Where property has been appropriated to public use by a local public entity, the use thereof by the local public entity is presumed to be a more necessary use than any use to which such property might be put by any other local public entity. The presumption established by this section is a presumption affecting the burden of proof.
§ 1240.660.Presumption Use By Local Public Entity More Necessary 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 1240.660 presumes, subject to rebuttal on the burden of proof, that a local public entity's use of its own already-appropriated property is more necessary than any use another local public entity might propose for that same property.
Full Text of § 1240.660
Plain-English Summary
Sections 1240.640 and 1240.650 sort out priority involving the state and public entities generally. Section 1240.660 fills in the remaining gap between local public entities specifically. Where property has been appropriated to public use by a local public entity, that entity's continued use of the property is presumed more necessary than any use to which another local public entity might want to put it.
Unlike § 1240.650's flat, unqualified language for public entities against non-public-entities, this section uses presumption language throughout, and confirms the presumption affects the burden of proof, meaning a competing local public entity has to persuade the court, not merely produce some contrary evidence, to displace the existing local use.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this section protect a local public entity's property from being condemned by another local public entity?
It creates a rebuttable presumption favoring the existing local public entity's continued use, which the entity seeking to condemn must overcome by persuading the court otherwise.
How does this differ from § 1240.650's rule?
Section 1240.650 states its more-necessary-use conclusion for public entities generally without presumption language in most circumstances; § 1240.660 expressly frames its rule as a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof.
Does this section apply to the state?
No, it addresses priority between two local public entities specifically; § 1240.640 covers the state's priority.
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: local public entity more necessary use california