The doctrine, and the term that carries it

"Unity of ownership" is the condemnation concept that determines whether two parcels — or two interests — are treated as one property for the purpose of severance damages. Where a taking from one parcel reduces the value of another held in the same ownership, the owner is compensated for the reduction, not just for what was taken.

The move the panel made is to treat an easement holder's interest in an association-owned common lot as the kind of interest that satisfies that unity. That is not a small step. It converts the recorded easement in the members' deeds from a use right into a compensable property interest.

Where this bites for New Jersey associations

New Jersey has a long shoreline, an active beach-replenishment and storm-damage-reduction programme, and a great many oceanfront and bayfront communities whose beach, dune, dock or marina lots are held by the association with members' easements recorded over them.

The same structure recurs inland: lake associations, shared open space, private recreation parcels. Any of those can be condemned in whole or part for flood control, road widening, utility corridors or environmental easements.

The decision means that when it happens, the compensation question is not answered by looking at the association's deed alone.

The practical problem it creates for boards

This is the part that matters before a condemnation arrives rather than during one, because it is genuinely awkward.

An association negotiating a condemnation award is not negotiating on behalf of an undivided membership. Members with waterfront homes, members whose views or access are directly affected, and members three streets back have materially different severance exposure — and the decision confirms they can pursue it individually.

A settlement the board thinks is good for the association may be indifferent, or adverse, to a subset of members with independent claims. Boards in that position should be taking advice early on whether the association can settle at all without prejudicing members, and on what it must disclose to them.

The recorded easement is the asset

Everything here turns on the members actually holding recorded non-exclusive easements over the lot. Communities where access to the common beach or lake rests on membership alone, on a licence, or on long practice rather than a recorded instrument are in a different position.

That is a document question worth answering in advance. It bears on resale disclosure as much as on condemnation: whether a buyer is acquiring a recorded property right in the shared amenity or a revocable privilege is not a detail.

Scope

This was an interlocutory appeal from a denial of summary judgment, so nothing has been decided about what any member will actually recover. The holding is that the claims may go to a jury, separately from the association's. That is a procedural ruling with substantive consequences, and it is as far as the decision goes.