In Blackmore v. Powell (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1593, the owner of a dominant tenement created by way of a 1979 grant deed successfully sought a declaration that he was entitled to build a garage on the easement appurtenant to his property and enjoy exclusive use of the garage. The adjoining landowners, owners of the servient tenement, appealed from the judgment, arguing that the easement, as construed by the trial court, amounted to an award of a fee simple ownership interest. On appeal, this court rejected that notion, finding that "'the owner of an easement is not the owner of the property, but merely the possessor of a "right to use someone's land for a specified purpose . . . ."' " (Id. at p. 1598.) Because the terms of the grant deed determined the burden imposed on the servient tenement's property, and the deed conveyed "'an easement for parking and garage purposes,'" we observed that although "appellants thus retain 'every incident of ownership not inconsistent with the easement and the enjoyment of the same,' ," "nonetheless, appellants may not use their property 'in a way that obstructs the normal use of the easement.' " (Id. at p. 1599.) The Court found that nonexclusive use of the garage would interfere unreasonably with respondent's rights to which he was entitled pursuant to the terms of the easement. (Ibid.) The Court construed an express easement "for 'parking and garage purposes' over a defined area" on the servient tenement. (Id. at p. 1597.) It held that the construction by the owner of the dominant tenement of a two-car garage on a portion of the easement area was within the scope of the easement and that the owner of the dominant tenement was entitled to the exclusive use of the garage. (Id. at pp. 1599, 1606.) The appellate court agreed with the trial court's conclusion "that the owner of the dominant tenement was entitled to exclusive use of the garage as 'a necessary incident' of the easement, reasoning that a shared garage would generate disputes about allocation of parking spaces, security, and maintenance costs" and with its "determination that nonexclusive use of the garage would interfere unreasonably with the rights of the owners of the dominant tenement. " (Id. at p. 1599.)