I don't think it is obvious that he is wrong. Previously the property had a parking lot, where people could pay to park and then go to the beach. This parking lot was not profitable, so he decided to close it down. There is still public beach access, just not through that parking lot.

I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that he should provide access through the road to the parking lot, and just disallow parking, but it doesn't seem obvious to me. The previous owner did not allow free access (there was a gate), so I think it is OK for the new owner to forbid access entirely.

IIRC, his argument is that the path that leads to the beach is actually his property, and he is effectively being required to pay to upkeep/monitor/secure this area on his property on his own dime.

What a terrible shock that must have been for him, to realize this fact only after having purchased the property.

Feels like an edge case to me. Not exactly something someone who buys a private property would think would be possible e.g. to have to pay for upkeep for public property.

Seems like the gov’t should figure out some sort of reimbursement program in situations like this.

Amazing that his lawyers are more versed with the concept of land deeds dating back to pre-California Mexico, than they are of easements.

And the government has never demanded he maintain, at his own expense (mind you, he spent months paying $10k/day fines over this). Just that the access is there.

This isn't an edge case, but rather the standard experience of living somewhere that gets snow and has sidewalks.

But really Khosla isn't being told that he has to maintain improvements to the right of way, but rather to simply stop obstructing it.

You are responsible for making yourself aware of any public easements or responsibilities within the property before you purchase it.

I'm sure a surveyor would have informed him of California law.

That would make sense if the government had installed the beach after Khosla's purchase.