What is the burden of proof in a condemnation proceeding?

While we have not found authority in California that states where the burden of proof lies, other jurisdictions have held that the municipality has the burden of proof of the nuisance and the necessity for its immediate abatement. (See Solly v. City of Toledo, supra, 218 N.E.2d at 466; Crossman v. City of Galveston, 112 Tex. 303, 247 S.W. 810, 815; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 135, 14 S.Ct. 499, 38 L.Ed. 385.) We feel that the reasoning of these cases should be applied here. Such conclusion is consistent with the rule requiring the state to have the burden of proving [20 Cal.App.3d 719] the necessity for taking of private property for public use in condemnation proceedings.