Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Conservation easements may result in a significant reduction in the sale price of the land because a builder can no longer develop it. In fact, this difference in value is the basis for the granting of the original tax incentives. An estimate of 35%–65% value reduction has been made on conservation easement land to the land owner. [13]
An easement is a legal arrangement designating land for a specific use, and it isn’t typically a problem. ... If part of your backyard is a conservation easement, for example, it means you can ...
Adverse possession in common law, and the related civil law concept of usucaption (also acquisitive prescription or prescriptive acquisition), are legal mechanisms under which a person who does not have legal title to a piece of property, usually real property, may acquire legal ownership based on continuous possession or occupation without the permission of its legal owner.
The procedure offers landowners financial incentives or bonuses for the conservation and maintenance of the environmental, heritage or agricultural values of their land. TDR is based on the concept that with land ownership comes the right of use of land, or land development. These land-based development rights can in some jurisdictions be used ...
The right of entry is not automatic, but rather must be exercised to terminate the fee simple subject to condition subsequent. To exercise right of entry, the holder must take substantial steps to recover possession and title, for example, by filing a lawsuit. Physical entry is not required, but the holder must do more than just proclaim an ...
An affirmative easement is the right to use another property for a specific purpose while a negative easement is the right to prevent another from performing an otherwise lawful activity on their own property. For example, an affirmative easement might allow land owner A to drive their cattle over the land of B. A has an affirmative easement ...
Main Menu. News. News
The Fifth Amendment's Takings clause does not provide for the compensation of relocation expenses if the government takes a citizen's property. [1] Therefore, until 1962, citizens displaced by a federal project were guaranteed just compensation for the property taken by the government, but had no legal right or benefit for the expenses they paid to relocate.