California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Pipkin v. Der Torosian, 111 Cal.Rptr. 46, 35 Cal.App.3d 722 (Cal. App. 1973):
'However, the fact the driveway was used for ingress and egress for residential and farming purposes does not necessarily, as a matter of law, show such use was broad enough to give the right to drive house trailers over the driveway, nor to permit The driveway to be burdened with the increased uses which would result from the operation of the trailer park, including the use by the occupants thereof. In such a case there is an Actual change in the physical objects passing over the road. Such a change would be radical, and the driveway cannot be used for the new purpose required by the altered condition of the respondent's property due to the trailer park. Such a use would be a substantial change in the Nature of the use and a consequent increase of burden upon the servient estate. It would be something more than a change in the degree of use.' (165 Cal.App.2d at pp. 785--786, 332 P.2d at p. 438; emphasis added.)
(See Hill v. Allan (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 470, 66 Cal.Rptr. 676.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.