Easements, Rights-of-Way, and Utility Lines

Indiana landowners are often asked by utility companies, county highway departments, and public utilities whether the entity can install a line or wire under, on, or over the landowner’s property. The county may suggest it already has a right-of-way (“ROW”) across the land or may request a new easement right. What are a landowner’s options in such a situation? Of course, each situation is different and may be controlled by a written grant from decades ago, so real estate owners should always check with their own attorney to see how these laws apply to their circumstances. But, Indiana case law and statutes provide valuable insight on how the law treats an easement or right-of-way across private property.

Just Compensation. First, remember that the government cannot take your property without paying “just compensation.” The United States Constitution and the Indiana Constitution protect the landowner. Neither a county, utility, nor other government entity can take private property for roads, utility pipes, or transmission lines without just compensation. A ROW is a type of easement, and neither a public ROW nor a private easement transfers ownership of the land itself.

ROW Location. Where no record shows that the county acquired a ROW, Indiana law determines the width of the ROW by historical public use. The width of a road established by use is limited to that portion actually traveled by the public and excludes any berm or shoulder. Contel of Indiana, Inc. v. Coulson. A government’s periodic entry into the shoulder area alongside a road to mow do maintenance does not create or widen a ROW; the government just has a limited license to enter that roadside area. Beyond the path traveled by the public, a ROW must be evidenced by a “document of record” that gives the landowner notice. A document of record may be a Commissioners’ Order or other filing recorded in publicly available records such as the recorder’s or auditor’s office. WorldCom Network Services v. Thompson.

ROW Purpose. Once it is clear a public ROW or easement exists, Indiana allows a utility to place facilities within the public ROW without the abutting owner’s consent, and such use is generally not treated as an additional, separately compensable burden. For example, courts have held that a new pipeline installed under a road in an existing ROW does not increase the burden on the landowner, so it is not a trespass. Federal courts apply the same compatibility principle. In West v. Louisville Gas & Elec., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held Indiana recognizes that a historical ROW may grant permission for installation of modern technology if it is compatible with the original grant. This compatibility principle does have limits and landowners should look closely at the original grant of the ROW and compare it to the proposed new use. Indiana does not recognize a “shifting public use” doctrine. In other words, a new use falls “within the scope of the easement” only if the new use “is compatible with the original purpose” of the easement. As an example, a recreational hiking trail does not serve the same purpose as an industrial rail line, so an easement granted for the latter cannot be transformed into a new recreational trail under historical easement language. Howard v. United States. A new use compatible with the original purpose (gas by pipe rather than truck, or communications by telephone line rather than mail) stays within the scope and adds no burden on landowners; but a use serving a different purpose does not. Thus, whether a new transmission or fiber line is permissible turns on whether it shares the original ROW’s purpose, not merely on whether it fits within the ROW’s footprint.

Utility Easement Caselaw. Two recent Indiana decisions strengthen a landowner’s position against overly broad utility takings. In 701 Niles, LLC v. AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission, the Court of Appeals held a utility could not use condemnation proceedings to secure an easement for a public transmission line and a separate private university line. The landowner acknowledged the “public use” of the power line, but the parties could not agree on the amount of just compensation owed. During the appraisal process, the landowner learned the utility had entered into an agreement allowing a private university to use the duct bank for a separate private transmission line. The court held the private line was “not incidental” to the public use but a separate property right that could not be taken by eminent domain. The third party could not piggyback on the easements acquired by the utility through the power of eminent domain and had to negotiate privately with the landowner for an easement.

The 701 Niles case was reinforced in 2026. In Lingle v. Citizens Water of Westfield, the court held that an easement is not defined solely by its physical dimensions but equally defined by the scope of its permitted uses. It held that a utility condemning land for a water-line easement could not bootstrap additional sewer, gas, or other regulated utility uses into the same footprint. Instead, a utility must show an immediate or present need and may not maintain an action of condemnation for purely speculative future needs. Id. The court in Lingle distinguished the Howard compatibility language as applying only to existing easements. For a new proposed easement, Indiana landowners have the ability under statute to object to a taking where the condemnor lacks “the right to exercise the power of eminent domain for the use sought.” I.C. § 32-24-1-8(a)(2).

Takeaways. If a county or utility proceeds without legal justification, the landowner has remedies. A landowner may have a claim for inverse condemnation where there is (1) a taking or damaging; (2) of private property; (3) for public use; (4) without just compensation being paid; and (5) by a governmental entity that has not instituted formal proceedings. I.C. § 32-24-1-16. Trespass exists when a defendant does work outside the ROW or outside the easement’s scope. Before resorting to litigation, landowners should take certain steps, which may include (1) requesting the documents “of record” which purportedly establish an existing ROW or easement; (2) obtaining the utility’s permits or applications for permits; (3) appearing at the relevant governing body’s meetings or hearings—this may be the county commissioners, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, or another body; and (4) comparing the original grant and the proposed use for consistency in location, width, and purpose. If the utility or company proceeds beyond the recorded ROW or beyond the easement’s scope, the landowner may consider a claim for inverse condemnation or trespass.