement in Jordan v. Bailey do not include paying taxes. Our Nevada squatters rights page covers adverse possession of title.

Stopping Prescription on Land Open to the Public

Nevada has two statutes that protect an owner who opens land to public walking access. Both are written for land opened to the public for pedestrian access, not for an ordinary shared driveway between neighbors. Between neighbors, the permissive-use presumption described above can apply where the owner built or maintains the road for the owner's own use.

• Posted signs. Under NRS 11.165(1), if an owner "opens his or her land for use by the public for pedestrian access and has improved such land for that specific purpose," no public or private use of the land, however long, will ripen into a prescriptive easement if the owner posts, at each entrance or at intervals of not more than 200 feet along the boundary, a sign reading substantially: "Right to pass by permission, and subject to control, of owner: NRS 11.165."
• Recorded notice. Under NRS 111.3655(2), recording a notice under that section is "conclusive evidence" that later pedestrian use by the public or any person, while the notice is in effect, is permissive and with consent, in any case about public dedication or a prescriptive right. Use under a written or recorded map, agreement, grant of easement, deed or dedication is excepted. While the notice is in effect, the owner "shall not prevent any appropriate pedestrian access by physical obstruction, notice or otherwise," and the notice does not affect rights already vested when it is recorded (NRS 111.3655(2)-(3)).
• Use since October 1, 2017. Under NRS 11.165(2), for land an owner has opened and improved for public pedestrian access, no use on or after October 1, 2017 gives the public or a government a permanent vested right without an express written grant or conveyance, or an irrevocable offer of dedication that the government has accepted, whether or not signs are posted or a notice is recorded.

Landlocked Property and Easements by Necessity

A Nevada owner whose land has no access usually looks to the common-law easement by necessity. In Brooks v. Bonnet (2008), the Nevada Supreme Court restated the test it had set out in Jackson v. Nash (1993): an easement by necessity exists if "(1) there is prior common ownership of the land benefited by the easement and the land burdened by the easement and (2) the easement is reasonably necessary to use the land the easement benefits." Quoting Jackson v. Nash, the court in Brooks repeated that:

• "The burden of proof is upon the one who seeks to impose the way of necessity."
• "[W]hile a showing of reasonable necessity does not require that the passageway be the only one available, something significantly greater than inconvenience to the party claiming the easement must be shown."

The court in Brooks then held that "to demonstrate reasonable necessity the party claiming the easement must show both necessity at the time of severance and present necessity."

An easement can also be implied from a use the common owner made before dividing the land. The Nevada Supreme Court asks whether "the owner of two parcels had so used one to the benefit of his other that, on selling the benefited parcel, a purchaser could reasonably have expected, without further inquiry, that these benefits were included in the sale" (Boyd v. McDonald, 1965). In Jackson v. Nash (1993), the court added that "the prior use must have been visible or reasonably discoverable."

Once an easement is created by implication when land is first divided, it is durable. In Boyd v. McDonald (1965), the court held: "If an easement is created by implication at the time of initial severance, it then vests, and, absent evidence of termination, it cannot be diminished or abridged."

No private condemnation of a road. Some states let a landlocked owner condemn a private way across a neighbor's land. Nevada's eminent domain chapter does not give a private landowner that power. NRS 37.0095 provides that "only a public agency may exercise the power of eminent domain pursuant to the provisions of this chapter," except that a person who is not a public agency may condemn under NRS 37.230 and paragraphs (g), (i), (k) and (n) of NRS 37.010(1) (utilities, hydropower water facilities, oil and gas pipelines and video service providers). Byroads "leading from highways to residences and farms" appear in NRS 37.010(1)(f), which is not on that private list, so only a public agency may condemn for a byroad. Separately, NRS 37.015 lets the State or a political subdivision or district with eminent domain power condemn "for the purpose of providing necessary access for the owners or occupants thereof to ranges and grazing lands."

Relocating an Easement: Nevada's Uniform Act

In 2025 Nevada added NRS chapter 111A, its version of the Uniform Easement Relocation Act. It gives the owner of the burdened land (the servient estate) a limited right to move an easement.

• Which easements. Under NRS 111A.220(1), subject to the exceptions in that section, the chapter applies to an easement "established by express grant or reservation or by prescription, implication, necessity, estoppel or other method."
• Conditions. Under NRS 111A.300, the servient owner may relocate an easement "only if the relocation does not materially" lessen the utility of the easement, increase the burden on the easement holder in its reasonable use and enjoyment after the relocation, or cause the other harms listed in that section.
• Court order required. Under NRS 111A.310 and NRS 111A.320, the servient owner must file a civil action, serve the easement holder and the security-interest holders and lessees of record the statute lists, obtain a court order approving the relocation, and record a certified copy of the order before relocating.
• Who pays. Under NRS 111A.330, the servient owner pays the reasonable expenses of relocation, including construction, permits, recording, title work and any increase in maintenance cost.
• Excluded easements. Under NRS 111A.220(2), the chapter may not be used to relocate a public-utility, public-entity, conservation or negative easement, an easement associated with a public road, or an easement created by a common-interest community declaration under NRS chapter 116. It also does not apply to a relocation by consent (NRS 111A.220(3)).
• No contracting out. Under NRS 111A.370, the relocation right "may not be waived, excluded or restricted by agreement," even if the instrument creating the easement prohibits relocation, requires the holder's consent to amend it, or fixes its location.

How an Easement Ends

Nevada law recognizes several ways an easement ends or is lost, including:

• Release in writing. NRS 111.205(1) requires a signed writing (or act or operation of law) to surrender an interest in land, so an easement holder who gives up an easement does so by a signed deed or similar instrument. A Nevada quitclaim deed is one common form of release.
• Implied easements last unless terminated. Under Boyd v. McDonald, an easement implied at severance "absent evidence of termination ... cannot be diminished or abridged."
• Solar easements. Under NRS 111.380, an easement for the collection of solar energy "may be modified or extinguished by an order of a court based upon principles of equity, changes in conditions or abandonment."

Relocation under chapter 111A moves an easement; it does not end it.

Eminent Domain in Nevada

Eminent domain is the power of the government, and of certain private entities the law authorizes, to take private property for public use with just compensation. For other states and the federal rules, see our guide to eminent domain laws by state.

The Nevada Constitution's takings sentence, in art. 1, s. 8(3), reads: "Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been first made, or secured, except in cases of war, riot, fire, or great public peril, in which case compensation shall be afterward made."

Can Nevada Take Property for Private Development?

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London that a taking for economic development under a comprehensive plan satisfied the federal public-use requirement, while stressing that "nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power." Nevada did so by constitutional amendment. Article 1, section 22 was proposed by initiative petition and approved by the voters at the 2006 and 2008 general elections. Section 22(1) provides:

"Public use shall not include the direct or indirect transfer of any interest in property taken in an eminent domain proceeding from one private party to another private party. In all eminent domain actions, the government shall have the burden to prove public use."

NRS chapter 37 has a parallel rule with listed exceptions. NRS 37.010(2) says the public uses for eminent domain "do not include the direct or indirect transfer of any interest in the property to another private person or entity," but then allows a transfer to a private person or entity in listed circumstances, including where:

• the private person or entity "uses the property primarily to benefit a public service, including, without limitation, a utility, railroad, public transportation project, pipeline, road, bridge, airport or facility that is owned by a governmental entity";
• the property was taken to acquire abandoned property, abate an immediate threat to public safety or remediate hazardous waste, and the former owner receives a right of first refusal on the same terms; or
• the person from whom the property is taken consents.

The constitutional text in section 22(1) does not itself list those exceptions. In Mass Land Acquisition, LLC v. First Judicial District Court (2024), the Nevada Supreme Court held that section 22(1) "excludes from the definition of public use the taking of private property for purposes of transferring that property directly or indirectly to another private party for development," and that this exclusion does not stop an investor-owned public utility from using its delegated eminent domain power to take an easement for an intrastate natural gas distribution pipeline. The court expressly left open whether NRS 37.010(2), which it described as a statute that "purports to authorize certain post-taking transfers to private parties," is valid under section 22(1). Under NRS 37.010(3), the entity taking the property "has the burden of proving that the taking is for a public use." Before any judgment of condemnation, NRS 37.040 requires the court to find that the use is a public use, that the property is necessary to it, and, if the property is already devoted to a public use, that the new use is a more necessary public use.

Redevelopment remains a listed public use: NRS 37.010(1)(o) covers "the acquisition of property pursuant to chapter 279 of NRS." A redevelopment agency may condemn only after adopting a resolution with a written finding that a condition of blight exists for each parcel (or, for a parcel that is not blighted, for at least two-thirds of the property in the redevelopment area when the area was created) and a resolution of necessity (NRS 279.471). Before condemning, it must negotiate in good faith, give the owner a written offer with a copy of the appraisal report, and allow the owner at least 30 days to respond (NRS 279.4712). Those resolutions and findings are not subject to judicial review unless credible evidence suggests they were procured through bribery or fraud (NRS 279.471(4)). A person who wants an agency to condemn property in a redevelopment area must first negotiate in good faith to buy it (NRS 279.4714).

Who Can Use Eminent Domain in Nevada

Under NRS 37.0095, eminent domain under chapter 37 belongs to public agencies (agencies and political subdivisions of Nevada or the United States), plus the private condemnors that section lists: railroads under NRS 37.230 and the uses in NRS 37.010(1)(g), (i), (k) and (n). Paragraph (k) covers "[p]ipelines for the transportation of crude petroleum, petroleum products or natural gas, whether interstate or intrastate." A unit-owners' association may not use chapter 37 at all (NRS 37.0097).

The constitutional protections reach those private condemnors too. Section 22(8) defines government, for every provision of that section, as "the State of Nevada, its political subdivisions, agencies, any public or private agent acting on their behalf, and any public or private entity that has the power of eminent domain." In Mass Land Acquisition (2024), the Nevada Supreme Court read section 22(8) as recognizing that a private entity may exercise delegated eminent domain power for public use and that, when it does, "the private entity acts as the government."

What Happens Before the Government Takes Possession

Nevada builds several protections into the period before a condemnor occupies the property:

• Appraisals. Under NRS 37.100(1), before obtaining possession the plaintiff must give the owner "a copy of all appraisals of the property obtained by the plaintiff." Section 22(2) of the constitution likewise requires copies of all government appraisals before occupancy.
• Large open-space takings. To condemn more than 40 acres for open-space use, an agency must first give the owner a written offer with its appraisal report and then negotiate in good faith for at least 24 months, attempting meaningful negotiations at least once a month, among other conditions (NRS 37.039).
• A separate public-use decision. Section 22(2) entitles the owner, at the owner's election, to "a separate and distinct determination by a district court jury, as to whether the taking is actually for a public use." Under NRS 37.100(3), at the occupancy hearing the court makes a separate public-use determination if the defendant requests one. The jury right covers genuine disputes of fact, such as whether a stated public use is a pretext; questions of law are for the judge (Mass Land Acquisition, 2024).
• Security for early occupancy. If the court grants occupancy, NRS 37.100(5) requires a bond of not less than double the value of the premises and the damages from condemnation and occupation, and NRS 37.100(6) allows a deposit of the value plus damages, as appraised by the plaintiff, instead, with the court's consent.
• The withdrawal trap. Under NRS 37.100(6), "[t]he receipt by the defendant of a part or all of the money deposited must be conditioned upon the waiver of all defenses except those relating to the amount of compensation." An owner who takes any of the deposit gives up objections such as lack of public use. If the final award is less than the amount withdrawn, the court enters judgment against the owner for the excess (NRS 37.100(6)). Money taken from the court after judgment likewise abandons every defense except the claim for greater compensation, and any excess over the final award is repaid with interest (NRS 37.170).

Owner Deadlines and Traps in a Nevada Condemnation

These time limits and traps can cost an owner rights if missed:

How Just Compensation Is Calculated

Nevada defines just compensation in both the constitution and the statutes.

• The constitutional standard. Section 22(4): just compensation is "that sum of money, necessary to place the property owner back in the same position, monetarily, without any governmental offsets, as if the property had never been taken," and it includes "compounded interest and all reasonable costs and expenses actually incurred."
• Value. Under NRS 37.009(6), value is the highest price a willing seller and a ready, willing and able buyer would agree on, on the date of valuation, with full knowledge of the property's uses, and the property "must be valued at its highest and best use without considering any future dedication requirements imposed by the entity that is taking the property." That rule applies "except as otherwise provided in this subsection": if the property is condemned primarily for a profit-making purpose, it must be valued at the use the condemnor intends, if that gives a higher value. Section 22(3) of the constitution states a parallel rule for property taken for a "proprietary governmental purpose," and section 22(5) defines fair market value as "the highest price the property would bring on the open market."
• Date of valuation. Under NRS 37.120(1), it is generally the date the summons is first served. If the case is not tried within 2 years after that and the court finds in writing that the delay was caused primarily by the plaintiff or by court congestion, the date of valuation is the date trial actually starts.
• Severance and damage without a taking. Under NRS 37.110, where only part of a larger parcel is taken, the award includes damages to the remainder from the severance and from construction of the project, reduced by any benefit to the remainder; where no part is taken but construction of the project will damage the property, those damages are assessed too.
• Improvements after the summons. Under NRS 37.120(2), improvements put on the property after service of the summons are not compensated.
• Project influence. Under NRS 37.112, a rise or fall in value before the date of valuation caused by the public project, or by the likelihood that the property would be acquired for it, is disregarded, except a change from physical deterioration within the owner's reasonable control.
• Benefits and offsets. NRS 37.120(3) allows no governmental offsets "except special benefits," and "[s]pecial benefits may only offset severance damages and may not offset the value for the property." It includes interest and "reasonable costs and expenses, except attorney's fees."
• Interest. Under NRS 37.175, interest runs on the difference between any amount deposited and the amount awarded (none is owed on deposited sums), from a date the court sets. The court sets the rate in a post-trial hearing at not less than "the prime rate of interest plus 2 percent" and decides whether it is compounded annually. No interest is owed for the period of a trial delay past 2 years after first service of the summons if the delay was caused primarily by the defendant.
• Business goodwill. Under NRS 37.111, a business owner is also compensated for loss of goodwill if the condemnation causes the business to be dissolved and it cannot be relocated for reasons beyond the owner's control, and the business owner has a property interest in the property acquired. Goodwill does not include "the loss of anticipated profits or loss of business opportunity."
• No home bonus. NRS chapter 37 contains no percentage bonus above fair market value for a home or other owner-occupied property.

Attorney Fees and Costs

Nevada's statutes and constitution are worded differently on fees:

• General statutory rule. NRS 37.185: "Except as otherwise provided in this section, in all actions in eminent domain, neither the entity that is taking property nor the owner of the property is liable for the attorney's fees of the other party." The section "does not apply in an inverse condemnation action if the owner of the property that is the subject of the action makes a request for attorney's fees from the other party to the action."
• Abandonment. Under NRS 37.180(1), when a condemnor abandons the proceeding, a judgment must be entered dismissing it and awarding the defendants "their costs and disbursements, which must include all necessary expenses incurred in preparing for trial and reasonable attorney fees." The condemnor may abandon at any time after filing the complaint and before 30 days after final judgment. After a dismissal on the condemnor's motion, an owner may file a cost bill within 30 days after notice of entry of the judgment, and an owner whose property was occupied under NRS 37.100 or 37.170 recovers all damages arising from that occupancy (NRS 37.180).
• Constitution. Section 22(4) includes in just compensation "all reasonable costs and expenses actually incurred" with no attorney-fee exception, while NRS 37.120(3) excludes attorney's fees from the costs and expenses it awards. Section 22(7) adds: "A property owner shall not be liable to the government for attorney fees or costs in any eminent domain action."

The statutes and the constitution differ on whether attorney fees are part of the costs owed, and neither text says how the difference is resolved.

Getting Condemned Property Back

Nevada has two reversion rules with different clocks:

• Constitution, five years. Section 22(6): property taken in eminent domain "shall automatically revert back to the original property owner upon repayment of the original purchase price, if the property is not used within five years for the original purpose stated by the government," with the five years running from the entry of the final order of condemnation.
• Statute, 15 years. Under NRS 37.270, condemned property must be offered to and reverts to the former owner on repayment of the original purchase price if, within 15 years after obtaining possession, the condemnor fails to use it for the public use (or a reasonably related public use) or seeks to convey it other than under NRS 37.010(2). Under the statute, the condemnor has not failed to use the property if it has begun active planning or design, assembling land for the project, or related construction. Section 22(6) does not contain that planning language, and neither text says which rule controls where they differ.

Relocation Assistance

Under NRS 342.045, each governmental body, and anyone acting on its behalf or under contract with it, must adopt policies to provide relocation assistance and payments to each owner or tenant displaced from a dwelling or business by an acquisition, "in a manner substantially similar to and in amounts equal to or greater than" those under the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. At the federal level, 42 U.S.C. 4655(a) conditions federal financial assistance on assurances that the acquiring agency will be guided, to the greatest extent practicable under state law, by the federal land acquisition policies.

Recent Changes in Nevada Easement and Eminent Domain Law

• 2025: Uniform Easement Relocation Act. Assembly Bill 192 (2025 Statutes of Nevada, chapter 112, approved May 29, 2025) added NRS chapter 111A, which lets the owner of burdened land relocate an easement by court order, at that owner's expense, under the conditions in NRS 111A.300, and makes that right non-waivable (NRS 111A.370). The act applies to easements created before, on or after October 1, 2025. See the relocation section above.
• 2024: Mass Land Acquisition. The Nevada Supreme Court held that article 1, section 22(1) does not stop an investor-owned public utility from taking an easement for an intrastate natural gas distribution pipeline, and expressly left open whether NRS 37.010(2) is valid under that section. See the eminent domain section above.

Nevada Easement and Eminent Domain Rules at a Glance

Related Nevada Pages

• Easement laws by state
• Eminent domain laws by state
• Nevada squatters rights and adverse possession laws
• Nevada property records: how to find out who owns a property
• Nevada quitclaim deed rules

This article provides general legal information about Nevada easement and eminent domain law, not legal advice. Easement and condemnation cases turn on their facts and on deadlines set by statute and court rules. For advice about a specific property, contact a lawyer licensed in Nevada.

Last updated: October 19, 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Five years. The Nevada Supreme Court requires adverse, continuous, open and peaceable use for a five-year period, proved by clear and convincing evidence (Jordan v. Bailey, 1997).

Do you have to pay property taxes to get a prescriptive easement in Nevada?

The tax-payment condition in NRS 11.150 is written for adverse possession of title, and the elements the Nevada Supreme Court lists for a prescriptive easement (Jordan v. Bailey) do not include paying taxes. Adverse possession of title is covered on our Nevada squatters rights page.

What can I do if my land is landlocked in Nevada?

Nevada recognizes a common-law easement by necessity where the two parcels were once under common ownership and the easement is reasonably necessary, both when the land was divided and now (Brooks v. Bonnet, 2008). NRS chapter 37 does not give a private landowner the power to condemn a private road (NRS 37.0095).

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

For land an owner has opened and improved for public pedestrian access, NRS 11.165 lets the owner post signs reading Right to pass by permission, and subject to control, of owner: NRS 11.165, and NRS 111.3655 lets the owner record a notice that makes later pedestrian use permissive. While a recorded notice is in effect, the owner may not block appropriate pedestrian access. Those statutes are written for public pedestrian access, not for an ordinary neighbor's driveway. Between neighbors, the Nevada Supreme Court presumes that a neighbor's use of a road the owner built or maintains for the owner's own use is permissive (a rebuttable presumption, Turrillas v. Quilici, 1956), and a permissive use cannot ripen into a prescriptive easement without specific notice to the owner that the use is now adverse (Jordan v. Bailey, 1997).

Can my neighbor move my easement in Nevada?

Under the Uniform Easement Relocation Act adopted in 2025 (NRS chapter 111A), the owner of the burdened land may relocate an easement only by filing a civil action and obtaining a court order, at that owner's expense, and only if the move does not materially lessen its utility, increase the burden on the easement holder, or cause the other harms listed in NRS 111A.300 (NRS 111A.310, 111A.320, 111A.330). Some easements are excluded, including public-utility, public-entity, conservation, negative and public-road easements and easements created by a common-interest community declaration (NRS 111A.220).

Can Nevada take my property for a private developer?

The Nevada Constitution says public use does not include the direct or indirect transfer of property taken by eminent domain from one private party to another, and the government must prove public use (art. 1, s. 22(1)). NRS 37.010(2) lists some circumstances in which condemned property may be transferred to a private party, such as use primarily to benefit a public service; in Mass Land Acquisition (2024), the Nevada Supreme Court expressly left open whether those transfers are valid under section 22(1). Redevelopment under NRS chapter 279 remains a listed public use, subject to blight findings, a resolution of necessity and good-faith negotiation (NRS 279.471, 279.4712).

Can a pipeline company use eminent domain in Nevada?

Yes. NRS 37.0095 allows a person that is not a public agency to condemn for the uses in NRS 37.010(1)(k), which lists pipelines for crude petroleum, petroleum products or natural gas. Under art. 1, s. 22(8) of the constitution, any private entity with the power of eminent domain counts as government for that section's protections. In Mass Land Acquisition (2024), the Nevada Supreme Court held that section 22(1) does not stop an investor-owned public utility from using its delegated power to take an easement for an intrastate natural gas distribution pipeline.

How is just compensation calculated in Nevada?

Property is valued at its highest and best use at the highest price a willing buyer and seller would agree to on the date of valuation, which is generally the date the summons is first served (NRS 37.009(6), 37.120(1)). If the property is condemned primarily for a profit-making purpose, it is valued at the condemnor's intended use if that is higher. Compensation also includes interest, generally on the part of the award above any amount deposited, at a court-set rate of at least prime plus 2 percent (NRS 37.175), and reasonable costs and expenses other than attorney fees (NRS 37.120(3)). Damages to the remaining property in a partial taking are assessed, offset by any benefit to the remainder (NRS 37.110).

Who pays attorney fees in a Nevada eminent domain case?

Generally neither side pays the other side's attorney fees (NRS 37.185). The owner is awarded reasonable attorney fees if the condemnor abandons the proceeding (NRS 37.180), NRS 37.185 does not apply in an inverse condemnation action where the owner requests fees, and the constitution says an owner is never liable for the government's fees or costs (art. 1, s. 22(7)). Section 22(4) includes 'all reasonable costs and expenses actually incurred' in just compensation without an attorney-fee exception, and neither text says how that difference from the statutes is resolved.

Can I get my property back if the government does not use it in Nevada?

The constitution says condemned property reverts to the original owner on repayment of the original purchase price if it is not used for the stated purpose within five years of the final order of condemnation (art. 1, s. 22(6)). NRS 37.270 sets a separate 15-year rule that counts active planning or design as use, and neither text says which rule controls where they differ.

How long do I have to answer an eminent domain lawsuit in Nevada?

The summons directs the owner to answer within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint (NRS 37.075). If no answer is filed in time, the clerk enters a default on the condemnor's application, and the owner is deemed to have waived all defenses and objections to the complaint and to the right to condemn (NRS 37.083); the court then holds a hearing on value and damages (NRS 37.085). Separately, the Nevada Supreme Court has said a public-use challenge must be raised before occupancy and construction (Mass Land Acquisition, 2024).

What is the deadline for an inverse condemnation claim in Nevada?

In White Pine Lumber Co. v. City of Reno (1990), the Nevada Supreme Court held that the 15-year period in NRS 40.090 applies in takings actions.