UBE Easements and Profits
Last updated: May 2, 2026
Easements and Profits questions are one of the highest-leverage areas to study for the UBE. This guide breaks down the rule, the elements you need to recognize, the named traps that catch most students, and a memory aid that scales to test day. Read it once, then practice the same sub-topic adaptively in the app.
The rule
An easement is a non-possessory right to use the land of another for a specific purpose; a profit à prendre is a non-possessory right to enter another's land and remove a natural resource (timber, minerals, game, crops). Easements are classified as appurtenant (benefits a dominant tenement and runs with the land automatically) or in gross (benefits a person or entity, not land — commercial easements in gross are assignable; non-commercial are generally not). Easements may be created by express grant or reservation (writing satisfying the Statute of Frauds), implication from prior use (quasi-easement), necessity (strict necessity at severance from common ownership), prescription (open, notorious, continuous, hostile use for the statutory period), or estoppel. Termination occurs by release, merger, abandonment (intent plus affirmative act), prescription, end of necessity, condemnation, destruction of the servient estate, or expiration by terms. Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes consolidates the doctrine and recognizes any servitude that satisfies its formal requirements, but the MBE/MEE still tests the traditional categories.
Elements breakdown
Easement Appurtenant
An easement that benefits the holder in her use of a specific parcel of land (the dominant tenement).
- Two parcels: dominant and servient
- Benefit attaches to the dominant land
- Burden attaches to the servient land
- Runs automatically with both parcels
- Passes on conveyance without express mention
Common examples:
- Right-of-way across neighbor's driveway
- Easement to draw water from adjoining well
- Utility easement benefiting a specific lot
Easement in Gross
An easement that benefits a person or entity personally rather than benefiting any parcel of land.
- No dominant tenement exists
- Benefit is personal to the holder
- Burden runs with the servient estate
- Commercial in gross: freely transferable
- Non-commercial in gross: generally non-transferable
Common examples:
- Utility company power line easement (commercial)
- Billboard advertising easement (commercial)
- Personal right to swim in landowner's pond (non-commercial)
Express Easement (Grant or Reservation)
An easement created by a writing in which the servient owner grants the right, or the grantor reserves a right when conveying the servient parcel.
- Writing satisfying Statute of Frauds
- Identifies servient and dominant estates
- Signed by grantor of servient estate
- Describes the easement's scope
- Recording protects against subsequent BFPs
Easement by Implication (Prior Use / Quasi-Easement)
An easement implied at severance based on a pre-existing apparent and continuous use of one part of a single parcel for the benefit of another.
- Single parcel under common ownership
- Severance into two parcels
- Prior use existed before severance
- Use was apparent and continuous
- Use is reasonably necessary to enjoyment
Easement by Necessity
An easement implied solely from the fact that severance of a commonly owned parcel leaves one portion without legal access.
- Common ownership of single parcel
- Severance into two parcels
- Strict necessity at moment of severance
- Typically arises as right-of-way for landlocked parcel
- Terminates when necessity ends
Easement by Prescription
An easement acquired through long-continued unauthorized use, analogous to adverse possession but yielding a use right rather than title.
- Open and notorious use
- Continuous and uninterrupted use
- Hostile (without permission)
- For the statutory period (often 10-20 years)
- Actual use (need not be exclusive)
Easement by Estoppel
A license that becomes irrevocable when the licensee reasonably and foreseeably invests in reliance on the licensor's permission.
- License granted by servient owner
- Licensee's substantial investment in reliance
- Reliance reasonably foreseeable to licensor
- Inequitable to permit revocation
- Treated as easement for duration of reliance interest
Profit à Prendre
A non-possessory right to enter another's land and sever and remove a natural resource or product of the soil.
- Right to enter servient land
- Right to take and remove resource
- Resource is part of land or its produce
- Created and terminated like an easement
- May be exclusive or non-exclusive
Common examples:
- Right to mine coal
- Right to cut and remove timber
- Right to hunt or fish on the land
- Right to harvest wild crops
License
A revocable personal privilege to use another's land that does not create an interest in land.
- Permission from possessor
- Personal to licensee
- Generally revocable at will
- No writing required
- Non-transferable absent contrary intent
Termination of Easements
The recognized doctrines by which an existing easement is extinguished.
- Release in writing by holder
- Merger of dominant and servient titles
- Abandonment: intent plus affirmative act
- Prescription by servient owner's interference
- End of necessity (necessity easements only)
- Condemnation, destruction, or expiration
Common patterns and traps
The Appurtenant-vs-In-Gross Transfer Trap
The fact pattern conveys the dominant or servient estate and asks whether the easement passes to the new owner. Easements appurtenant transfer automatically with the dominant estate even without express mention in the deed; easements in gross stay with the original holder unless commercial. Candidates miss this by either requiring express mention for appurtenant easements or by allowing personal in-gross easements to be freely assigned.
An answer choice saying 'No, because the deed did not specifically mention the easement' when the easement is appurtenant, or 'Yes, because all easements are freely transferable.'
The Implication-vs-Necessity Cut
Both doctrines arise from severance of commonly owned land, but implication needs prior apparent and continuous use plus reasonable necessity, while necessity needs strict necessity (landlocking) and no prior use. The doctrines also terminate differently: necessity easements end when a public road is built; implication easements do not. Bar questions love to give you facts that satisfy one but not the other.
An answer choice that grants an easement by necessity even though a public road existed at severance, or denies implication because the use was not 'strictly' necessary.
The License-Dressed-as-Easement
The grantor gives oral permission to use the land, the grantee invests heavily, and the grantor later tries to revoke. A license is normally revocable at will and need not be in writing, but reasonable foreseeable reliance converts it to an irrevocable easement by estoppel. The trap is treating the original oral arrangement as an enforceable easement (Statute of Frauds bars it) rather than recognizing the estoppel doctrine.
An answer choice saying 'Enforceable as an easement because both parties intended a permanent right' (ignores SOF), or 'Revocable because oral easements are void' (ignores estoppel).
The Scope-Expansion Problem
An express easement is created for one purpose (residential access, agricultural use) and the dominant owner later expands the use (commercial development, increased traffic, additional parcels). Courts limit easement use to its reasonable scope at creation, considering the parties' intent and whether the change unreasonably burdens the servient estate. Use that benefits land outside the original dominant tenement is generally a misuse, not a permitted expansion.
An answer choice saying any increase in use is a misuse, or that the holder may use the easement for any purpose she wishes as 'owner' of the easement.
The Prescription-vs-Permission Flip
Prescription requires hostile use without permission. The trap is a fact pattern showing long, open, continuous use that was actually permitted (express or implied license), which defeats prescription entirely. Conversely, permission given after years of hostile use does not retroactively cure earlier prescription if the statutory period already ran.
An answer choice granting prescription based on 25 years of use when the servient owner had granted oral permission, or denying prescription because the servient owner never objected (silence isn't permission).
How it works
Start every easement question by classifying the interest: appurtenant or in gross, express or implied, easement or profit or license. The classification dictates everything that follows — whether it transfers automatically, whether the Statute of Frauds applies, whether the holder can assign it, and whether a successor takes subject to it. Suppose Patel sells the back half of her 40-acre parcel to Reyes, and the only road to Reyes's new lot crosses Patel's retained land along a gravel drive Patel had used for years to reach a barn on what is now Reyes's parcel. Reyes has two arguments: easement by implication (prior apparent and continuous use, reasonably necessary) and easement by necessity (Reyes is landlocked at severance). The implication argument needs the prior use; necessity needs only landlocking, but it terminates if a public road is later built to Reyes's lot. If instead the deed expressly reserved the right-of-way, the express easement controls and survives even if necessity later ends. Always ask: how was it created, what is its scope, did it transfer to this party, and has any termination doctrine extinguished it.
Worked examples
What is Reyes's strongest theory for an easement across Patel's land?
- A Easement by express grant, because Liu's warranty deed conveyed all rights necessary to use the property.
- B Easement by implication from prior use, because Liu's pre-severance use of the driveway was apparent, continuous, and reasonably necessary to enjoyment of the eastern parcel. ✓ Correct
- C Easement by prescription, because Reyes used the driveway openly for 12 years without Liu's objection.
- D License by estoppel, because Reyes reasonably relied on Liu's silent acquiescence in his use.
- E
Why B is correct: Easement by implication requires (1) common ownership severed into two parcels, (2) a prior use of one part for the benefit of another that was apparent and continuous before severance, and (3) reasonable necessity for enjoyment of the dominant parcel. Liu owned the entire 60 acres, used the driveway openly to reach what became the eastern parcel, and Reyes needs the driveway for any practical access. Easement by necessity would also work but is not offered as an option — implication is Reyes's strongest available theory and survives the later sale because, as an appurtenant easement, it passes automatically with the dominant tenement and burdens Patel as successor to the servient estate.
Why each wrong choice fails:
- A: A warranty deed does not implicitly convey easement rights over land the grantor retains. Express easements require specific language identifying the easement and satisfying the Statute of Frauds — silence in the deed is not a grant. (The License-Dressed-as-Easement)
- C: Reyes's use was permissive, not hostile — Liu, the original servient owner, was the same person who had been using the driveway and impliedly acquiesced. Even if hostile, 12 years may not satisfy the statutory period in many jurisdictions, and Reyes has a much cleaner implication theory available. (The Prescription-vs-Permission Flip)
- D: Estoppel requires substantial investment in reliance on permission, not mere silent acquiescence. Reyes's continued use of an existing driveway is not the kind of detrimental reliance (such as building permanent improvements) that converts a license into an irrevocable interest. (The License-Dressed-as-Easement)
How should the court rule on the assignability of the easement?
- A For Patel, because easements in gross are personal and cannot be transferred without express language permitting assignment.
- B For Patel, because the easement document failed to identify a dominant tenement and is therefore void.
- C For MegaGrid, because the easement is a commercial easement in gross and is assignable as a matter of law. ✓ Correct
- D For MegaGrid, because all easements are freely transferable absent express restriction in the granting instrument.
- E
Why C is correct: An easement in gross benefits a person or entity rather than a parcel of land. The traditional rule, preserved by the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes, distinguishes between non-commercial easements in gross (generally non-transferable) and commercial easements in gross (freely transferable as a matter of law unless the granting instrument restricts transfer). A utility company's transmission-line easement is the paradigmatic commercial easement in gross — it serves an economic enterprise rather than personal enjoyment — and is assignable to a successor utility without Patel's consent.
Why each wrong choice fails:
- A: This states the rule for non-commercial easements in gross. Commercial easements in gross are presumptively assignable, and the granting instrument's silence on transferability is not a restriction — it is the default that allows transfer. (The Appurtenant-vs-In-Gross Transfer Trap)
- B: Easements in gross by definition have no dominant tenement; that is what distinguishes them from appurtenant easements. The absence of a dominant tenement is the defining feature, not a defect. (The Appurtenant-vs-In-Gross Transfer Trap)
- D: This overstates the rule. Non-commercial easements in gross (recreational rights for personal enjoyment) are generally not assignable, and even appurtenant easements transfer only with the dominant tenement, not independently. The blanket statement that 'all easements are freely transferable' is simply wrong. (The Appurtenant-vs-In-Gross Transfer Trap)
What is the most likely outcome?
- A Liu wins, because the original oral grant created a valid easement appurtenant to Liu's land that Reyes cannot revoke.
- B Liu wins, because Liu's substantial investment in reliance on Reyes's permission created an easement by estoppel that is not subject to the Statute of Frauds. ✓ Correct
- C Reyes wins, because Liu's use was permissive and therefore cannot ripen into a prescriptive easement regardless of duration.
- D Reyes wins, because oral permission to use land creates only a license, which is freely revocable by the licensor at any time.
- E
Why B is correct: Easement by estoppel converts an otherwise revocable license into an irrevocable interest when the licensee makes substantial expenditures in reasonable reliance on the licensor's permission, and revocation would be inequitable. Liu's $18,000 investment in permanent improvements (crushed stone, drainage, steps) over two years, with Reyes's knowledge, is precisely the kind of foreseeable reliance the doctrine protects. The Statute of Frauds does not bar the result because estoppel operates as an equitable exception. The fact that Liu's use was permissive (defeating prescription) is irrelevant — estoppel does not require hostility.
Why each wrong choice fails:
- A: An oral grant of an easement violates the Statute of Frauds and does not create a valid express easement. The oral arrangement was at most a license; only the doctrine of estoppel — not the original 'grant' — gives Liu an enforceable right. (The License-Dressed-as-Easement)
- C: This correctly identifies why prescription fails (permissive use defeats hostility), but it incorrectly concludes Reyes wins. Prescription is not Liu's only theory — estoppel operates independently and does not require hostile use, so Liu still prevails on the estoppel theory. (The Prescription-vs-Permission Flip)
- D: This states the general rule for licenses but ignores the estoppel exception. When a licensee makes substantial foreseeable investments in reliance on the license, the license becomes irrevocable for as long as the equity demands — courts will not allow the licensor to inflict the loss of the investment by revoking. (The License-Dressed-as-Easement)
Memory aid
Creation mnemonic: 'PINE-G' — Prescription, Implication, Necessity, Estoppel, Grant (express). For prescription, recycle adverse-possession's 'OCEAN' minus exclusivity: Open, Continuous, Exclusive-not-required, Adverse (hostile), Notorious. For termination: 'END CRAMP' — Estoppel, Necessity ends, Destruction, Condemnation, Release, Abandonment, Merger, Prescription.
Key distinction
Easement by implication requires prior apparent and continuous use plus reasonable necessity; easement by necessity requires no prior use but demands strict necessity (landlocking) at the moment of severance. Confusing the two is the single most-tested distinction in this area, and an easement by necessity terminates the moment the necessity ends, while an implication easement does not.
Summary
Classify the interest, identify how it was created, determine its scope, and check whether any termination doctrine has extinguished it — those four steps resolve nearly every easement question.
Practice easements and profits adaptively
Reading the rule is the start. Working UBE-format questions on this sub-topic with adaptive selection, watching your mastery score climb in real time, and seeing the items you missed return on a spaced-repetition schedule — that's where score lift actually happens. Free for seven days. No credit card required.
Start your free 7-day trialFrequently asked questions
What is easements and profits on the UBE?
An easement is a non-possessory right to use the land of another for a specific purpose; a profit à prendre is a non-possessory right to enter another's land and remove a natural resource (timber, minerals, game, crops). Easements are classified as appurtenant (benefits a dominant tenement and runs with the land automatically) or in gross (benefits a person or entity, not land — commercial easements in gross are assignable; non-commercial are generally not). Easements may be created by express grant or reservation (writing satisfying the Statute of Frauds), implication from prior use (quasi-easement), necessity (strict necessity at severance from common ownership), prescription (open, notorious, continuous, hostile use for the statutory period), or estoppel. Termination occurs by release, merger, abandonment (intent plus affirmative act), prescription, end of necessity, condemnation, destruction of the servient estate, or expiration by terms. Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes consolidates the doctrine and recognizes any servitude that satisfies its formal requirements, but the MBE/MEE still tests the traditional categories.
How do I practice easements and profits questions?
The fastest way to improve on easements and profits is targeted, adaptive practice — working questions that focus on your specific weak spots within this sub-topic, getting immediate feedback, and revisiting items you missed on a spaced-repetition schedule. Neureto's adaptive engine does this automatically across the UBE; start a free 7-day trial to see your sub-topic mastery climb in real time.
What's the most important distinction to remember for easements and profits?
Easement by implication requires prior apparent and continuous use plus reasonable necessity; easement by necessity requires no prior use but demands strict necessity (landlocking) at the moment of severance. Confusing the two is the single most-tested distinction in this area, and an easement by necessity terminates the moment the necessity ends, while an implication easement does not.
Is there a memory aid for easements and profits questions?
Creation mnemonic: 'PINE-G' — Prescription, Implication, Necessity, Estoppel, Grant (express). For prescription, recycle adverse-possession's 'OCEAN' minus exclusivity: Open, Continuous, Exclusive-not-required, Adverse (hostile), Notorious. For termination: 'END CRAMP' — Estoppel, Necessity ends, Destruction, Condemnation, Release, Abandonment, Merger, Prescription.
What's a common trap on easements and profits questions?
Confusing easement appurtenant with easement in gross
What's a common trap on easements and profits questions?
Treating a license as an easement (or vice versa)
Ready to drill these patterns?
Take a free UBE assessment — about 25 minutes and Neureto will route more easements and profits questions your way until your sub-topic mastery score reflects real improvement, not luck. Free for seven days. No credit card required.
Start your free 7-day trial