Legal Definitions - larger parcel

In the context of eminent domain, which is the government's power to take private property for public use, a larger parcel refers to a unified tract of land that is owned and used together, even if it consists of multiple legal lots or is physically divided. When the government takes only a portion of this unified property, the owner may be entitled to compensation not only for the specific piece of land taken but also for the negative impact (known as severance damages) on the remaining, untaken portion of the larger parcel.

To qualify for these additional severance damages, courts typically look for three conditions demonstrating that the taken land was part of a larger, integrated property:

• Unity of Ownership: The same person or entity owns all parts of the property.
• Unity of Use: All parts of the property are used for a single, integrated purpose.
• Contiguity: The different parts of the property are physically connected or adjacent.

However, some jurisdictions, including federal courts, may still award severance damages even if the properties are not physically contiguous, provided there is very strong evidence that they are used as a single, integrated economic unit.

Here are some examples illustrating the concept of a "larger parcel":

• Example 1: Agricultural Land
  A farmer owns a 500-acre ranch, all under one deed, where they raise cattle and grow feed crops. The state decides to build a new reservoir that will flood 50 acres of the ranch, separating the main grazing pastures from the barn and water sources. The 500-acre ranch represents the "larger parcel." The farmer would be compensated for the 50 acres taken. Additionally, they would likely receive severance damages because the remaining 450 acres are now less functional and valuable due to the loss of critical land and the disruption to the integrated ranching operation. This illustrates unity of ownership, unity of use (ranching), and contiguity (all part of one connected ranch).

• Example 2: Commercial Business Property
  A retail shopping center developer owns three adjacent lots. Lot A contains the main department store, Lot B is a dedicated parking lot for customers, and Lot C houses several smaller boutique shops that share the parking and infrastructure of the larger center. All three lots are under the same ownership and are marketed as a single shopping destination. The city decides to acquire Lot B (the parking lot) to build a new public library. The three adjacent lots, despite being legally separate parcels, function as a single "larger parcel" for the shopping center. The taking of Lot B would not only require compensation for that specific lot but also severance damages for the negative impact on the remaining department store and boutique shops. The loss of essential parking would likely reduce customer traffic, decrease revenue, and diminish the overall value of the remaining retail properties.

• Example 3: Non-Contiguous but Integrated Industrial Facility
  A large manufacturing plant owns its main factory building on one side of a river. On the other side of the river, a quarter-mile away, it owns a separate, specialized facility used exclusively for waste treatment and disposal, which is legally required for the factory's operations. Both properties are owned by the same corporation and are absolutely critical to the manufacturing process. The county decides to acquire the waste treatment facility for a new public park. Even though the waste treatment facility is not physically contiguous with the main factory, it functions as an integral part of the factory's "larger parcel" due to the strong unity of use. The corporation would be compensated for the taken waste treatment facility. Furthermore, it would likely be entitled to severance damages because losing this essential facility would halt its manufacturing operations, forcing it to find costly alternative solutions or cease production, thereby severely impacting the value and viability of its remaining main factory property.