The doctrines of adverse possession and prescriptive easements often arise when there is a boundary dispute. At first blush, the two claims appear quite similar because a claimant of adverse possession and a prescriptive easement must prove many of the same elements. The outcomes of the two claims, however, are quite different. This post provides an overview of the similarities and differences between the two claims. (Of course, the case law provides myriad other nuances that are important to consider prior to bringing a claim.)
For both adverse possession and prescriptive easement, a claimant must prove “use of the land in a manner that has been (a) open, (b) notorious, (c) adverse to the owner, and (d) continuous or uninterrupted over a period of no less than twenty years.” Boothroyd v. Bogartz, 68 Mass.App.Ct. 40, 44 (2007). For a use to be open, the use “must be without attempted concealment.” Boothroyd, 68 Mass.App.Ct. at 44 (emphasis addeadverd). For a use to be notorious, “it must be sufficiently pronounced so as to be made known, directly or indirectly, to the landowner if he or she maintained a reasonable degree of supervision over the property” and “of such a character that the landowner is deemed to have been put on constructive notice of the adverse use.” Id. (emphasis added). For a use to be adverse, “it is not sufficient to show an intention alone to claim [the area] as of right, but that intention must be manifest by acts of clear and unequivocal character that notice to the owner of the claim might be reasonably inferred.” Houghton v. Johnson, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 825, 842 (2008). Last, a use must be continuous or uninterrupted for at least twenty years. Boothroyd, 68 Mass.App.Ct. at 44.
This is where the similarities between adverse possession and prescriptive easement ends. Generally, the requirements to prove these claims diverge in two ways. First, adverse possession requires a further element: exclusive use. Aspell v. Raad, 106 Mass. App. Ct. 291, 296 (2025). Second, an easement by prescription can only be established over a well-defined, specific location. Stone v. Perkins, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 265, 265 (2003). The most significant overall difference between adverse possession and prescriptive easement, however, is the remedy. Adverse possession grants title – or full legal ownership – over the claimed land. A prescriptive easement only grants a specific right to use a portion of another’s property.