Arizona Supreme Court Holds That Property Owner Who Quarreled With Light Rail Construction Should Be Compensated For Lost Access

by Snell & Wilmer

Late last week, the Arizona Supreme Court handed down a decision that clarified the rights of property owners who lose access to an abutting road and, in the process, reinforced the principle that both elimination and substantial impairment of access is compensable under the Arizona Constitution.  But perhaps more significant, the Supreme Court in City of Phoenix v. Garretson held that a property owner should be compensated even if it retains relatively convenient access to that road through other means.

In so holding, the Supreme Court no doubt sent initial shockwaves through public works departments across Arizona who may be wondering whether they are hamstrung in making even basic traffic improvements.  For the reasons discussed below, however, there is little cause for concern based upon the Garretson decision.

Factual Background.  The dispute in Garretson centered around a commercial parking lot in downtown Phoenix.  The property is bounded by Jefferson Street to the north, 1st Street to the east, Madison Street to the south, and a smaller parcel abutting Central Avenue to the west.

In 2005, the City of Phoenix offered to purchase a temporary construction easement on the property for use in connection with the construction of the Light Rail project, to which Garretson agreed.

As part of the construction, the City placed rail tracks on the north side of the property and erected a curb which permanently blocked two driveways on the property that had previously allowed direct access to and from Jefferson Street.  However, the property still retained access from Madison Street and First Street:


Shortly after completing the Light Rail, the City filed a complaint in eminent domain to determine just compensation for the easement.  In his answer, however, Garretson claimed the right to be compensated for the loss of access to Jefferson Street and the resulting reduction in property value.  The City responded that it had exercised its authority to control access to roadways as part of its police power, and that any damage to the property from loss of access to Jefferson Street was non-compensable. Alternatively, the City argued that, because Garretson retained access to the property through other routes, his access had not been substantially impaired in a manner justifying compensation.

The trial court granted partial summary judgment for the City, reasoning that a property owner may not receive compensation of loss of access to a thoroughfare if the owner otherwise retains “free and convenient access” to the property. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, when the government eliminates a property owner’s established access to an abutting street while the owner retains access from another street, the owner is not necessarily foreclosed from obtaining compensation.  The City appealed, leading to last week’s decision.

Supreme Court Ruling.  In rejecting the City’s arguments, the Supreme Court sought to reconcile two arguably conflicting prior decisions:  State ex rel. Morrison v. Thelberg, 87 Ariz. 318 (1960), which held that an “abutting property owner to a highway has an easement of ingress and egress to and from his property,” and State ex rel. Herman v. Schaffer, 105 Ariz. 478 (1970), which held “direct access to a highway is not a private property right.”  The key to harmonizing these decisions, the Court figured, was to distinguish between impairment of a property owner’s “right of access,” which is compensable, and government “regulation of traffic flow,” which is not.  Thus, without overruling anything, the Court distilled the following two principles that should govern compensation cases:

  • The government possesses the most discretion to regulate traffic flow with respect to “controlled access highways.”  Thus, the government may restrict access to such highways, or reconfigure the roadway system entirely, without triggering compensation for adjoining landowners who lose their direct access.
  • A property owner does have a constitutional right to access roads directly abutting its property, however.  Thus, a property owner may be entitled to compensation if (1) the government completely destroys access to an abutting road, or (2) the government substantially impairs the owner’s access to an abutting road and the remaining access proves “unreasonably circuitous.”

In other words, the Supreme Court appears to attribute significance to the distance between a landowner’s property and that landowner’s preferred roadway system: having access to the streets immediately surrounding the property remains paramount, but a landowner has no particular right to access other (more distant) streets or highways with the same ease previously enjoyed.

With respect to the City of Phoenix’s claim, the Supreme Court held it was irrelevant that Garretson had reasonable alternative means of access to Jefferson Street.  “Other means of access may mitigate damages, but does not constitute a defense to the action. . . .  The availability of other means of access . . . is relevant only to the measure of damages.”  Thus, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine the decrease in fair market value to Garretson’s property based on the elimination of access to Jefferson Street.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that it was irrelevant in a case like this whether Garretson’s access had been substantially impaired or whether his remaining access to Jefferson Street was unreasonably circuitous.  Because the City had completely eliminated Garretson’s direct access to an abutting street—even though a 5 or 10 second drive on 1st Street would put any parking lot visitor very quickly back onto Jefferson Street—Garretson was still entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In sum, it will now be incumbent upon the trial court to determine how much Garretson should be compensated, if at all.  He would certainly have a stronger case if First Street ran only one way to the south, which would require a parking lot visitor to drive clockwise around the entire property in order to access Jefferson Street.  But since First Street, not to mention Madison Street, run in both directions, thereby providing any visitor with relatively easy access to Jefferson Street, the next stage of litigation will most likely come down to a battle of the experts.  Thus, the City of Phoenix may have lost the battle, but it might just ultimately win the war considering the fact Garretson is by no means a landlocked property owner.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Snell & Wilmer | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Snell & Wilmer

Snell & Wilmer on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.