The remnant problem is an especially serious one in cities. Whether a street improvement involves only simple widening or the opening of a new alinement, a neat acquirement of precisely the lands required for the improvement may leave the abutting owners in possession of remnants, often narrow and irregular in shape, for which there is no really desirable use. Often their only possible use is for the erection of sign boards, shanties, or some types of stand developments that are usually unsightly and detrimental to the neighborhood. Such areas, moreover, unable to support a useful building, cut off property which otherwise would have street frontage. They thus not only have no great value in themselves, but prevent benefits which otherwise would accrue to nearby properties.
The remnants created by the construction of rural highways generally involve the cutting off from farms of areas that are too narrow, small, or irregular for convenient and economical tillage. In the case of heavily traveled roads, even quite large parcels separated from the main body of farms may take on the aspect of remnants, particularly where the lands affected are devoted to livestock purposes, unless underpasses are constructed to afford safe access to the parcels so cut off. And, in some cases, the value of the land to the owner may be substantially destroyed by the penetration of a highway, so that two remnants are formed, one on each side of the highway.
The problem with respect to freeways will arise with increasing frequency in the future, in connection with efforts to restrict or deny the right of access to highways from abutting lands. This is a common-law right in both England and the United States. The occasion for such roads of limited access has been previously explained in this report.
It appears to be a principle upon which the courts generally agree that if the right of access to a street or highway from abutting land is wholly denied the result may be equivalent to a taking of the property itself and may entitle the owner to compensation accordingly. Where complete denial of access is not involved, impairment may be considered a proper element of damages. Therefore, it may be taken as a fact that the cutting off of abutting owners from access to a highway or street must either be accompanied by a payment of damages or by the construction of service roads that will furnish access at other reasonably convenient points.
While this condition would seem to be reasonable with respect to premises served by an existing road that is incorporated into a freeway or road of limited access, if the public buys a right-of-way for such a road in a new location where highway service has not previously existed it would seem illogical to permit the abutting lands to claim damages because of the denial of access thereto. Yet, unless there is a change in existing law and a reversal of judicial opinion in many States, the abutting properties will possess the same right of access to new roads as to old ones.
While there is no question that public authorities may close access from abutting land to a street or highway with the consent of the owner and upon payment of compensation or damages, there is, even in the face of specific statutory authority, some question as to the power of public agencies to deny the right of access without such consent. Such power is specifically conferred by a freeway law enacted in Rhode Island in 1937 (Public Laws of 1937, ch. 2537). The text of this act,
144049°—39——9
