assume, in the condemnation suit, that the taking authority will make the full use ‘physically possible of any easement or land described in the taking certificate.’ ” 4A Nichols, at § 14A.06[3] (quoting 2,953.15 Acres of Land v. United States, 350 F.2d 356, 360 (5th cir.1965)). When the condemnor limits the use of its easement after the taking has occurred, this limitation can limit the damages recoverable, but only if the limitation is lawfully enforceable by the condemnee. 4A Nichols at § 14A.06[3]. The taking authority is free to limit the scope of access either before the taking or, with the landowner’s agreement, after the taking. Mugar v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 28 Mass.App.Ct. 443, 445, 552 N.E.2d 121, 123 (1990). “Absent such action, ‘payme 2d 368, 371 (La.App.1967) (<HOLDING>); Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. Conger, 307
holding that if respondents suit is one for permanent damages to the land the measure of damages is the decreased value of the land holding that land sales contracts were not securities because they involved no investment in an enterprise even if land was bought on expectation that development of the area would increase the value of the land recognizing that one cannot have an easement in his own land holding that permanent easement arising from condemnation of pipeline easement reduced property value by 20 holding that permanent easement on land containing natural gas pipeline reduced value of directly encumbered land by 75