§ 1240.530.Agreement By Parties Determining Terms and Conditions; Court Fixing Terms and Conditions
Title 7. Eminent Domain Law · Chapter 3. The Right to Take · Article 6. Condemnation for Compatible Use · Enacted 1975 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 29, 2026
Full Text of § 1240.530
Plain-English Summary
Winning the right to a compatible-use taking under § 1240.510 doesn't answer every practical question, since two public uses sharing one property still need ground rules for how that sharing works in practice. Section 1240.530 requires the parties to agree on the terms and conditions governing the taking and the manner and extent of each party's use; if they can't agree, the court fixes those terms itself.
Subdivision (b) gives the court a middle path when the plaintiff's original proposal doesn't hold up. If the court finds the use as originally proposed wouldn't satisfy § 1240.510, it doesn't have to deny the taking outright. It can instead ask whether the requirements could be satisfied by different terms and conditions, and if so, permit the taking on those adjusted terms while prescribing how each party will use the property.
Subdivision (c) lets the court order removal or relocation of structures or improvements, but only if that removal or relocation wouldn't significantly alter the use to which the property is already appropriated. Unless another statute says otherwise, the plaintiff bears all the costs and damages that removal or relocation causes.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if the parties can't agree on how to share the property?
The court fixes the terms and conditions upon which the property is taken and the manner and extent of its use by each party.
What if the plaintiff's original proposed use doesn't satisfy § 1240.510?
The court can consider whether different terms and conditions would satisfy the requirements, and if so, allow the taking on those adjusted terms instead of denying it outright.
Can the court order existing structures moved to make room for the new use?
Yes, if the relocation wouldn't significantly alter the existing appropriated use, with the plaintiff bearing the resulting costs and damages unless a statute provides otherwise.
Amendment History
Added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 1275.