What is Civil Code Section 1008?

As stated on the State of California Legislature website:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1008

DIVISION 2. PROPERTY [654 – 1422] ( Heading of Division 2 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 13. )
PART 4. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY [1000 – 1422] ( Part 4 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 2. OCCUPANCY [1006 – 1009] ( Title 2 enacted 1872. )
1008.
No use by any person or persons, no matter how long continued, of any land, shall ever ripen into an easement by prescription, if the owner of such property posts at each entrance to the property or at intervals of not more than 200 feet along the boundary a sign reading substantially as follows: “Right to pass by permission, and subject to control, of owner: Section 1008, Civil Code.”

(Added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 926.)

This code can be used when someone owns a property but does not limit access, per se. In the case of the Ridge Route, the person posting these signs does not own the roadway and cannot legally post nor enforce these signs.

One of the projects we are presently working on, and an important one at that, is to have this situation corrected. The Ridge Route is a public highway on public land. Once this problem is resolved, it will be a lot easier to convince the proper authorities to reopen the roadway.

5 thoughts on “What is Civil Code Section 1008?”

  1. thanks for the update on the property owner on the south end. I was under the assumption that the state or who was in control of the road had to get an easement from some property owners and that is where the problem began. If he does not own the road and it is truly public property they as you say he has no right to deny access.

    1. His claim to the roadway is an unfortunate side effect of the County of Los Angeles vacating the roadway instead of quit-claiming or relinquishing it. In a vacation, the land reverts to the original “fee owner”, which in this case is the US Government, today the Angeles National Forest. The land this person owns was homesteaded AFTER the Ridge Route was constructed and never included the roadway right-of-way.

  2. I have loved this road since an article back in the ’60’s by Russ Leadabrand. I first drove it in ’66 or ’67, well before it was closed. It’s been such a disappointment to so many, especially, I would imagine, to (Harrison) “Scotty” Scott, having this road closed. And now to find that it is illegally blocked is just infuriating. Yes, Fight On!! I only hope this can be reopened so others can see this great part of California’s history!

Leave a Reply