Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35 · Chapter 35.79
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.79.040 (2026)

Title to vacated street or alley

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If any street or alley in any city or town is vacated by the city or town council, the property within the limits so vacated shall belong to the abutting property owners, one-half to each.
[ 1965 c 7 s 35.79.040. Prior: 1901 c 84 s 3; RRS s 9299.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1967–2017 · leading case: London v. City of Seattle, 611 P.2d 781 (Wash. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
London v. City of Seattle, 611 P.2d 781 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 6× “Although RCW 35.79.040 states that upon vacation an abutting property owner shall own one-half of the property, RCW 35.”
Puget Sound Alumni of Kappa Sigma, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 422 P.2d 799 (Wash. 1967). · cites it 6× “RCW 35.79.040 expressly states that vacated streets "shall belong to the abutting property owners.”
Kiely v. Graves, 271 P.3d 226 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 2× “2d 855 (1986); RCW 35.79.040). An adverse possession claim cannot be asserted against a reversionary interest or a remainder interest until the future interest becomes a vested interest.”
Mall, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 739 P.2d 668 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 2× “2d 855 (1986); RCW 35.79.040. If one were to apply Mali's definition of property lines so as to include condemned street easements in lot area, dedicated street easements would logically have to be included as well.”
Roeder Co. v. Burlington N., Inc., 716 P.2d 855 (Wash. 1986). “15 RCW 35.79.040. 16 McConiga v. Riches, 40 Wn.”
McConiga v. Riches, 700 P.2d 331 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “2d 1007 (1978); RCW 35.79.040, 58.11.030. Hagen noted that if the original owner of the land abutting the street still owns the land upon vacation of the street, then he may transfer the whole tract or any part of it.”
Christian v. Purdy, 808 P.2d 164 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “2d 855 (1986) (citing RCW 35.79.040). "Similarly, at common law, the conveyance of land bounded by or along a highway carries title to the center of the highway unless there is something in the deed or surrounding circumstances showing an intent to the contrary.”
Michelson Bros. v. Baderman, 483 P.2d 859 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “2d 799 (1967); RCW 35.79.040. Our court has held, however, the application of this rule to be dependent upon the “particular circumstances” of each case.”
Lake Forest Park Water Dist. v. City Of Lake Forest Park (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “73309-5-1 / 2 purported to retain the City's title to the vacated right-of-way contrary to RCW 35.79.040. This statute provides that the ownership of a vacated street belongs to the abutting landowners up to the center line of the vacated street.”
Steve Berschauer v. Dep't Of Gen. Admin., State of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “When 16th A venue SE was vacated in 1961, the effect of vacation on title was governed by former Remington's Revised Statutes sections 9299 and 9300 (1901), presently codified at RCW 35.79.040 and .050. Under the two statutory provisions, upon vacation "the property .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.