Short answer. Under Civil Code Article 654, the owner of the dominant estate — the property that benefits from the right of way — pays for repairs. That same owner must also reimburse the servient estate owner a proportionate share of the taxes attributable to the portion used as the right of way.
What the law says
If the right of way is permanent, the necessary repairs shall be made by the owner of the dominant estate. A proportionate share of the taxes shall be reimbursed by said owner to the proprietor of the servient estate.
Civil Code, Article 654 — Repairs and Taxes. Read the full provision →
The dominant estate owner maintains the right of way
Article 654 follows the logic that the person who benefits from a right of way should shoulder its upkeep. When the right of way is permanent — not temporary or conditional — the owner of the dominant estate bears the cost of necessary repairs. The dominant estate is the property that uses the right of way to reach a public road or to exercise some other right. It is that owner's responsibility to keep the path in the condition needed for its proper use, not the responsibility of the servient owner whose land carries the burden.
Tax reimbursement to the servient owner
Article 654 also addresses taxes. The land occupied by the right of way continues to be part of the servient estate for tax purposes — the servient owner still pays the assessed taxes on that portion of their land. Article 654 compensates for this: the dominant estate owner must reimburse the servient owner a proportionate share of those taxes. The proportion reflects how much of the servient estate is taken up by the right of way. The servient owner does not end up subsidising the dominant owner's access by bearing the full tax burden on land that the dominant owner exclusively uses.
Why this allocation makes sense
The repair-and-tax allocation in Article 654 reflects a consistent principle across the Civil Code's treatment of easements: the burden of maintaining an easement rests on the one who benefits, not the one who suffers the encumbrance. The servient owner already tolerates the permanent incursion on their land — a corridor they cannot use themselves, which must be kept passable for the dominant owner's benefit. Requiring the servient owner to also pay for maintenance and bear the full tax burden on that strip would compound the injustice. Article 654 ensures the costs follow the benefits.
Disputes over what counts as 'necessary' repairs
The article covers necessary repairs, which sets a floor but also a ceiling. Repairs that keep the right of way functional and safe qualify; improvements or upgrades that go beyond necessity may be a different matter. If the dominant estate owner wants to pave a previously unpaved path, install drainage, or otherwise improve the way beyond its original condition, the question of who pays for improvements — as opposed to maintenance — is not directly addressed in Article 654. In practice, disputes most commonly arise about what counts as repair versus improvement, and about calculating the proportionate share of taxes owed. Legal advice is useful when these disagreements surface between neighbours sharing a permanent right of way.