Short answer. Yes, in two situations: the enclosed land is joined to another parcel that abuts a public road, or a new road opens to it. The servient owner may then demand extinguishment — but he must return the indemnity, and the new access must substantially meet the dominant estate's needs.
What the law says
If the right of way granted to a surrounded estate ceases to be necessary because its owner has joined it to another abutting on a public road, the owner of the servient estate may demand that the easement be extinguished, returning what he may have received by way of indemnity.
Civil Code, Article 655 — Extinguishment When No Longer Necessary. Read the full provision →
Necessity is the condition of its existence
A compulsory right of way is not a reward or a bargain; it exists because a piece of land could not otherwise be reached. Remove the isolation and the justification goes with it. The article names two ways that happens — the owner has joined it to another abutting on a public road, and the case where a new road is opened giving access to the isolated estate. Note that the initiative lies with the servient owner: the easement does not lapse on its own, someone has to demand that it be extinguished.
The test that decides most of these cases
Everything turns on the last sentence: in both cases the public highway must substantially meet the needs of the dominant estate in order that the easement may be extinguished. Substantially, not theoretically. A new road that exists on a plan but is impassable half the year, or reaches the corner of the property no vehicle can use, or serves a house but not the farm equipment the land depends on, has not replaced the old access. The dominant owner's defence is almost always built here rather than on the fact of the road.
Giving the money back
Extinguishment is not free either. The servient owner demands it returning what he may have received by way of indemnity, so the strip is paid back for as the burden is lifted. The article then settles what would otherwise be an argument about the years in between: the interest on the indemnity shall be deemed to be in payment of rent for the use of the easement. Neither side accounts for the intervening period — the interest is treated as the rent, and the principal simply returns.
If you are on either side of this
The servient owner should be able to show the change concretely: the deed or consolidation that joined the parcels, the plan showing the new road, and evidence that the land is in fact reachable by it in the way the property is actually used. The dominant owner should document the opposite — what the property needs to get in and out, and what the new access cannot carry. Where the way was annotated on the titles, extinguishment should end with the annotation being cancelled, not merely with everyone agreeing to stop using it.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 655 — Extinguishment When No Longer Necessary
- Civil Code, Article 649 — The Compulsory Right of Way