It gets more interesting. From the FL Supreme Court:
It is possible for the public to acquire an easement in
the beaches of the State by the finding of a prescriptive r i g h t
t o the beach land. Citv of M i a m i Beach v. Undercliff R e a l t y &
Investment Co., 155 Pla. 805, 21 So.2d 783 (1945), and Citv of
Miami Beach v. M i a m i Beach Improvement Co., 153 Fla. 107, 14
So.2d 172 (1943). However, in both of the cases cited above
and relied upon by the District Court of Appeal, F i r s t D i s t r i c t ,
i n the case sub iudice, t h i s Court declined to find such prescriptive
r i g h t i n the public because of the absence of an adverse
nature in t h e p u b l i c ' s use of private beach land.
This Court in C i t v of M i a m i Beach v. Undercliff Realty
& Investment Co., supra, said:
"It is true t h a t i n the e a r l i e r days preceding
the remarkable development of M i a m i
Beach, when it had a small population, many
persons used the beach for bathing, sunning
and other recreational purposes. The fact
that the upland owners did not prevent or
object to such use is not s u f f i c i e n t to show
t h a t the use was adverse or under a claim of
right. It has not been shown t h a t there has
been an open, notorious, continuous and uninterrupted
use of the beach by the public,
in derogation of the upland p r o p r i e t o r s '
r i g h t s , for a period of twenty years, or for
any period." 2 1 So.2d 783, p. 786.
T h i s Court in Downins vI B i r d , 100 So.2d 57 (Fla. 1958),
set forth the test f o r r i g h t of access by prescription:
"In e i t h e r prescription or adverse possession,
the r i g h t is acquired only by actual,
continuous, uninterrupted use by the claimant
of the lands of another, for a prescribed
period. In addition the use must be adverse
under claim of riqht and must e i t h e r be with
the knowledge of the owner or so open, notorious,
and v i s i b l e t h a t knowledge of the use
by and adverse claim of the claimant is imputed
to the owner. In both r i g h t s the use
or possession must be inconsistent with the
owner's use and eniovment of his lands and
gust not be a permissive use, for the use
must be such that the owner has a r i g h t t o
a legal action t o stop it, such as an action
for t r e s p a s s o r ejectment.
"Further in e i t h e r prescription or adverse
possession, the use or possession is presumed
to be i n subordination t o the t i t l e of the
t r u e owner, and with his Permission and the
burden is on the claimant to prove t h a t the
use or possession is adverse." (Emphasis
supplied.) (p. 64)
If the use of an alleged easement is not exclusive and
not inconsistent with the r i g h t s of the owner of the land to
its use and enjoyment, kt would be presumed that such use is
permissive rather than adverse. Hence, such use w i l l never
ripen into easement. This principle was recognized i n J. C.
Vereen & Sons v. Hauser, 123 Fla. 641, 167 So. 45 (1936), where
t h i s Court quoted with approval from Jesse French Piano ti Orqan
Co. v. Forbes, 129 A l a . 471, 29 So. 683, 685, 87 Am,St.Rep. 71,
as follows:
"NO easement can be acquired when the use is
by express or implied permission, . . . The
user or enjoyment of the r i g h t claimed, in
order to become an easement by prescription,
must have been adverse to the owner of the
e s t a t e over which the easement is claimed,
under a claim of r i g h t , exclusive, continuous,
and uninterrupted, and with the knowledge and
stance always considered is whether the u s e r
is aqainst the i n t e r e s t of the party sufferins
it, or injurious to him. There must be
an invasion of the partv's r i s h t , for, unless
one loses somethins, the other sains nothinq."
(Emphasis supplied.) (p. 47)
They must have a gorgeous view, greedy 
Sinful 
;-)
