What is the major difference between easement by prescription and adverse possession?

Easement by prescription and adverse possession are both legal doctrines that allow individuals to gain rights to use or own land under specific circumstances, but they serve different purposes and result in different legal outcomes.

The correct answer highlights that adverse possession results in a person acquiring legal title to property, effectively transferring ownership from the previous owner after certain conditions are met, such as continuous and open use of the property without permission for a statutory period. This means that once the conditions are fulfilled, the possessor can successfully claim legal ownership of the land.

On the other hand, easement by prescription only grants the right to use someone else's land for a specific purpose (like a pathway or utility line) and does not include ownership of the land itself. The rights obtained through an easement by prescription do not confer a full title like adverse possession does; rather, it provides a limited right to use the property, usually subject to the original owner's rights and interests.

This distinction is critical in understanding property rights, as it delineates the level of control an individual gains over the land: full ownership versus a use right. Hence, the major difference is that adverse possession confers title, while easement by prescription provides rights of use.