I made a costly assumption on a 60-acre purchase back in the early 2000s. The access looked obvious — a gravel road running straight to the parcel, used by neighbors for years. What I didn't dig into hard enough was the easement language itself. Turned out the recorded easement covered agricultural use only. My logging equipment, legally speaking, had no business on that road. The neighbor with the dominant parcel was not shy about telling me so.
I had to negotiate a separate timber access agreement from scratch, which cost me both time and money I hadn't budgeted. Since then, I tell every buyer I consult: read the actual easement document, not just the deed. Confirm it covers your intended use — logging, heavy equipment, commercial activity — not just general ingress and egress.
Conventional wisdom says 'make sure there's legal access.' That's not nearly specific enough. The type of access permitted matters just as much as whether it exists.
Anyone else run into easement language that technically granted access but practically blocked your intended land use?