Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Easements

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

EasementsQuestion 1 of 20

For 25 years, a farmer openly drove his equipment across a corner of his neighbor's unenclosed pasture to reach a public road. The neighbor was aware of the farmer's actions but never objected. Fifteen years into this period, the neighbor's son inherited the pasture. The son, wanting to be friendly, told the farmer, "I don't mind you using the path, feel free to continue." The farmer thanked him and continued his use for another 10 years. The son has now decided to fence the pasture and has told the farmer he can no longer cross. The statutory period for a prescriptive easement in the jurisdiction is 20 years.

Has the farmer acquired a prescriptive easement? Select one.

No, because the son's statement 10 years ago converted the farmer's use from adverse to permissive, defeating the claim.

No, because the use was never hostile, as the original neighbor never objected to the farmer's crossing.

Yes, because the use was open, continuous, and adverse for a period exceeding the 20-year statutory requirement.

Yes, because the farmer's use had already ripened into a prescriptive easement before the son gave permission.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Easements

Practice Easements in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Easements, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Has the farmer acquired a prescriptive easement? Select one.

No, because the son's statement 10 years ago converted the farmer's use from adverse to permissive, defeating the claim.
No, because the use was never hostile, as the original neighbor never objected to the farmer's crossing.
Yes, because the use was open, continuous, and adverse for a period exceeding the 20-year statutory requirement. (correct answer)
Yes, because the farmer's use had already ripened into a prescriptive easement before the son gave permission.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. A prescriptive easement requires use that is open, notorious, continuous, and adverse for the statutory period. The farmer's use met these criteria for the full 25 years. Adverse use does not require ill will; it simply means use without the owner's permission. The neighbor's silent acquiescence is not permission. The son's statement of permission came after the 20-year period had already run, at which point the easement had ripened and could not be defeated by subsequent permission. A is incorrect because the permission was granted after the 20-year period had already been satisfied. B is incorrect because 'adverse' or 'hostile' in this context means without permission, not with animosity; the lack of objection does not equal permission. D is a true statement but C is a better, more complete answer because it states all the required elements that were met.

Question 2

A homeowner owned Parcel A, which benefited from a properly recorded express easement for a driveway over neighboring Parcel B. The homeowner sold Parcel A to a buyer. The deed conveying Parcel A to the buyer described the land but made no mention of the driveway easement. The owner of Parcel B, arguing that the easement was not transferred, has now blocked the driveway.

Is the buyer of Parcel A entitled to use the driveway? Select one.

No, because the failure to mention the easement in the deed to the buyer caused the easement to be extinguished.
No, unless the buyer can establish a new easement by necessity by showing that Parcel A is now landlocked.
Yes, because the easement is appurtenant to Parcel A and automatically runs with the land to subsequent owners. (correct answer)
Yes, because the buyer, as a bona fide purchaser, is entitled to rely on all previously recorded interests benefiting the property.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. An easement appurtenant is one that benefits a particular parcel of land (the dominant estate). Such easements are considered part of the land they benefit and run with the land. This means the benefit of the easement automatically passes to new owners of the dominant estate, even if it is not mentioned in the deed of conveyance. A is incorrect because an appurtenant easement is not extinguished by its omission from a deed. B is incorrect because the buyer does not need to establish a new easement when a valid express easement already exists. D, while generally true, does not state the core legal principle at issue, which is that appurtenant easements run with the land.

Question 3

The owner of Parcel A held an express easement for a drainage ditch across adjacent Parcel B. Later, the owner of Parcel A purchased Parcel B, thereby owning both properties. For several years, she operated the two parcels as a single, unified farm. She then accepted a job in another state and sold Parcel A to a buyer. The deed to the buyer did not mention the original drainage easement. The new owner of Parcel A is now demanding that the original owner, who still owns Parcel B, allow him to use the drainage ditch.

Does the new owner of Parcel A have a right to use the drainage ditch across Parcel B? Select one.

Yes, because the original express easement was appurtenant and runs with the land to all successive owners.
Yes, because the easement was revived by implication when the original owner severed the parcels again.
No, because the deed to the new owner was silent, and easements must be expressly granted in writing to be enforceable.
No, because the original easement was extinguished by the doctrine of merger when the two parcels came under common ownership. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. The doctrine of merger provides that an easement is extinguished when the same person acquires ownership of both the dominant and servient estates. A person cannot have an easement over their own land. Once extinguished by merger, the easement does not automatically revive when the parcels are later severed. A new easement would have to be created. A is incorrect because the easement was extinguished and no longer existed to run with the land. B is incorrect because while a new easement could be created by implication from prior use, the original express easement is not 'revived.' The claim would be for a new implied easement, not the old express one. D is the most accurate statement describing the fate of the original easement. C is incorrect because easements can be created by implication or necessity, not just by express grant.

Question 4

A farmer has a valid, express easement to cross his neighbor's land to access his 40-acre farm (the dominant estate). The farmer then purchases an adjacent 20-acre parcel that is not part of the dominant estate. He begins using the easement to bring equipment to both the original 40-acre parcel and the newly acquired 20-acre parcel.

The neighbor seeks an injunction. What is the most likely outcome? Select one.

The court will deny the injunction because the additional use is a reasonable intensification of the farmer's activities.
The court will terminate the easement entirely because the farmer has intentionally misused it.
The court will deny the injunction but will order the farmer to pay the neighbor for the increased burden on the servient estate.
The court will grant an injunction prohibiting the farmer from using the easement to access the newly acquired 20-acre parcel. (correct answer)

Explanation: Easement law questions require you to understand the scope of permitted use and what constitutes misuse or overburden of the servient estate. When an easement holder uses the easement to benefit land beyond the original dominant estate, this constitutes an impermissible expansion of use. Here, the farmer's original easement was created to serve his 40-acre farm. When he begins using that same easement to access his newly acquired 20-acre parcel, he's exceeding the scope of the easement because the 20-acre parcel was never part of the dominant estate that the easement was meant to serve. Option D correctly identifies that courts will grant injunctive relief to prevent this unauthorized expansion. The neighbor can obtain an injunction specifically prohibiting use of the easement for the new parcel while preserving the farmer's right to use it for the original 40 acres. Option A is wrong because this isn't merely an intensification of existing use—it's use for an entirely different property that has no easement rights. Option B incorrectly suggests the entire easement would be terminated; courts prefer the less drastic remedy of limiting use to its proper scope rather than complete forfeiture. Option C is incorrect because monetary compensation doesn't address the fundamental legal violation, and courts don't typically order payment for unauthorized easement use when injunctive relief is appropriate. Remember: easements are tied to specific dominant estates. Any use that benefits non-dominant property exceeds the easement's scope, regardless of whether the same person owns both parcels.

Question 5

The deeds in a residential subdivision, including the deed to a homeowner's lot, contain a covenant stating, "No structure shall be erected that materially obstructs the view of the ocean from any other lot." The homeowner's neighbor to the east, whose lot is between the homeowner's lot and the ocean, has begun construction of a second-story addition that will block the homeowner's ocean view. The homeowner wishes to stop the construction.

What is the homeowner's best legal theory to enforce the restriction? Select one.

The deed restriction created a negative easement for light, air, and view which is enforceable against the neighbor. (correct answer)
The homeowner has a prescriptive easement for his view that the neighbor is interfering with.
The neighbor's construction constitutes a public nuisance by blocking a scenic view.
The homeowner has an implied easement for his view based on the subdivision's location and marketing.

Explanation: When you encounter deed restrictions in a subdivision context, you're dealing with real covenants and equitable servitudes that can create enforceable rights between property owners. These restrictions often function similarly to easements by limiting how property can be used. Here, the covenant "No structure shall be erected that materially obstructs the view of the ocean from any other lot" creates what's effectively a negative easement for view protection. A negative easement prevents the servient estate owner (the neighbor) from doing something that would interfere with the dominant estate owner's (homeowner's) rights. Since this restriction was in all deeds and specifically protects ocean views, it runs with the land and is enforceable against subsequent owners like the neighbor. Answer A correctly identifies this as an enforceable negative easement for view. Answer B is wrong because prescriptive easements require continuous, open, and hostile use for the statutory period - you can't "use" a view in the way required for prescription. Answer C fails because this affects only the homeowner's private view, not the general public, so it's a private rather than public nuisance matter. Answer D is incorrect because implied easements arise from prior use or necessity when property is divided, not from marketing materials or subdivision location. Remember that deed restrictions in subdivisions often create reciprocal negative easements that benefit all lot owners. Look for language that restricts activities and ask whether it creates enforceable rights running with the land - these are usually your strongest enforcement mechanisms.

Question 6

A landowner told his neighbor, "You can park your car on the back corner of my lot until I tell you otherwise." Relying on this, the neighbor paved the small parking area at a cost of $2,000. One year later, the landowner and the neighbor had a dispute, and the landowner told the neighbor he could no longer park on the lot.

What is the neighbor's best argument for a continued right to park on the lot? Select one.

The oral grant created a valid easement that is now binding on the landowner.
The neighbor has acquired a prescriptive easement through one year of open and notorious use.
The landowner's oral permission created a license that became irrevocable under the doctrine of estoppel. (correct answer)
The landowner's grant created a leasehold interest for which the neighbor's paving served as consideration.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The landowner's oral permission created a license, which is normally revocable at will. However, a license can become irrevocable through estoppel if the licensee invests substantial money or labor in reasonable reliance on the license's continuation. Here, the neighbor spent $2,000 paving the area in reliance on the permission, which is likely substantial enough to trigger estoppel. A is incorrect because an easement is an interest in land and generally must be in writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. B is incorrect because the use was permissive, not adverse, and the period is far too short for prescription. D is incorrect because the grant of a right to park is not a grant of exclusive possession, which is required for a lease.

Question 7

A woman's deed to her property includes the right "to take from the adjacent Quarry Parcel such gravel as is required for the maintenance of the driveway on her property." For many years, she took a few truckloads of gravel annually for this purpose. Recently, she started a landscaping business and began taking hundreds of truckloads of gravel from the quarry to sell to her customers.

The owner of the Quarry Parcel seeks to enjoin the woman's expanded gravel removal. Is the injunction likely to be granted? Select one.

Yes, because the right is appurtenant to her property, and its scope is limited to the needs of the dominant estate, not commercial sale. (correct answer)
No, because the woman's activity is a reasonable intensification of her right.
No, because the right to take gravel is a profit à prendre, and its holder may take as much as they wish unless a specific quantity is stated.
Yes, because any profit à prendre terminates automatically if the holder attempts to use it for commercial purposes.

Explanation: When you encounter property rights that allow someone to take materials from another's land, you're dealing with a profit à prendre. The key issue here is determining the scope of this right based on how it was granted. The deed grants the woman the right to take gravel "as is required for the maintenance of the driveway on her property." This language creates an easement appurtenant - a right that benefits her property specifically. The scope is clearly limited by the stated purpose: driveway maintenance. Her historical use (a few truckloads annually) demonstrates the intended scope, while her new commercial use (hundreds of truckloads for resale) far exceeds this limitation. Answer A correctly identifies that this appurtenant right is limited to the dominant estate's needs, not commercial exploitation. The woman has exceeded the granted scope. Answer B fails because this isn't merely an "intensification" - it's a fundamental change in purpose from personal maintenance to commercial enterprise, which exceeds the deed's scope entirely. Answer C misunderstands profit à prendre rules. Even when no specific quantity is stated, the scope is still limited by the language of the grant. Here, the purpose limitation ("for maintenance") inherently restricts quantity. Answer D creates a false rule. Profits à prendre don't automatically terminate upon commercial use - the issue is whether the commercial use falls within the granted scope, not whether it's commercial per se. Study tip: Always look for limiting language in easement grants. Words like "for the purpose of" or "as required for" create scope limitations that prevent unlimited exploitation, regardless of the type of property right involved.

Question 8

Has the farmer acquired a prescriptive easement? Select one.

No, because the son's statement 10 years ago converted the farmer's use from adverse to permissive, defeating the claim.
No, because the use was never hostile, as the original neighbor never objected to the farmer's crossing.
Yes, because the use was open, continuous, and adverse for a period exceeding the 20-year statutory requirement. (correct answer)
Yes, because the farmer's use had already ripened into a prescriptive easement before the son gave permission.

Question 9

A developer owned a large tract of land, which he subdivided into two parcels, Parcel A and Parcel B. He sold Parcel A to a buyer. The only practical way to access Parcel A from a public road is via a driveway that crosses Parcel B. The deed conveying Parcel A was silent regarding an easement. The buyer later learned of an old, unpaved logging trail that connected a remote corner of Parcel A to a different public road. This trail is impassable by standard vehicles for several months of the year due to flooding and would require substantial excavation and expense to be made usable year-round.

The buyer of Parcel A has filed suit seeking to establish a right-of-way over Parcel B. What is the probable outcome of the suit? Select one.

The buyer will lose, because the existence of the logging trail, however impractical, means the property is not strictly landlocked.
The buyer will win, because an easement by necessity will be implied as the logging trail does not provide reasonable or practical access. (correct answer)
The buyer will win, because an easement by implication from prior use was created by the developer's use of the land before subdivision.
The buyer will lose, because the failure to include an express easement in the deed is a fatal defect to any claim of right-of-way.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. An easement by necessity is created when an owner sells a landlocked portion of their property. The easement is implied over the seller's remaining land to provide access. While strict necessity is often required, most jurisdictions interpret this as practical or reasonable necessity, not absolute impossibility of access. An impassable and prohibitively expensive alternative like the logging trail does not defeat the claim of necessity. A is incorrect because courts do not require a showing of absolute necessity; practical necessity is sufficient. C is incorrect because there are no facts to establish a pre-existing use (quasi-easement); the facts only support necessity. D is incorrect because the entire point of an easement by necessity is that it is implied by law precisely when a deed is silent.

Question 10

You are representing a client who owns a large parcel of rural land. The land is burdened by a recorded express easement for a roadway that benefits the adjacent property. The easement is located in a way that prevents your client from building a planned addition to their home. Your client has offered to construct, at their sole expense, a new road in a more convenient location on their property that is just as direct and safe for the neighbor. The neighbor, who owns the dominant estate, has refused to consent to the relocation.

What is the most accurate advice regarding your client's ability to unilaterally relocate the easement? Select one.

The client may relocate the easement because the modern trend allows a servient owner to do so if it does not significantly burden the dominant estate.
The client may not relocate the easement because the majority rule holds that the location of an express easement is fixed and cannot be altered without the dominant owner's consent. (correct answer)
The client may relocate the easement but must pay the dominant estate owner fair market value for the original easement's location.
The client may not relocate the easement, but a court may grant the relocation if the client can demonstrate significant hardship.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The traditional and still-prevailing majority rule is that the location of an express easement is fixed by the instrument that created it and cannot be unilaterally changed by the servient owner, even if the new location is just as convenient and the servient owner bears all costs. A is incorrect because while the Restatement (Third) of Property has adopted this more flexible rule, it remains the minority position and is not the rule tested as standard common law on the bar exam. C and D are incorrect because they state remedies or standards that are not part of the majority rule concerning easement relocation.

Question 11

A landowner granted her friend, an artist, a signed writing stating: "I grant you the right to use the barn on my property as an art studio for as long as you live." The friend used the barn for five years. The landowner then sold her property to a buyer who was aware of the friend's use of the barn. The buyer now wants to revoke the friend's right to use the barn.

Can the buyer legally prevent the friend from using the barn? Select one.

Yes, because the grant created a license, which is revocable at will by the owner of the land.
Yes, because the grant was not recorded, it is not binding on a subsequent purchaser.
No, because the license became irrevocable under the doctrine of estoppel since the friend used it for five years.
No, because the grant created an easement in gross for the life of the friend, which is a non-revocable interest in land. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of the distinction between licenses and easements, which is crucial in property law. When analyzing grants of rights to use land, you need to determine whether the writing creates a revocable license or a binding property interest. The correct answer is D because the grant creates an easement in gross for the friend's lifetime. The key factors are: (1) the grant was in writing and signed, (2) it specifies a definite duration ("as long as you live"), and (3) it grants exclusive use of a specific area. This language creates a property interest that runs with the land and binds subsequent purchasers, especially when they have notice of the arrangement. Since the buyer was aware of the friend's use, the easement is enforceable against him. Answer A is wrong because while licenses are typically revocable, this grant's formal written nature and life-term duration indicate the parties intended to create something more permanent than a mere license. Answer B incorrectly assumes recording is required - while recording provides constructive notice, actual notice (which the buyer had) is sufficient to bind a subsequent purchaser to existing property interests. Answer C misapplies estoppel doctrine - while licenses can sometimes become irrevocable through estoppel, this analysis is unnecessary here since the writing already created an easement, not a license. Remember: Look for the formality of the grant and the duration specified. Written grants with definite terms typically create easements, while informal or indefinite permissions are usually licenses. The distinction determines whether subsequent owners are bound.

Question 12

A landowner had an express easement to use a path across a neighbor's property. For 30 years, the landowner did not use the path, instead accessing his property from a new public road. During this time, the path became overgrown. Recently, the landowner began clearing the path to use it again. The neighbor seeks a declaratory judgment that the easement has been terminated. The landowner never made any statements about the easement and took no action other than not using it.

Is the court likely to rule that the easement has been terminated? Select one.

Yes, by prescription, because the neighbor has reacquired the land free of the easement through 30 years of uninterrupted possession.
Yes, by abandonment, because 30 years of non-use is conclusive evidence of an intent to relinquish the easement.
No, because abandonment requires both non-use and a separate affirmative act showing a clear intent to relinquish the easement. (correct answer)
No, because an express easement can only be terminated by a formal written release filed in the land records.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. To terminate an easement by abandonment, the owner of the easement must demonstrate a clear intent to abandon it. This requires more than mere non-use, no matter how long the period of non-use is. There must be some affirmative act (e.g., building a permanent structure that blocks the easement holder's own access) that shows a clear intent to permanently relinquish the right. A is incorrect because for the servient owner to terminate an easement by prescription, they must physically block or otherwise interfere with the easement in a way that is adverse to the easement holder for the statutory period. Here, there was no such interference. B is incorrect because non-use alone is never sufficient to constitute abandonment. D is incorrect because easements can be terminated in several ways other than a written release, including merger, prescription, estoppel, and abandonment.

Question 13

Is the court likely to rule that the easement has been terminated? Select one.

Yes, by prescription, because the neighbor has reacquired the land free of the easement through 30 years of uninterrupted possession.
Yes, by abandonment, because 30 years of non-use is conclusive evidence of an intent to relinquish the easement.
No, because abandonment requires both non-use and a separate affirmative act showing a clear intent to relinquish the easement. (correct answer)
No, because an express easement can only be terminated by a formal written release filed in the land records.

Question 14

In 1980, a landowner granted a neighbor an express easement, properly recorded, providing for "ingress and egress by vehicle to the single-family residence" on the neighbor's lot. Recently, the neighbor's lot was rezoned for commercial use. The neighbor tore down the house and constructed a 20-unit motel, resulting in a significant increase in car and delivery truck traffic over the easement. The original landowner seeks to enjoin the increased traffic.

Is the landowner likely to succeed in obtaining an injunction? Select one.

No, because any use permitted by zoning laws is a reasonable development of the dominant estate.
No, because an increase in traffic is considered a normal and foreseeable evolution of the easement's use.
Yes, because the change in use from residential to commercial constitutes an unreasonable surcharge on the servient estate. (correct answer)
Yes, but only if the landowner can prove that the increased traffic has physically damaged the easement roadway.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The scope of an express easement is determined by its terms. While some intensification of use is permissible, changing the nature of the use from residential to commercial, especially when the original grant specified "single-family residence," goes beyond mere intensification. This change constitutes a surcharge or overburdening of the easement, which is not permitted. The servient landowner's remedy for a surcharge is an injunction to stop the excessive use. A is incorrect because zoning laws do not determine the scope of a private easement. B is incorrect because while some evolution is foreseeable, a complete change in the character of the use is not. D is incorrect because physical damage is not required to prove a surcharge; the excessive burden itself is the harm.

Question 15

Does the new owner of Parcel A have a right to use the drainage ditch across Parcel B? Select one.

Yes, because the original express easement was appurtenant and runs with the land to all successive owners.
Yes, because the easement was revived by implication when the original owner severed the parcels again.
No, because the deed to the new owner was silent, and easements must be expressly granted in writing to be enforceable.
No, because the original easement was extinguished by the doctrine of merger when the two parcels came under common ownership. (correct answer)

Question 16

Is the buyer of Parcel A entitled to use the driveway? Select one.

No, because the failure to mention the easement in the deed to the buyer caused the easement to be extinguished.
No, unless the buyer can establish a new easement by necessity by showing that Parcel A is now landlocked.
Yes, because the easement is appurtenant to Parcel A and automatically runs with the land to subsequent owners. (correct answer)
Yes, because the buyer, as a bona fide purchaser, is entitled to rely on all previously recorded interests benefiting the property.

Question 17

A woman owned a 100-acre tract with her residence on the northern half and a rental cabin on the southern half. For years, she accessed the cabin via a long driveway that crossed the northern half. She sold the southern half with the cabin to a buyer. The deed was silent as to access. The buyer and his renters continued to use the driveway for five years. The woman then sold the northern half with her residence to a new owner, who immediately blocked the driveway, claiming the cabin's owner has no legal right to use it.

What is the cabin owner's strongest argument for a continued right to use the driveway? Select one.

An easement by prescription was created by five years of continuous use after the initial sale.
An easement by necessity exists because the driveway is the only means of access to the cabin.
An easement by estoppel was created because the original owner allowed the buyer to use the driveway for five years.
An easement by implication from prior use was created at the time the original tract was severed. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. An easement by implication from prior use (or quasi-easement) is created when a property owner severs their land, and a use that existed before severance was (1) apparent and continuous, and (2) reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant part. Here, the driveway was apparent and continuous, and it was reasonably necessary (likely strictly necessary) for the enjoyment of the cabin. This easement was created by operation of law at the moment of severance. A is incorrect because the use was not adverse; it began with the implied permission of the common owner. B is incorrect because while the facts may also support an easement by necessity, implication from prior use is the more specific and stronger theory when a clear, pre-existing use is present. C is incorrect because there are no facts showing detrimental reliance by the cabin owner required for estoppel.

Question 18

A utility company was granted a written easement to "install and maintain one underground power cable" across a landowner's property. The easement was properly recorded. Ten years later, needing to increase capacity, the utility company entered the property, dug a second, parallel trench, and installed a second power cable next to the original one. The landowner has sued the utility company for trespass.

Is the landowner likely to prevail in the trespass action? Select one.

No, because utility companies have a right to upgrade their facilities to meet public demand, which is a foreseeable development.
No, because the harm to the landowner is minimal, and the public benefit of increased electrical capacity is great.
Yes, because the scope of the express easement was limited to a single cable, and installing a second cable exceeds that scope. (correct answer)
Yes, unless the utility company can prove that installing the second cable was strictly necessary to prevent power outages.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The scope of an express easement is defined by the language of the grant. Here, the grant specifically authorized "one underground power cable." Installing a second cable, even if needed for capacity, exceeds the scope of the rights granted. Use of a servient estate that exceeds the scope of an easement constitutes a trespass. A is incorrect because while some intensification is allowed, adding a second cable when the grant specified one is a change in the kind of burden, not just the degree. B is incorrect as a balancing of hardships is generally not used to expand the scope of an express easement. D is incorrect because necessity does not give an easement holder the right to unilaterally expand the scope of the grant.

Question 19

The neighbor seeks an injunction. What is the most likely outcome? Select one.

The court will deny the injunction because the additional use is a reasonable intensification of the farmer's activities.
The court will terminate the easement entirely because the farmer has intentionally misused it.
The court will deny the injunction but will order the farmer to pay the neighbor for the increased burden on the servient estate.
The court will grant an injunction prohibiting the farmer from using the easement to access the newly acquired 20-acre parcel. (correct answer)

Question 20

What is the homeowner's best legal theory to enforce the restriction? Select one.

The deed restriction created a negative easement for light, air, and view which is enforceable against the neighbor. (correct answer)
The homeowner has a prescriptive easement for his view that the neighbor is interfering with.
The neighbor's construction constitutes a public nuisance by blocking a scenic view.
The homeowner has an implied easement for his view based on the subdivision's location and marketing.