Development frequently requires relocating an easement, and whether that can be done unilaterally has divided the law.
Traditional rule. Neither party may change the location of a fixed easement without the other’s consent.
Modern approach. A number of states now permit the burdened owner to relocate an easement at its own expense, provided the change does not significantly lessen the utility of the easement, increase the burden on the easement holder, or frustrate the purpose for which it was created. The trend is toward this approach and it is not universal.
Express provisions. Where the grant reserves a right to relocate on stated conditions, courts enforce it, which is the reliable route and costs one sentence at creation.
Practical process. Engineering showing equivalent function; a written agreement with the holder; a new recorded instrument describing the relocated easement and releasing the old; and coordination with any utility occupying it.
Utility easements are governed by their own terms and by franchise arrangements, and utilities generally require full cost reimbursement and control the design.
Overburdening. Separately from relocation, a dominant owner who intensifies use beyond the grant — serving additional parcels, for example — may be enjoined, and that is a common consequence of subdivision.