Conservation easement restrictions and enforcement: evidence from US judicial opinions

Conservation easements operate at the intersection of contract law and property law. From a contract law perspective, a conservation easement is an agreement between a landowner (the grantor) and a qualified conservation organization or government agency (the grantee or easement holder) (Gustanski and Wright, 2011; Brown et al., 2023). Under such an agreement, the landowner donates or conveys specific property rights to the easement holder in perpetuity or, in some cases, for a fixed term. In exchange, the landowner may receive tax benefits, direct monetary compensation, permission to develop another portion of the property, non-financial conservation benefits associated with the land, or a combination of these forms of consideration. The terms of a conservation easement may be tailored to the specific characteristics of the land and the preferences of the landowner and the easement holder. This individualized, negotiated approach contrasts sharply with traditional regulatory regimes (e.g. the Endangered Species Act), which apply uniformly across properties regardless of resource endowments or owners' land-use needs. This contractual flexibility constitutes one of the primary reasons for the widespread adoption of conservation easements. Conservation easements have been adopted primarily in the United States since the 1970s (Dietrich and Dietrich, 2011), and they have also gained international popularity over time (Brown et al., 2011; Cortés Capano et al., 2019; Luo et al., 2024).

From a property law perspective, a conservation easement is a nonpossessory property interest that limits specified land uses to protect identified conservation values, binds current and future owners, and is held by a qualified organization or agency (Owley, 2015; Kay, 2016; Overby et al., 2022). Although property law is among the most established fields, the recognition of conservation easements as a distinct form of property right is relatively recent, emerging primarily in the latter half of the twentieth century. Unlike traditional property interests, conservation easements diverge in two fundamental respects (Dietrich and Dietrich, 2011). First, conservation easements are not attached or tied to any land but exist as an interest personal to the holder and are enforceable regardless of surrounding ownership. In contrast, a traditional easement (e.g. a vehicular access easement) burdens the encumbered estate for the benefit of a specific nearby estate. Second, conservation easements are predominantly negative in character, restricting development or land-use activities rather than granting affirmative rights of use or access. In the United States, these departures from conventional easement doctrine and property rights have required statutory authorization in many jurisdictions. That led to the widespread adoption of conservation easement-enabling acts and the Uniform Conservation Easement Act in individual states, which have integrated conservation easements into existing property law (Gunes, 2007; McLaughlin, 2013, 2024; Cheever and McLaughlin, 2015).

Given the complex interplay of contract and property law in conservation easements, a key question is how parties resolve disputes arising from the design and implementation of these agreements. This is a legitimate concern, as conservation easements have been increasingly adopted in recent years owing to their distinctive characteristics. According to the National Conservation Easement Database (NCED, 2025), an unofficial and non-comprehensive dataset that tracks easement records nationwide, there were 221,256 easement contracts in the United States as of 2023, protecting 37.9 million acres, or 1.6% of the US land base. Furthermore, disputes are likely because conservation easements are highly customized to individual land parcels (e.g. specific wetland resources), landowners' preferences (e.g. the right to build a residence 20 years later), and the conservation goals of easement holders (e.g. protection of particular wildlife habitats). The perpetual nature of easements can also complicate enforcement across multiple generations of owners (Stroman and Kreuter, 2014). Thus, a well-defined legal framework is critical to the efficient and equitable administration of easements.

Prior studies generally characterized conservation easements as an effective mechanism for conserving private land while advancing public conservation goals, but legal disputes raised concerns about their long-term enforceability (Parker and Thurman, 2019). Much of the dispute-related literature has focused on the rigidity of perpetual easements and the conflicts that arise when restrictions clash with evolving land-use needs. Korngold (2007) emphasized the importance of flexibility, whereas Thompson (2004) argued that legal mechanisms should have allowed future generations to modify restrictions that had lost their public value. Subsequent research documented the growing complexity of conservation easement drafting, reflecting attempts to balance conservation goals with working-land uses (Owley and Rissman, 2016). Although conservation easements are administered through private arrangements, they can rely heavily on public funding, thereby heightening expectations of accountability and judicial scrutiny in contested cases (Raymond, 2002). Enforcement concerns were reinforced by Morrisette (2001), who cautioned that inadequate oversight and weak monitoring undermined both effectiveness and the public-interest justification of conservation easements. More recent empirical work has shown that ownership transitions often lead to compliance challenges, increasing the likelihood of disputes and necessitating sustained stewardship by easement holders (Rissman et al., 2023). Collectively, this literature clarified why conservation easement disputes arose but provided limited empirical understanding of how courts resolved such conflicts, how governing legal principles were applied in practice, and which forms of judicial reasoning shaped case outcomes, thereby directly motivating a systematic analysis of published judicial decisions.

The objective of this study was to examine the legal principles governing dispute resolution over land-use restrictions imposed by conservation easements in the United States of America, with particular emphasis on judicial reasoning in published case law. Legal cases involving easement restrictions, published through June 2025, were retrieved from Westlaw (Thomson Reuters, 2025). Content analysis (Krippendorff, 2019) was employed to systematically evaluate judicial reasoning and compile empirical data on disputed land-use changes. To identify core legal principles and recurring patterns, we customized content analysis for the selected cases and analyzed them from multiple perspectives, including primary legal issues, outcomes by party position, and common themes such as standing to sue. To our knowledge, this study represents the first comprehensive empirical review of litigation arising from conservation easement restrictions. Applying content analysis to case law revealed the frequency, nature, and resolution of real-world conflicts over these restrictions. The findings are intended to assist landowners, legal practitioners, and conservation organizations in navigating the legal complexities of conservation easements, inform policymakers considering potential legal reforms, and ultimately support the long-term effectiveness of conservation initiatives.

All legal cases related to conservation easement restrictions and enforcement were retrieved from Westlaw (Thomson Reuters, 2025). The database enables targeted searches by specific legal issues. Because conservation easement disputes may arise in a wide range of legal contexts, an initial search was conducted broadly, using only the phrase “conservation easement” to capture all potentially relevant cases. Any case containing this phrase was included in the initial retrieval, and no additional constraints were imposed on the search (e.g. no temporal or geographic limits). The search was initiated in 2024 and was last updated in July 2025, covering all relevant cases decided through June 30, 2025. This initial search yielded 1,925 cases.

Note that in the United States, legal opinions from a lawsuit will be published when they have precedential value. Some disputes may also have been settled out of court. Thus, the disputes identified in published cases through the above search likely understate the true number of disputes. Moreover, most conservation easements function well without conflict in practice. Relative to the large number of easements recorded nationwide in the National Conservation Easement Database (NCED, 2025), this litigation sample constitutes only a very small subset of overall easement activity.

To identify cases directly relevant to the study's objectives, each retrieved case was subsequently screened using a set of substantive criteria. First, eligible cases were required to involve privately owned land and at least one private party; disputes concerning public land were therefore excluded. Second, the conservation easement at issue was required to serve purposes related to recreation, environmental systems, or open space conservation. According to the Internal Revenue Service (2021), a conservation easement must serve one of the four purposes to qualify for a federal income tax deduction: public outdoor recreation or education, protection of environmental systems, preservation of open space, and preservation of historic land or structures. Cases involving historic or façade easements (i.e. the last category) were excluded from this study because they focus on preserving historic properties or structures rather than broader land conservation objectives. Third, with respect to legal focus, cases were required to center on disputes involving the creation of a conservation easement, its interpretation, the enforcement of restrictions, the assessment of damages, or its extinguishment. Cases concerning tax incentives associated with conservation easements constitute a distinct category of dispute and were analyzed in a separate study. Finally, cases arising in US territories (e.g. Puerto Rico) were excluded, and only cases from the 50 US states were included.

After applying these screening criteria, 262 cases were identified as aligned with the study's research objectives. Some of these cases involved multiple judicial opinions arising from the same dispute, including preliminary opinions, trial court decisions, or appellate court decisions. As a result, the final dataset comprised 191 unique disputes. Most disputes were adjudicated at the appellate level, and appellate opinions generally reported trial court verdicts as well. For disputes with multiple opinions or both trial and appellate court decisions, the opinion with the most recent filing date was used for coding, with relevant details (e.g. land size) supplemented from earlier related proceedings as needed. Therefore, the final study sample comprised 191 disputes, which served as the basis for the subsequent content analysis. Collectively, these cases totaled 1,490 pages, averaging 7.8 pages per case.

Content analysis was employed to analyze legal cases in this study. This method is well-suited to identifying and summarizing patterns embedded in textual materials, such as news media or judicial opinions. Previous research has applied content analysis to examine issues related to natural resources or forestland (e.g. Houston et al., 2010; Sun and Wang, 2023; Tiwari et al., 2025). When interpreting text information in legal cases, a codebook or reading guide tailored to the study's objectives is typically developed to support systematic coding (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005; Krippendorff, 2019). Such a guide may be constructed deductively based on prior literature or inductively from the data. In this study, both approaches were adopted. Deductively, the initial coding framework was informed by insights from existing literature and legal guidance (Korngold, 2007; Rissman et al., 2007; Kay, 2016; Internal Revenue Service, 2021). Inductively, a preliminary review of selected cases provided additional context, leading to refinements in the coding items and schema.

Several challenges emerged during the design of the codebook for this set of legal cases, and thus, content analysis was customized in three aspects unique to conservation easements. First, litigants were classified into four categories because disputes involving a conservation easement can cover parties with different positions or relationships to the easement. While many cases involve disputes between landowners and easement holders, it is common for parties not named in the original easement agreement (e.g. adjacent landowners) to participate in litigation. In addition, government agencies have been involved in certain disputes when land-use changes require permits or regulatory approvals. Accordingly, litigants were classified into four categories in this study: (1) landowners who own the disputed property; (2) easement holders who possess the easement rights; (3) third parties, including neighboring landowners, citizen groups, conservation organizations, and construction firms; and (4) government agencies with regulatory authority over permits or approvals related to the disputed land.

Second, five major topic categories were defined in this study: A_Create, B_Term, C_Injunction, D_Money, and E_Void. These categories broadly align with the lifecycle of a conservation easement, including (A) the creation of an easement, (B) interpretation of easement terms prior to land use changes, (C) requests for or opposition to injunctive relief related to ongoing or completed land use changes, (D) claims for monetary compensation associated with completed land use changes, contract breaches, or torts, and (E) termination or invalidation of an easement. When a case addressed multiple topics (e.g. both injunctive and monetary claims), it was assigned to a single category based on the dispute's primary focus. Several of the five topics listed above encompassed multiple issues and were further divided into subtopics. For example, the injunction category (C) was subdivided into two: one involving new construction activities (e.g. building a house, road, or shed) and the other involving ongoing operations (e.g. operating a facility for commercial purposes). After multiple rounds of refinement, the final coding framework included no subtopics for A_Creation, three for B_Term, two for C_Injunction, four for D_Money, and three for E_Void.

Third, three themes that spanned the topic categories were identified and examined in greater detail: standing, approving, and taking. These cross-cutting themes capture recurring legal issues that arise across different stages of conservation easement disputes. “Standing” addresses whether parties, particularly third parties, possess sufficient legal interest to initiate or participate in litigation. “Approving” focuses on the role of government agencies in authorizing land-use changes and interpreting easement terms. “Taking” encompasses both eminent domain and regulatory takings, reflecting circumstances in which property rights associated with easements are limited, transferred, or extinguished. Together, these themes provide an integrated analytical framework for examining how key stakeholders interact and how disputes evolve across legal contexts.

In applying the above customized content analysis to the selected cases, the final set of variables extracted by case included: (1) court information (i.e. federal or state jurisdiction, trial or appellate level, and filing date); (2) land characteristics (i.e. land size, current and best land use, residency status, and location); (3) easement characteristics (i.e. easement size, dates of easement creation and dispute initiation, landowner generation, easement holder identity, donation versus purchase, syndicated status, perpetuity provisions, and conservation purpose); (4) party roles (i.e. whether plaintiffs, defendants, appellants, or appellees were landowners, easement holders, third parties, or government agencies); (5) dispute topics and subtopics; (6) case outcomes (i.e. the prevailing party at the trial or appellate level); and (7) the relevance to the three legal themes (i.e. standing, approving, and taking). A conservation easement was classified as syndicated only when the judicial opinion explicitly identified it as such.

To examine patterns across the coded variables, both tabular and graphical analyses were employed. Summary tables were used to describe the distribution of cases by court type, state, and year. Temporal trends in dispute topics and verdicts were illustrated with figures to visualize changes over time.

In this section, brief profiles of several representative cases are presented first to illustrate the typical disputes among parties to conservation easements. Five sample cases are briefed, each corresponding to one of the five legal topics. Then, the aggregate characteristics of the 191 cases are summarized, including the distribution of cases, litigants, disputed land, and easement contracts.

The first case is Town of Oyster Bay v. Doremus, 94 A.D.3d 867 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). This New York appellate case involved a dispute between the Town and the Doremus family over an alleged conservation easement. In the early 2000s, the landowner explored creating an easement on their property. Draft agreements were prepared, but none were executed. In 2010, the Town sued to enforce what it claimed was a promise to establish the easement. The appellate court found the Town failing to establish a valid contract, reversed the trial court's decision, and ruled in favor of the landowner. This case concerned A_Creation, which involved an attempt to create an easement or a dispute over the enforceability of the contract.

The second case is Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation v. Claggett, 412 Md. 45 (Md. Ct. App. 2009). This Maryland Court of Appeals case involved a dispute between the Foundation (the easement holder) and Claggett (the landowner) over the scope of rights retained under an easement. The landowner conveyed his farm subject to the easement but reserved the right to build a dwelling for himself or his child. He later attempted to sell that right to a third party free of the easement restriction. The appellate court reversed the intermediate appellate decision, ruled in favor of the Foundation, and held that the easement permitted construction only by the grantor, not third parties. This case concerned B_Term, specifically the interpretation of existing easement terms in connection with a proposed action.

The third case is Wetlands America Trust, Inc. v. White Cloud Nine Ventures, L.P., 291 Va. 153 (Va. 2016). This Virginia Supreme Court case involved a dispute between an easement holder and the property owner over whether the construction of a farm building and facilities violated restrictive covenants in the easement. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling in favor of the landowner, holding that the activities were allowed and that the construction did not impair conservation values. This case corresponded to C_Injunction, as the easement holder sought injunctive relief against the owner's activities.

The fourth case is Ferman v. Bogaard & Associates, 2018 WL 6683943 (N.J. App. Div. 2018). This New Jersey appellate case involved Ferman's claims of legal malpractice and real estate agent negligence arising from their purchase of a home subject to a conservation easement. The Fermans alleged that their attorney and realtors failed to explain the easement's restrictions adequately and sought damages. The appeal court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish causation or actual damages beyond closing costs. This case concerned D_Money and alleged professional negligence in advising clients regarding an easement.

The fifth case is Madden v. Nature Conservancy, 823 F. Supp. 815 (D. Mont. 1992). This Montana federal district court case involved Madden's challenge to the validity of a conservation easement reserved by The Nature Conservancy in a warranty deed conveying a ranch property. The Maddens argued that the easement was void because The Nature Conservancy held the land title and the easement at the time of conveyance. The court rejected this claim, holding that Montana law permits a conservation easement to be created by reservation (not only by express grant). This case concerned E_Void, the legal validity of a conservation easement.

In Table 1, the 191 cases were classified by jurisdiction (federal versus state) and court level (trial versus appellate), revealing a clear concentration in state and appellate venues. Most cases originated in state courts (137, or 72%) rather than in the federal system (54, or 28%). Furthermore, appellate courts reviewed most of the disputes (136, or 71%), while trial courts handled only 55 cases (29%). This distribution varied greatly by jurisdiction: federal cases were predominantly resolved at the trial level (42 out of 54), mainly in US District Courts (35), while state cases were overwhelmingly heard at the appellate level (124 out of 137), with 24 reaching a state supreme court. All of those highlighted the complexity and frequent appeal of conservation easement disputes in state jurisdictions.

The temporal analysis of the 191 cases, which spanned 51 years from 1975 to 2025, revealed a clear upward trend in litigation volume (Table 2). While case filings showed annual fluctuations, peaking in 2016 (13 cases; 6 federal, 7 state) and again in 2020 and 2023 (12 cases each), the overall trend revealed a sharp rise in recent decades. The period from 2016 to 2025 accounted for nearly half of all disputes (87 cases, 45.5%), and, when combined with the preceding decade (2006–2015, 66 cases, 34.6%), these twenty years encompassed 80.1% of the total case volume (153 cases). In most years, fewer than five cases were reported. State cases have consistently dominated the annual distribution, a pattern visible in almost every year recorded. Overall, the sustained and accelerating pattern indicated shifting legal and land-use dynamics that might have considerably contributed to the increased volume and intensity of easement-dispute litigation.

The geographical distribution of the 191 conservation easement disputes showed that, while the cases involved land in 40 states and demonstrated a broad geographic reach, the litigation was heavily concentrated in a few states. Most states recorded fewer than five cases, while a few states accounted for a disproportionate share of the activity. New York led the nation in the number of cases (19, 9.9%), followed closely by Maryland (15), New Jersey (14), and California, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania (13 each). Collectively, these six states accounted for 45.5% of all cases, demonstrating a pronounced regional concentration. This pattern indicates that certain states are more susceptible to contested land disputes, reflecting systematic differences in state-level easement statutes, historical preservation activity, enforcement practices, and regional development pressures. Overall, the 191 cases spanning 51 years and 40 states (Table 2) revealed substantial temporal and geographic diversity in easement-related litigation.

Landowners were the primary initiators of disputes across both trial and appellate levels, consistently targeting easement holders as the main defendants/appellees (Table 3). Of the 191 trial cases reviewed, landowners were the plaintiffs in 100 cases (52% of the total). They most frequently sued easement holders (45 cases), followed by government agencies (30) and third parties (24). Third parties were the next most active plaintiffs, initiating 61 cases, while easement holders and agencies initiated 24 and 6 cases, respectively. This pattern was largely sustained at the appellate level, which involved 136 cases. Landowners filed 76 appeals (56% of appeals), primarily challenging easement holders (37 cases), agencies (21), and third parties (17). Overall, the vast majority of disputes originated from landowners contesting easement terms, requesting land-use changes, or challenging agency approvals.

By combining the instances where a litigant appeared as either a plaintiff or a defendant, the landowner appeared as a party in 166 of the 191 trial court cases (87% involvement) (Table 3). In comparison, third parties were involved in 86 cases, easement holders in 79, and agencies in 48. This pattern of high landowner involvement was mirrored at the appellate level, where landowners were parties in 116 of the 136 appeals (85% involvement). The data clearly demonstrated that disputes over conservation easements were fundamentally driven by landowners, who were central figures in most litigation, whether initiating the action or defending against it.

The analysis of the duration of conservation easement disputes on 157 cases with complete information revealed two distinct patterns: conflicts arose long after the easement was created, but the resulting litigation was resolved relatively quickly (Table 4). The median time from easement creation to dispute onset was 9 years, with an average of 11.4 years, indicating that conflicts frequently occurred approximately a decade into the easement's existence. Conversely, the median time from dispute initiation to final verdict was 2 years (mean 3.4 years), suggesting that once litigation was filed, it tended to proceed to resolution efficiently. While litigation was relatively quick, the maximum durations, i.e. 53 years before a dispute and 16 years to a verdict, underscored that a small number of complex conflicts could span multiple generations, confirming the substantial time cost of disputes inherent in these perpetual property restrictions.

The size of the disputed land and the extent of conservation easement coverage were recorded for the cases with data (Table 4). The average land area was approximately 590.3 acres, but the median was much smaller at 91 acres, reflecting a few vast properties and wide variation across cases. For conservation easement coverage, the average area was 496.8 acres, with a median of 64.5 acres. Easement coverage ranged from 0.4% to 100%, with a median of 100% and a mean of 78.4%. These numbers revealed that most disputed properties were subject to easements, underscoring the central role of easement restrictions in the litigation.

The disputed cases were concentrated on undeveloped or lightly developed lands, with residential development consistently recognized as the dominant highest/best use (Table 5). Wildland accounted for the largest share of current land types (37%; 70 of 191 cases), followed by Farmland (43 cases), whereas Homesite and Wetland were less common; Forestland and Commercial land were rare. This distribution revealed that conservation easements were most often applied to lands under pressure to be converted rather than to already intensively developed parcels. In judicial assessments of highest and best use, Residential development accounted for 40% of cases (76 of 191), exceeding Farming, Unknown, and Conserving. When current and highest/best uses were compared, Wildland was frequently associated with Residential development potential (33%; 23 of 70 cases), although future use remained Unknown in a substantial portion. Farmland was predominantly considered best suited for continued Farming (77%; 33 of 43 cases), yet in 14% of cases it was viewed as more appropriate for Residential purposes. In contrast, land currently classified as Residential was almost invariably determined to represent its highest and best use (92%; 36 of 39 cases), revealing that Residential development was largely irreversible once established. Together, these patterns reflect the central tension in conservation easement disputes between development pressures and the protection of ecological and agricultural values.

The disputed conservation easements were most often long-standing, perpetual arrangements established by original landowners and held by public agencies or conservation organizations (Table 6). In most cases (123 of 191), the easements were created by first-generation landowners who still owned the property at the time of dispute, while second-generation owners accounted for an additional 54 cases; involvement of later generations was rare. Many parcels were unoccupied (62 of 158 cases), and landowners resided on the land in only 81 cases, further reinforcing the association between disputes and undeveloped or conserved lands. Easements were most commonly granted as a condition for approving other development activities (64 cases) or purchased outright (35 cases), whereas donated easements represented a smaller share (29 cases). Syndicated conservation easements have been controversial in recent years, primarily due to concerns about potential tax abuse and inflated appraisals tied to tax deductions (e.g. Cantley and Dietrich, 2024). However, they were rare in this dataset, appearing in only 4 cases involving disputes over use restrictions. Except for the six cases in which easement creation was in dispute, nearly all easements were structured as perpetual, reflecting long-term legal commitments. Easement holding was dominated by public entities, with federal, state, county, city, and town agencies collectively accounting for 98 cases (51%). At the same time, non-governmental organizations, including land trusts and other NGOs, held a moderate portion of the disputed easements (67 cases, or 35%).

In this section, the occurrence of legal topics across the cases was first presented, followed by an examination of judicial outcomes by topic and claimant. Several key themes common to the disputes were analyzed at the end.

Disputes overwhelmingly centered on the interpretation and enforcement of existing conservation easements, with far fewer cases addressing the creation of easements (Table 7). By topics, there were 11 cases for A_Create, 68 for B_Term, 38 for C_Injunction, 40 for D_Money, and 34 for E_Void. Within the subtopics for term interpretation, disputes most often involved planned building activities (28 cases) and planned operating activities (29 cases). In comparison, conflicts over enforcement were frequently framed through requests for injunctions related to operated uses (25 cases) or monetary remedies for failing to maintain conservation values (12 cases), operated uses (11 cases), and rights violations (13 cases). Cases seeking to void easements addressed validity challenges (13 cases), taking claims (11 cases), and termination attempts (10 cases).

The trends in case volume also showed fundamental shifts in the proportions of topics over time, revealing a transition from foundational disputes to enforcement conflicts. Shifts in topic proportions by year (Figure 1) revealed that in earlier years, a disproportionate share of cases concerned the creation of easements and the interpretation of easement terms, reflecting the novelty of these legal instruments and uncertainty over their scope. Beginning in the mid-2000s, the proportion of injunctive and monetary claims increased, with noticeable nonlinear fluctuations and peaks in the 2010s, suggesting intensified conflicts over compliance and land-use restrictions. Cases seeking to void easements have also become more common in recent decades, particularly between 2016 and 2025 (18 cases), reflecting heightened judicial scrutiny of perpetuity obligations and taking claims. Overall, the temporal trends reflect a transition from establishing conservation easements to contesting their long-term enforcement, economic implications, and legal durability under increasing development pressure.

Taken together, topic distributions and temporal trends demonstrated a clear shift in the litigation landscape, driven by the maturation of conservation easements and intensifying land-use pressures. As conservation easements became more widely adopted and entrenched, disputes increasingly centered on enforcement, valuation, and contestation of existing restrictions rather than their initial establishment. This evolution reveals a deepening legal tension between long-term conservation commitments and competing development, operational, and property rights claims.

The verdicts in the 191 cases were classified by court, topic, and claimant in Table 8. In aggregate, plaintiffs won 62 of the 191 cases (32%), lost 127 (67%), and had outcomes uncertain in two cases remanded to trial courts. In 136 appellate cases, appellants prevailed in 32% and lost 63%. In comparison, appellate courts affirmed 72% of trial court decisions, i.e. (26 + 72)/136, but reversed 24%. Overall, the claimants in those lawsuits, whether plaintiffs or appellants, had a low success rate in both the trial and appellate courts, and appellate judges affirmed most of the lower courts' decisions.

The outcomes also varied considerably across the five major topics. At trial courts, defendants won even more at 75% in the category of easement term interpretation (B_Term, 51 wins in 68 cases), while the corresponding rate was 64% in A_Create, 58% in C_Injunction, 65% in D_Money, 62% in E_Void. At the appellate level, similar patterns emerged. The subtopics within these major categories revealed further variation in the advantages of the defendants. For instance, in term disputes, plan-building cases in trial courts showed that defendants prevailed 82% of the time (23 wins in 28 cases). In injunction cases, facility-operated disputes showed more balanced outcomes, with defendants prevailing at trial in 52% of cases. Money-damages cases revealed the strongest pro-defendant pattern in claims that one party failed to comply with easement restrictions, in which defendants prevailed at trial in 92% of cases. Void cases showed relatively consistent advantages for defendants across subcategories.

By claimant, landowners and third parties lost most lawsuits, whereas easement holders and agencies prevailed in most. Landowners, the largest claimant group, experienced a high rate of losses (76%) in trial courts, with 76 cases decided against them out of 100 they initiated (Table 8). This trend largely persisted at the appellate level. In Figure 2, the verdicts for all 166 cases related to landowners were plotted over time, with 2 for a win affirmed by the appellate court, −2 for an affirmed loss, 1 for a win at the trial court or a reversed win at the appellate court, and similarly, −1 for a loss. There was a concentration of verdicts at losing twice (i.e. −2) and losing once (−1) for landowners over time, indicating repeated losses, with only a modest upward trend toward neutral or positive outcomes in recent years. Third-party claimants, comprising 86 cases, also fared poorly. The temporal patterns in Figure 2 showed a persistent concentration around −1 and −2, with slight fluctuations toward neutral verdicts in the 2000 and 2020s. Thus, third-party claimants continued to encounter considerable challenges in securing favorable decisions.

In contrast, easement holders showed a markedly different trajectory. Although they were involved in only 79 cases, easement holders achieved a higher success rate, particularly at trial courts, where 18 of 24 cases were decided in their favor. Appellate outcomes, however, tempered this advantage, as only 12 of 24 cases resulted in clear wins. The temporal trend was steady, with verdicts increasingly clustering at positive values (1 and 2), revealing that easement holders generally fared better over time. Finally, the agency claims, though the smallest group with 48 cases, revealed distinct dynamics. Verdicts in most cases ranged from −1 to 2. Compared with other claimants, agency cases exhibited greater volatility and less predictable outcomes, reflecting the context-dependent nature of disputes involving governmental entities. Across all panels in Figure 2, the trend lines highlighted nonlinear temporal patterns, while point sizes revealed periods of concentrated disputes, highlighting shifts in legal outcomes and temporal clustering.

Altogether, the asymmetry in outcomes across claimant groups largely reflects the doctrinal framework governing conservation easements. Courts treat these easements as binding property interests and enforce them under contract and property law principles, emphasizing the original terms and intent at the time of conveyance. That creates barriers for landowners who often seek to modify or terminate perpetual restrictions, resulting in high loss rates. Third-party claimants may face even greater challenges due to a lack of direct legal interest. In contrast, easement holders benefit from judicial deference to enforceability and conservation purposes embedded in the agreement. Government agencies also benefit from statutory authority but show more variable outcomes, probably due to context-specific disputes. Overall, courts prioritize stability and conservation intent, which systematically disadvantages landowners and third parties.

Several legal themes have emerged across jurisdictions and topics. In this section, three of them are explored in detail. The first theme is standing (or standing to sue), which refers to whether a claimant has a sufficient interest or stake in the litigation's outcome to bring suit, or whether an individual has been, or will be, affected by a resolution of the dispute. In the context of conservation easements, standing issues arise from the contractual structure of these agreements. A conservation easement is a binding contract with consideration between a landowner and an easement holder. However, conservation easements regularly affect third parties beyond the contracting parties, either intended or incidental. Conservation benefits from these agreements, such as wildlife habitat protection or open space maintenance, are nonexclusive and often accrue to community members and conservation advocates. This broad distribution of benefits creates potential standing questions when third parties seek to enforce easement terms or challenge violations.

The cases in this study confirmed this expectation, with standing emerging as a recurring legal issue. Third parties served as either plaintiffs or defendants in 86 of the 191 disputes (45%), with involvement observed across all five legal topics: 36% in A_Create, 49% in B_Term, 32% in C_Injunction, 73% in D_Money, and 24% in E_Void. In most disputes, third parties demonstrated sufficient relevance to the dispute that standing was not contested; however, in 14 cases (16%; 14/86), standing became a matter of explicit judicial scrutiny, with courts granting standing in 5 and denying it in 9. Standing was allowed, for instance, when a neighboring farmer challenged the creation of a conservation easement on adjacent property, a neighbor opposed the construction of storm ponds on encumbered land, and a former owner contested the construction of a dock on previously owned land subject to an easement. Conversely, standing was denied, for example, when a resident challenged the termination of a conservation easement on nearby property, a neighbor opposed a building permit for residential construction on neighboring easement land, and a donor sought to prevent a university, as the current owner of the easement land, from selling the property years after the original donation. These findings demonstrate that standing remains a critical threshold issue in third-party easement disputes, with outcomes highly dependent on the specific factual circumstances.

The second theme concerns the approval authority of government agencies. Agencies are involved in conservation easement disputes in two capacities: as easement holders or as regulatory authorities. Regulations governing land uses or changes have long existed, and many land-use changes require approval from local, state, or federal agencies. In this study, agencies were involved in 48 of 191 cases in which they exercised their regulatory authority, and all legal topics were covered. In particular, 20 of the 48 cases were related to the interpretation of easement terms (B_Term), and another 10 cases were about the injunctive reliefs (C_Injunction). More specifically, activities involving an agency's regulatory authority over easement land fell into several main categories. Permit and land-use approvals predominated, encompassing subdivision, building, and use permits; variances; renovations; mowing; grading; wetland filling; and access improvements. These actions were usually denied or upheld in favor of agencies. Disputes over easement creation, acquisition, or termination constituted a second category and generally favored agencies or easement holders. A third category comprised compensation and financial claims, including land valuation, mitigation credits, tax sales, and foreclosure issues. Third-party and neighbor objections to agency approvals were most often unsuccessful. Overall, agencies have been deeply involved in approving land-use changes on easement land or interpreting easement terms for proposed action.

The third theme concerns taking claims related to either eminent domain or regulations. Eminent domain refers to the inherent governmental authority to seize private property for public use upon payment of fair market value. A taking under eminent domain occurs when that authority is exercised through the legal process of condemnation. In contrast, a regulatory taking occurs when government regulations limit property uses to such an extent that compensation may be required. In the context of conservation easements, a taking can refer to either a physical taking (condemnation) or a regulatory taking. From a property law perspective, a conservation easement is a nonpossessory property interest, and like any property right, it is subject to eminent domain when a valid public need, e.g. the construction of utility infrastructure, outweighs the conservation value of the encumbered land. Thus, although conservation easements are generally perpetual, they can be extinguished when property is taken for public use. If the taking is admitted, both the landowner and the easement holder are entitled to compensation for their respective interests.

Among the 191 cases, taking was involved in 17, spanning four of the five legal topics: three concerning easement creation, one involving easement terms, one related to injunctions, and 12 addressing the voiding of easements. Those claims were related to eminent domain, except for two regulatory takings. Taking was central in one-third of disputes in E_Void (12 of 34 cases, 35%). Of the 17 cases involving taking, the courts allowed the taking claims in five, disallowed them in 11, and remanded one for further proceedings. For example, physical taking claims were upheld where a landowner successfully requested city condemnation to create a scenic conservation easement; a landowner was unsuccessful in contesting a utility company's condemnation for pipeline construction; and a landowner failed to oppose a state agency's taking to establish a public park. Conversely, taking claims were rejected in the following instances: a farmer unsuccessfully attempted to prompt city condemnation of his dairy farm to establish a conservation easement due to zoning restrictions; a landowner was unable to assert a regulatory taking after being denied permission to construct retaining walls within easement boundaries; and another landowner was unsuccessful in claiming a regulatory taking because of the prohibition of subdivision. In addition, five cases addressed compensation amounts or the allocation of proceeds between landowners and easement holders from permitted taking actions under eminent domain. Overall, taking has served as a multifaceted mechanism for creating easements, interpreting easement terms, and terminating easements, with judicial outcomes varying by case-specific circumstances.

Conservation easements have been widely adopted in the United States since the 1970s. Operating at the intersection of contract and property law, these instruments are susceptible to dispute due to their flexible design, the requirement of perpetuity, and the externality of conservation benefits. In this study, we examined the legal principles governing dispute resolution over conservation easement restrictions through 191 published cases from 1975 to 2025 across 40 states. Although those selected legal cases do not constitute a comprehensive record for all easement disputes, published opinions remain valuable because they usually reflect the most representative segment of legal conflicts (e.g. Leeuw and Schmeets, 2016; Rantanen, 2016). Published judicial decisions also establish legal precedents and shape the resolution of future disputes. In this study, content analysis of these easement cases produced empirical evidence with several clear policy implications.

First, litigation related to conservation easement restrictions has become a state-centered and increasingly contested area of contract and property law, characterized by concentrated appellate review, rising case volume, and regional clustering. Disputes overwhelmingly originated in state courts (72%) and were resolved at the appellate level (71%), reflecting both the doctrinal complexity of easement law and the frequency of challenges to trial-level decisions. Over the 51 years examined, litigation volume increased substantially, with more than 80% of cases filed after 2005 and nearly half concentrated between 2016 and 2025. Although annual filings fluctuated, the upward trend reflected intensifying land-use pressures, the expanded reliance on easements, and uncertainty in long-term application. Spatially, nearly half of all disputes were concentrated in six states, indicating the influence of state statutory design and development intensity. These findings suggested a need for more explicit state-level statutory guidance on the stable implementation of easements.

Landowners were the primary drivers of conservation easement litigation. Among the 191 cases analyzed, landowners appeared in 87% of disputes, compared with easement holders (41%), third parties (45%), and government agencies (25%). This pattern highlighted the structural tension between private property rights and long-term conservation obligations, positioning landowners as central actors in both initiating and sustaining litigation. Easement agreements were also shown to affect parties beyond the contracting landowner and holder, as third parties gained standing due to the externalized benefits of conservation. Government agencies frequently entered disputes through regulatory authority over development approvals. Furthermore, disputes typically arose approximately 10 years after easement creation and were resolved within 2–3 years. Disputes were concentrated on undeveloped lands, and easement coverage averaged 78% of the disputed land area. Wildland and farmland dominated existing land uses, and residential development was consistently identified as the highest and best use, revealing persistent conversion pressure. Those findings suggested the need for standardized guidance to landowners at conveyance, clear rules governing third-party standing, and enhanced stewardship obligations for easement holders.

By topic, conservation easement litigation overwhelmingly focused on interpreting and enforcing existing restrictions rather than creating new easements. Among the 191 cases, the most common issues were interpretation of terms (68), monetary damages (40), injunctive relief (38), and efforts to void easements (34), whereas only 11 cases concerned easement creation. Enforcement disputes frequently arose from proposed construction, land management activities, or alleged violations, whereas voiding claims centered on validity challenges, takings, or termination efforts. Over the years, early cases emphasized creation and interpretation, while post-2005 litigation shifted decisively toward enforcement and remedies, accompanied by growth in injunctive and monetary claims. This transition reflected both the maturation of easement law and heightened development pressures. Those findings underscored the importance of improved drafting standards that anticipate enforcement scenarios and of developing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms tailored to long-term easement management.

Judicial outcomes consistently favored the preservation and enforcement of conservation easements, resulting in asymmetric outcomes for litigants. Landowners, the largest claimant group, lost 76% of their trial cases and experienced similarly high rates of loss on appeal. Third-party plaintiffs also faced unfavorable outcomes. By contrast, easement holders prevailed more often, with their success rates improving over time. Government agencies exhibited more variability in outcomes but ultimately prevailed in most disputes. These patterns underscored the institutional advantage of easement holders and agencies and revealed the limited success of challenges seeking flexibility or modification by landowners or third parties. Courts were shown to prioritize stability, precedent, and conservation intent over evolving landowner expectations. From a policy standpoint, these findings suggested the need for clearer remedial frameworks and improved disclosure of litigation risk to prospective stakeholders before easement conveyance.

Eminent domain and takings claims were identified as a narrow yet functional pathway for modifying or extinguishing conservation easements. Such claims arose primarily in efforts to void easements and succeeded only when a compelling public purpose was demonstrated, revealing the outer boundary of easement perpetuity and property rights. These cases illustrated circumstances in which conservation objectives yielded to public infrastructure or overriding land-use priorities. The predominance of perpetual easements held by public agencies or conservation entities reinforced both the durability of these instruments and the importance of institutional stewardship. At the same time, the persistence of takings claims highlighted unresolved tensions between fixed and perpetual conservation commitments and evolving public needs. In the future, legal frameworks should be improved to balance the permanence of conservation with adaptive mechanisms that address public needs.

Overall, the analyses demonstrated that conservation easements served as a durable yet legally complex instrument, with long-term implementation generating recurring disputes involving multiple parties and issues. In general, environmental benefits are often non-exclusive and have long been managed through command-and-control regulations; however, conservation policy in recent decades has increasingly relied on privatized approaches or markets, including forest certification, mitigation banking, and payments for ecosystem services. Conservation easements have aligned with this broader shift by tailoring contractual arrangements between several parties. At the same time, the presence of public funding, externalized conservation benefits, and regulatory approval authority has ensured that agencies remain enduring stakeholders in easement governance. The findings of this study help identify opportunities to reform the legal framework to clarify rights and obligations, reduce uncertainty, and lower the likelihood of conflict.

Future research could extend this study in several directions. Comparative analyses of state-level enabling statutes and associated litigation patterns could help identify legal features linked to lower dispute rates across states. Qualitative research involving landowners and easement holders in disputes could further illuminate decision-making processes, perceptions of fairness, and the underlying sources of conflict. In addition, where data permit, examining settlement patterns and unpublished disputes would provide a more comprehensive view of enforcement dynamics beyond reported cases. Finally, investigating the role of third-party enforcement rights and stewardship obligations could clarify how variations in monitoring authority and enforcement capacity influence compliance and the frequency of disputes.