(a) Where property is sought to be taken under Section 1240.610, the defendant is entitled to continue the public use to which the property is appropriated if the continuance of such use will not unreasonably interfere with or impair, or require a significant alteration of, the more necessary public use as it is then planned or exists or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future.
§ 1240.630.Defendant Entitled to Continue Public Use
Title 7. Eminent Domain Law · Chapter 3. The Right to Take · Article 7. Condemnation for More Necessary Public Use · Enacted 1975 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 29, 2026
In one sentenceSection 1240.630 lets a defendant continue an existing public use on the property if continuing it will not unreasonably interfere with, impair, or require a significant alteration of the more necessary public use, and directs the court to decide that entitlement and fix the terms for shared use if the parties can't agree.
Full Text of § 1240.630
(b) If the defendant objects to a taking under this article on the ground that he is entitled under subdivision (a) to continue the public use to which the property is appropriated, upon motion of either party, the court shall determine whether the defendant is entitled under subdivision (a) to continue the use to which the property is appropriated; and, if the court determines that the defendant is so entitled, the parties shall make an agreement determining the terms and conditions upon which the defendant may continue the public use to which the property is appropriated, the terms and conditions upon which the property is taken by the plaintiff is acquired, and the manner and extent of the use of the property by each of the parties. Except as otherwise provided by statute, if the parties are unable to agree, the court shall fix such terms and conditions and the manner and extent of the use of the property by each of the parties.
Plain-English Summary
A more-necessary-use taking doesn't always mean the defendant's existing use has to disappear entirely. Section 1240.630 lets the defendant continue that existing use so long as continuing it won't unreasonably interfere with, impair, or require a significant alteration of the more necessary public use, whether that use is currently planned, already exists, or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future.
If the defendant claims this entitlement, either party can move the court to decide the question. If the court agrees the defendant is entitled to continue the existing use, the parties then have to work out an agreement covering the terms and conditions for that continued use, the terms on which the plaintiff's taking proceeds, and how each party will use the property. If they can't agree, the court fixes those terms itself.
This provision brings something like Article 6's compatible-use framework into a more-necessary-use case; even where one use has been found more necessary than the other, the two uses may still be able to share the property on the right terms.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a defendant keep using property after it's taken for a more necessary public use?
Yes, if continuing the existing use won't unreasonably interfere with, impair, or require a significant alteration of the more necessary public use.
How does the court resolve a dispute over this entitlement?
Upon motion of either party, the court determines whether the defendant is entitled to continue the existing use, and if so, fixes the terms and conditions for shared use when the parties can't agree themselves.
Does this section apply automatically, or does the defendant have to raise it?
The defendant has to object on this ground and seek the court's determination; it isn't automatic.
Amendment History
Added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 1275.
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
the Deering's California Codes Annotated / vLex. Enacted by the California Legislature.
Last verified July 29, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: continuing existing use after eminent domain california