In Mehdizadeh v. Mincer (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1296, Mehdizadeh bought a house in the Encino hills which had a fence that incorporated about 10 feet of the side yard of his neighbors, the Mincers. The Mincers later commissioned a survey to determine the true property line and built a second fence on that line. (46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1301.) Before the second fence was built, Mehdizadeh "occasionally cared for the vegetation in the disputed property the area between the two fences, and the sprinkler system of the disputed property was connected to Mehdizadeh's water supply. He maintained and repaired that sprinkler system. Mehdizadeh enjoyed the view of the disputed property, and his dog used the disputed property." ( Id. at pp. 1301-1302.) The trial court found that Mehdizadeh had met the requirements for a prescriptive easement, but enjoined Mehdizadeh from using the disputed area for purposes other than landscaping and recreation. The Mincers were granted "an easement for light, air, and privacy," and were ordered to remove the fence they had built. (Id. at p. 1302.) The Court of Appeal reversed. The Court quoted its reasoning at length: "The prescriptive easement granted by the trial court . . . would divest the Mincers of nearly all rights that owners customarily have in residential property. A fence will bar the Mincers' access to the property, and they cannot build on, cultivate, or otherwise use it. Mehdizadeh cannot build on it either, but otherwise his right to 'use' looks more like 'occupancy,' possession, and ownership. "Occupancy, connoting a claim of possession and title, differs from restricted, partial, or intermittent use. 'An easement involves primarily the privilege of doing a certain act on, or to the detriment of, another's property.' An easement gives a nonpossessory and restricted right to a specific use or activity upon another's property, which right must be less than the right of ownership. "A prescriptive use of land culminates in an easement (i.e., an incorporeal interest). This interest differs from a corporeal interest, such as that created by adverse possession . . ., which creates a change in title or ownership. Where an incorporeal interest in the use of land becomes so comprehensive as to supply the equivalent of ownership, and conveys an unlimited use of real property, it constitutes an estate, not an easement.