In Fristoe v. Drapeau (1950) 35 Cal.2d 5, the common grantor built a permanent gravel roadway with concrete retaining walls that connected to a public highway as a means of ingress and egress to plaintiff and defendant's parcels. (Id. at p. 7.) The common grantor subdivided the tract and planted lemon and avocado groves in it. The boundary of the division followed the road so that it could serve each parcel. The common grantor used the road to tend the trees. The road ran along the boundary between defendant's land and that of third parties, and then ran partly on defendant's and partly on plaintiff's land until it ended in a turnabout. Defendant attempted to prevent plaintiff from using the road for anything other than agricultural purposes, arguing that was the use at the time the parcel was severed. (Id. at p. 8.) The Fristoe court referred to the Restatement of Property to determine that a permissible use includes what the parties might reasonably have expected. Based on the history and circumstances of that case, the court could not say as a matter of law that use of the road to access a proposed private residence was not within the contemplation of the parties and allowed the residential use. (Fristoe, supra, 35 Cal.2d at pp. 9-10.)