adjacent property B (a small apartment building) the right to park 7 vehicles on A's property.
The easement specifically says that it is "for the use and benefit of the owner and/or occupants of the apartments."
Oddly, Property A gets no compensation for this.
So, it turns out that Property B is actually renting out the spaces to a law firm with offices around the corner, AND collecting rent for that.
Setting the compensation angle aside, isn't Property B in violation of the easement, since they are not using it themselves?
Is this this grounds to nullify the easement?
The legal document itself says the easement remains in perpetuity as long as the apartment building stands, OR the easement is "subject to the right of the governing body of the City of X to vacate the same hereafter."
Property owner A would be even be willing to compensate Property B to vacate the easement, but it seems there is potential leverage there if a grievance is filed by A at the City. In the very least, A can force B to use the spots themselves, which they haven't needed to do and will lose revenue on, and might push them to the table to negotiate a buyout.
Thoughts? I am not the owner but a prospective buyer of A.