In Baccouche v. Blankenship (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1551, previous owners granted defendant Blankenship an easement over three-quarters of an acre of their property so Blankenship could keep horses on the easement area, part of a large parcel later purchased by plaintiff Baccouche. The municipal code allowed for keeping of horses on properties in conjunction with the residential use of the lot. Blankenship lived on his property, but Baccouche's much larger property was vacant land. Baccouche sued Blankenship to quiet title, contending the easement granted to Blankenship was for an illegal purpose and was invalid because there was no residence on Baccouche's property. The trial court found the easement valid and entered judgment in favor of Blankenship. Baccouche reversed the finding that Blankenship could enforce his easement. Baccouche found that the municipal code prohibited keeping horses on the Baccouche property because it had no residence, and held that the easement was unenforceable because it allowed a use not permitted by the zoning ordinance. (Id. at p. 1556.) Baccouche, however, rejected the defendant's argument that the easement granted to Blankenship was void because it conflicted with applicable zoning restrictions. Baccouche distinguished between land use restrictions limiting use of property and a fee owner's consent to that use, and affirmed the trial court's finding that Blankenship had a valid easement. (Id. at pp. 1557-1559.) Thus although the easement was unenforceable because it violated the zoning ordinance, the violation did not make the easement invalid.