How have the courts interpreted an Agreement of Agreement of easement?

Rodriguez next contends that his interpretation of the contract is supported by the fact that, throughout the 1990s, his neighbor allowed him to drive all the way down to the rear of his property. Rodriguez asserts that we must "consider the acts of the parties prior to the controversy and apply great weight to the meaning of said acts and conduct in construing the Agreement of easement." If the extent of the easement is in question, courts can infer intent from the "actual uses being made at the time of the grant [and]... such uses as the facts and circumstances show were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of the conveyance." (Neff v. Ernst (1957) 48 Cal.2d 628, 635-636.) Even assuming that the extent of the easement is not clear, however, Rodriguez failed to introduce any evidence regarding the use of the easement at the time of the conveyance. Instead, he merely provided testimonial evidence that, 30 years after the easement agreement was entered into, his neighbor, a nonsignatory to the agreement, allowed him to drive to the rear of his property. This conduct does not demonstrate the original intent of the parties and, therefore, is not relevant to the interpretation of the easement agreement.