California's right of access to the shoreline does not override the pre-existing property right. I think what you meant to say was: "The defendant's position

California's right of access to the shoreline does not override the pre-existing property right. I think what you meant to say was: "The defendant's position is that California's right of access to the shoreline does not override the pre-existing property right." As in: this "does not override" phrase you gingerly tucked is not only far from obvious (in this use case); it's highly, highly contentious -- and requires aggressive substantiation to be tenable. In fact, it's a lot like saying: "The title for this Brooklyn brownstone I just bought ultimately traces back to the Dutch land grants (or Lenape tribe covenants, etc; take your pick); NYC's zoning restrictions do not override the existing property rights. So if you don't like this 40-story casino-hotel-brothel complex I'm building, well, you can just bugger off."