In Dinosaur Development, Inc. v. White (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 131, the court considered the question: "If an agency of local government conditions its approval of a subdivision plan submitted by landowner A on the construction of a road from the nearest public thoroughfare to the adjacent landlocked property of landowner B, can A require B to shoulder a portion of the road's construction costs? Our holding, which is limited to the peculiar situation presented, is that A does not have a cause of action against B for restitution." (Id. at pp. 1312-1313.) In Dinosaur Development, the action of landowner A in constructing the road conferred an incidental benefit on landowner B, but the road construction primarily served the interest of landowner A. Ultimately, even if the benefit conferred on landowner B came about as a result of landowner B's request or demand, the benefit was compelled by the action of the governmental entity which had the power to approve landowner A's development, and to place reasonable planning conditions on that approval. The benefit to landowner B was, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, rendered incidental to landowner A's project, and there was thus no unjust enrichment to landowner B requiring restitution.