Can a neighbor block my easement?
No, not in a way that unreasonably interferes with the easement. Virginia law bars the owner of the land under an easement from activities or objects that unreasonably interfere with its use, but that owner keeps every use that does not, and need not automatically clear the easement's full width. Whether a given obstruction crosses the line is decided by a court on the deed's purpose and the facts.
Bushes, a rock wall and a chain link fence: which ones stopped passage
Before the rule, look at the things Virginia's highest court has actually weighed. In one case the landowners had put bushes, trees and a rock wall inside an easement's boundary. In another, owners of a 60-foot-wide easement complained about objects that included a chain link fence.
Both came out the same way, and for the same reason. In Pizzarelle v. Dempsey, a significant portion of the easement would have been rendered unusable for ingress and egress. In Snead, the easement's gravel road was not wide enough in its present state for two vehicles at the same time, and the landowner admitted the fence kept the easement holders from using two-thirds of the easement. The fence was held impermissible. In its 2026 decision in Thibault Enterprises, LLC v. Yost, the Supreme Court of Virginia looked back at both:
In Pizzarelle and Snead, the facts established that the encroachments substantially interfered with the easement holder's right of ingress and egress and, therefore, compelled injunctive relief.
Supreme Court of Virginia, Thibault Enterprises, LLC v. Yost (2026)
The word doing the work there is substantially. Thibault went on to hold that the owner of the land under an easement is not automatically required to remove every object intruding into an easement of a defined width. An object inside an easement's defined width is not, by that fact alone, a blocked easement. What stopped passage in the older cases was how much of the usable way the objects took.
The deed's purpose first, then whether the interference is unreasonable
Thibault also set out the order a court follows when an easement holder says the landowner has encroached, whether the easement has a defined width or not.
courts reviewing claims of an impermissible encroachment upon an easement, whether of defined width or otherwise, should (1) examine the language of the deed to determine the purpose of the easement and the intent of the parties; and (2) evaluate whether the actions of the owner of the servient estate unreasonably interfere with the easement.
Supreme Court of Virginia, Thibault Enterprises, LLC v. Yost (2026)
The second half has deep roots. The Court has repeatedly held that the owner of the servient estate keeps the right to use the land in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the use granted, and long ago said the owner of the soil may make any use of the land that does not interfere with the reasonable use of the right of way; the test is reasonableness. Step one assumes there is a deed to read. Where an easement was never written down, the question starts earlier, with whether it exists at all, which is taken up in deeded versus implied easements.
The General Assembly wrote the same balance into Va. Code 55.1-305. Unless the easement's terms provide otherwise, the owner of the servient estate may not engage in an activity or keep objects on the burdened land, or immediately adjacent to it, that unreasonably interfere with the easement holder's enjoyment of the easement. The statute's own definition of object leaves out any fence, electric fence, cattle guard, gate or division fence adjacent to the easement, so those follow their own rules, set out in gates and fences across an easement.
The duty runs both ways. Subject to the same proviso, the easement holder may not use it in a way not reasonably consistent with the uses its grant contemplated. And the answer can move over time: the Court noted that more traffic on a gravel road, or erosion that makes driving it impracticable, may make it necessary to use an easement's full width.
Rules of use and a speed limit instead of a barrier
A landowner who is tired of how an easement is used has a lawful tool that is not a barricade. Since 2026, Va. Code 55.1-305.1 lets the owner of a servient estate set reasonable rules of use for the easement, including a reasonable speed limit.
That statute gives the landowner a civil action for a violation, in which the landowner may recover $500 or actual damages, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs, and may also seek injunctive relief. It is a lawsuit the landowner brings, not a fine anyone issues. It cannot be used to set rules of use for, or otherwise modify, an easement held by a public entity.
Other disputes that feel like blocking belong to other pages. A washed-out or neglected road is a repair question, covered in who maintains a private road. A landowner who wants the easement somewhere else has a recorded consent route and, for easements the statute does not exclude, a court petition route, both in moving or modifying an easement. And a shed or fence that a survey shows crossing a boundary, rather than sitting inside an easement, is a different problem: what an encroachment is when a survey shows one.
Nuisance and injunction are an attorney's routes
When an easement holder believes the line has been crossed, the remedies are court remedies, and the burden sits with the person asking for them.
A violation of Va. Code 55.1-305 may be deemed a private nuisance, and that remedy does not impair any other relief available at law or in equity. An injunction to stop an encroachment within an easement's boundaries is an equitable remedy, and the person seeking it bears the burden of proving the facts establishing the easement and the need for the relief.
Put together, the proof starts with two things: the recorded instrument that creates the easement and says what it is for, and where the way actually lies on the ground. The first is read by an attorney and the second is located by a land surveyor. Whether a particular parked trailer, brush pile or row of shrubs is an unreasonable interference is not decided by either of them, or by the neighbors; a court decides it on the deed's language and the facts.
A neighbor narrowing or blocking the easement you rely on?
Send the county, the tax map number and what is in the way, and Lowell will tell you how a buyer would read the problem and which questions belong to your attorney. No cost, no obligation.
Got it. Thank you.
We'll be in touch shortly with an honest read.
Questions this raises
Is a blocked easement a private nuisance under Virginia law?
It can be. Va. Code 55.1-305 bars the owner of the land under an easement from activities or objects that unreasonably interfere with the easement holder's enjoyment of it, and says a violation of that section may be deemed a private nuisance. That remedy does not impair any other relief available at law or in equity, such as an injunction. Whether a given obstruction is a violation, and which claim to bring, are questions for a Virginia real estate attorney.
Does the neighbor have to keep the entire platted width of my easement clear?
Not automatically. In Thibault Enterprises, LLC v. Yost (2026), the Supreme Court of Virginia held that the owner of the land under an easement is not automatically required to remove all objects intruding into an easement of a defined width. A court reads the deed for the easement's purpose, then asks whether the objects unreasonably interfere. The Court added that more traffic or erosion could later make the full width necessary.
Can I use my easement for something its grant never mentioned?
Only within limits. Under Va. Code 55.1-305, unless the easement's terms provide otherwise, the owner of the benefited land may not use an easement in a way that is not reasonably consistent with the uses the grant contemplated. What the grant contemplated turns on the deed's language, and reading that language against a proposed new use is work for a Virginia real estate attorney.
Where this page's facts come from
Every rule, office and figure above traces to one of these. Rules change; check the office before you act on one.
- Thibault Enterprises, LLC v. Yost (April 9, 2026): encroachment within an easement of defined width Supreme Court of Virginia
- Va. Code 55.1-305, use of an easement by the dominant and servient owners Virginia General Assembly
- Va. Code 55.1-305.1, servient owner's reasonable rules of use (2026) Virginia General Assembly
- Morris v. Parker (unpublished): burden of proving an easement and its location Court of Appeals of Virginia