Massachusetts town can take conservation and beach access rights over Northeastern University land despite plans for campus expansion, high court rules
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has ruled that the town of Nahant can take conservation and public access easements over land owned by Northeastern University, despite the effect on the university’s planned campus expansion. In Town of Nahant v. Northeastern University, decided on September 3, 2026, the state’s highest court reversed a lower court ruling that had found the town’s stated public purpose to be a pretext for stopping development. The dispute concerns East Point, a coastal peninsula where Northeastern operates a Marine Science Center and the town maintains a public park. Nahant’s plan would restrict development across about 12.5 acres and establish public access to Canoe Beach. The court held that conservation, open space and scenic preservation are legitimate public purposes under Massachusetts law, and that Northeastern had no reasonable chance of proving the taking invalid on grounds of bad faith. The case returns to the Superior Court, which is to enter an order establishing the town’s right to take the easements. The town must still pay just compensation.
East Point dispute: why Nahant sought conservation and access easements over Northeastern University landEast Point is a 28.7-acre peninsula in Nahant, a small coastal town in Essex County, Massachusetts. Northeastern owns 20.4 acres of the peninsula, including the site of its Marine Science Center, while the town owns the remaining 8.3 acres, which it maintains as a public park. Access to the park crosses university property under an existing easement. In 2018, Northeastern announced plans to expand its campus at East Point. The proposal included a 55,000-square-foot building, additional parking and a geothermal wellfield. The plans prompted opposition from residents and town officials concerned about development in the area. In May 2021, town meeting voted to authorise the use of eminent domain to acquire conservation and public access easements over university land. The votes approved the taking and the use of $1.5 million in Community Preservation Act funds to help pay for it. The town’s board of selectmen subsequently issued an order covering two conservation easements and one access easement across roughly 12 acres.
The conservation easements would preserve the land in an open condition and prevent new buildings, while allowing existing structures to be used and maintained. The access easement would establish public rights to use Canoe Beach for outdoor recreation. The Nahant Preservation Trust, a nonprofit organisation, donated $3 million earmarked for the taking under a gift agreement. Nahant petitioned the Massachusetts Superior Court to establish its right to acquire the easements. Northeastern challenged the action, arguing that conservation was not the town’s true objective and that the taking was intended to stop its planned expansion. The Superior Court agreed with the university, dismissed the town’s petition and awarded Northeastern more than $1 million in attorney’s fees and costs. The town appealed.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling : why conservation and scenic protection qualify as public purposesThe Supreme Judicial Court examined whether Nahant’s stated reasons for taking the easements amounted to a legitimate public purpose. Justice Dewar, writing for the court, explained that public-purpose determinations give substantial weight to legislative judgment, and that courts generally do not investigate the motives of individual voters behind a town’s formal decision. The court said preserving land in a natural, scenic and open condition is a recognised public purpose. Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution expressly identifies the protection of natural resources as a public purpose, while earlier court decisions have recognised scenic preservation as a legitimate objective as well. Northeastern argued that protecting the town’s scenic character was insufficient to justify the taking. The justices rejected that argument, relying on Massachusetts precedent and the broader principles governing eminent domain, the legal power of government to acquire private property for public use subject to compensation.
The university also argued that the Dover Amendment, which limits the extent to which local zoning rules can restrict certain educational uses of land, should prevent Nahant from using eminent domain to interfere with its planned campus development. The court disagreed. It noted that the Massachusetts Legislature had imposed specific restrictions on eminent domain involving certain categories of land but had not created a comparable restriction for property used for educational purposes. The ruling does not mean the town can acquire the easements without paying the university. The court stressed that Nahant must provide Northeastern with just compensation for the property rights taken.
Pheasant Ridge test: why the court found insufficient evidence of bad faithThe central dispute concerned whether the town was using conservation as a pretext to block Northeastern’s development. In Pheasant Ridge Associates Limited Partnership v. Burlington, a 1987 Massachusetts decision, the court established that a municipality cannot use eminent domain solely to prevent a development while disguising that objective behind a purported public purpose. Northeastern pointed to statements by officials and residents opposing its expansion, suggestions that the taking could be used as leverage, and the fact that the town began pursuing eminent domain after the university announced its plans. It argued that these circumstances showed the conservation rationale was not genuine.
The Supreme Judicial Court found the evidence insufficient to establish a viable bad-faith challenge. The town’s interest in preserving East Point predated the 2018 development proposal. Nahant had established its public park there in 1986, and the university’s land was placed in a natural-resource zoning district in 1991. Town open-space plans also identified the area as valuable for recreation and wildlife. The court considered the town’s decision-making process, including the formal town-meeting procedure, financial review and public debate. It also noted that the proposed easements were designed around the stated conservation and access goals and that the land already lay in a zoning district intended to protect open space.
Because a conservation easement necessarily restricts development, the fact that the taking would prevent Northeastern’s proposed building did not, by itself, establish bad faith. The court also held that a taking serving a public purpose is not invalid merely because a private party supports it financially or advocates for it. The justices concluded that Northeastern had no reasonable expectation of proving the taking invalid under the applicable legal standard. They reversed the Superior Court’s judgment, including its award of attorney’s fees and costs, and remanded the case for entry of an order establishing the town’s right to take the property interests described in its order of intention, along with further proceedings. The decision resolves the key legal challenge to Nahant’s stated public purpose. The Superior Court is to enter the required order, while the remaining proceedings include determining the compensation owed to Northeastern. The town must pay just compensation for the easements it acquires.
East Point dispute: why Nahant sought conservation and access easements over Northeastern University landEast Point is a 28.7-acre peninsula in Nahant, a small coastal town in Essex County, Massachusetts. Northeastern owns 20.4 acres of the peninsula, including the site of its Marine Science Center, while the town owns the remaining 8.3 acres, which it maintains as a public park. Access to the park crosses university property under an existing easement. In 2018, Northeastern announced plans to expand its campus at East Point. The proposal included a 55,000-square-foot building, additional parking and a geothermal wellfield. The plans prompted opposition from residents and town officials concerned about development in the area. In May 2021, town meeting voted to authorise the use of eminent domain to acquire conservation and public access easements over university land. The votes approved the taking and the use of $1.5 million in Community Preservation Act funds to help pay for it. The town’s board of selectmen subsequently issued an order covering two conservation easements and one access easement across roughly 12 acres.
The conservation easements would preserve the land in an open condition and prevent new buildings, while allowing existing structures to be used and maintained. The access easement would establish public rights to use Canoe Beach for outdoor recreation. The Nahant Preservation Trust, a nonprofit organisation, donated $3 million earmarked for the taking under a gift agreement. Nahant petitioned the Massachusetts Superior Court to establish its right to acquire the easements. Northeastern challenged the action, arguing that conservation was not the town’s true objective and that the taking was intended to stop its planned expansion. The Superior Court agreed with the university, dismissed the town’s petition and awarded Northeastern more than $1 million in attorney’s fees and costs. The town appealed.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling : why conservation and scenic protection qualify as public purposesThe Supreme Judicial Court examined whether Nahant’s stated reasons for taking the easements amounted to a legitimate public purpose. Justice Dewar, writing for the court, explained that public-purpose determinations give substantial weight to legislative judgment, and that courts generally do not investigate the motives of individual voters behind a town’s formal decision. The court said preserving land in a natural, scenic and open condition is a recognised public purpose. Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution expressly identifies the protection of natural resources as a public purpose, while earlier court decisions have recognised scenic preservation as a legitimate objective as well. Northeastern argued that protecting the town’s scenic character was insufficient to justify the taking. The justices rejected that argument, relying on Massachusetts precedent and the broader principles governing eminent domain, the legal power of government to acquire private property for public use subject to compensation.
The university also argued that the Dover Amendment, which limits the extent to which local zoning rules can restrict certain educational uses of land, should prevent Nahant from using eminent domain to interfere with its planned campus development. The court disagreed. It noted that the Massachusetts Legislature had imposed specific restrictions on eminent domain involving certain categories of land but had not created a comparable restriction for property used for educational purposes. The ruling does not mean the town can acquire the easements without paying the university. The court stressed that Nahant must provide Northeastern with just compensation for the property rights taken.
Pheasant Ridge test: why the court found insufficient evidence of bad faithThe central dispute concerned whether the town was using conservation as a pretext to block Northeastern’s development. In Pheasant Ridge Associates Limited Partnership v. Burlington, a 1987 Massachusetts decision, the court established that a municipality cannot use eminent domain solely to prevent a development while disguising that objective behind a purported public purpose. Northeastern pointed to statements by officials and residents opposing its expansion, suggestions that the taking could be used as leverage, and the fact that the town began pursuing eminent domain after the university announced its plans. It argued that these circumstances showed the conservation rationale was not genuine.
The Supreme Judicial Court found the evidence insufficient to establish a viable bad-faith challenge. The town’s interest in preserving East Point predated the 2018 development proposal. Nahant had established its public park there in 1986, and the university’s land was placed in a natural-resource zoning district in 1991. Town open-space plans also identified the area as valuable for recreation and wildlife. The court considered the town’s decision-making process, including the formal town-meeting procedure, financial review and public debate. It also noted that the proposed easements were designed around the stated conservation and access goals and that the land already lay in a zoning district intended to protect open space.
Because a conservation easement necessarily restricts development, the fact that the taking would prevent Northeastern’s proposed building did not, by itself, establish bad faith. The court also held that a taking serving a public purpose is not invalid merely because a private party supports it financially or advocates for it. The justices concluded that Northeastern had no reasonable expectation of proving the taking invalid under the applicable legal standard. They reversed the Superior Court’s judgment, including its award of attorney’s fees and costs, and remanded the case for entry of an order establishing the town’s right to take the property interests described in its order of intention, along with further proceedings. The decision resolves the key legal challenge to Nahant’s stated public purpose. The Superior Court is to enter the required order, while the remaining proceedings include determining the compensation owed to Northeastern. The town must pay just compensation for the easements it acquires.
Next Story