When you own property, how far down do you own that property?
All the way to the gates of hell, if you believe some of the communist rhetoric about private property ownership.
Are you asking about mineral rights? Digging rights? As far as I know, unless specifically excluded in the deed, you own all rights above and below. Airspace is then granted by law for airplanes, but I think that trenching and mining easements are negotiated individually.
Y’wanna try making the question more specific?
If you’re thinking of digging for gold, your right to do so depends on whether you also own the mineral rights to the property. Not all deeds include mineral rights.
Thinking of adding a sub-level basement or parking garage? Don’t forget to call Miss Utility!
There are probably local ordinances that will specify how far down you are allowed to dig before you get too close to sewer lines or other infrastructure.
It’s a matter of state or local law. Traditionally the owner of land would own the rights to minerals found under it, but some states may limit this. Also, as noted, mineral rights can be sold separately from ownership of the land. You would presumably have been told if the land you were buying only included the surface, and you would have paid less for it.
–Cliffy
This column of Cecil’s may be of interest: Can I declare a “no-flight zone” over my house?
insider, could you narrow this down to a country?
IF you want to know where you are, just call your local property assessor.
I live in NY. Sorry if the question was a bit obtuse but my question had to do with the depth of an individuals property. Not that I would want to dig for gold, look for minerals, dig tunnels etc. but just how deep does your property extend down? Is it to the bedrock, deeper, center of the earth, what? If you just decided to dig down as far as possible on your property, how far down would still be your property? You are given dimensions for your property on the surface, but what about below the surface?
I have never heard of a depth restriction. There are practical restrictions; if you could (which you can’t right now) summon up the technology to take the surface of your one square mile tract of land down three miles, your state’s resources regulatory agency and the EPA would likely be all over you about preserving fresh water sands, and possibly some critters or wetlands, as well.
And where would you put all that you dug up? As I understand it, though, if you did get past all of that, by the time you got down three miles, your 640 acre one square mile tract will have shrunk by a half-acre (if I did the math right).
One thing to keep in mind is that if you do own land sans mineral rights, in most of the U.S. (if not all), the mineral owner has the right to evaluate and develop their minerals. So, if your 40 acre spread came without mineral rights, it’s possible someone may show up one day to inform you that they’ll be moving in a drilling rig shortly (they do have to reimburse you for surface damages).
Hmmm, lucky Americans. Here in Canada AFAIK you almost never own mineral rights - they belong to the government. That’s why you have to stake a claim to get at them, and also why oil/gas/mining companies can literally waltz onto your property no matter what you have to say about it and make a mint while only having to pay you a tiney sum. There are exceptions for some of the Indian reserves who DO own everything, which seem to have been put into the treaties before things like oil became as valuable as they are now. The govt must have been smacking their own foreheads for decades over that… although sadely there are completly legal means whereby they can still go almost anywhere and take back anything they want; it’s just not done that much since it would really piss off the rest of the country.
insider, here ya are, just what you need:
60 Acres early farm, dry walls throughout-fertile partial black dirt. mineral rights, ponds, electric available, 45-60 minutes to NY City. http://www.eaglestar.net/mrshl.html
Well, no, and no, and no, and no.
-
Whether or not minerals are in private hands depends very much where you live in country and what the original Crown grant gave to the original holder. Normally in the eastern provinces, it was much more common for the grants to include minerals, other than gold and silver (the royal minerals). As settlement progressed west, the federal government began to reserve more minerals, but the policy was by no means consistent. I own the minerals under my house, and have a share in some minerals that my wise grandfather bought. It depends very much on the history of the particular piece of land.
-
If the surface holder does not own the minerals, then the access rights of the holder of the minerals are normally governed by provincial legislation, which includes a duty to compensate the surface owner for disruption to the surface in accessing the minerals. The legislation normally also provides for mandatory arbitration in the event of a disagreement between the surface holder and the holder of the minerals, with judicial review by the courts.
-
Far from smacking their heads over minerals for Indian reserves, federal government treaty land policy is to ensure that Indian bands get minerals where possible, as part of the drive to ensure aboriginal self-sufficiency.
-
The common law provides that if a government wants to expropriate private property, it must pay fair compensation, as determined by arbitation or the courts. To completely expropriate property without paying any compensation would require a special act of the legislature, which are very rare.
More like: OK-depends, yes/no-but, yes, and sorta.
- I’m speaking more of the west, and for a person to go and buy some land today relatively close to civilization… highly unlikely you’ll have the mineral rights if there’s anything there worth mining/extracting (surveyors and prospectors have been over pretty much the whole country at one time or another) and you don’t have a relative who wisely bought them back in the day :).
- If the disagreement is a personal one or consists of damages that can’t really be proven or measured (“all that damn devellopment is going to ruin my tranquility and have strangers running back and forth through my property and I don’t wannit”), then you’re pretty much SOL. Sure they’ll have some consultation, but you’ll almost definately loose the war and development will go ahead. Yes the land owner gets compensated for the disruptions of access and surface disturbance, but nowhere’s near the value of the minerals being extracted, which tends to bug some land owners, and not bother others who wouldn’t have develloped them anyway and don’t mind the company… some free money.
- It’s highly unlikely that giving the indians rights to the eg) oil on their reserves way back when it was pretty much worthless was meant to ensure them a viable future (especially when the govt was underhandedly attempting to erradicate them altogether back in those days) That may be the official stance of the govt, but I doubt it’s the true original one… however that is more of a personal debate so I’ll leave it.
- Fair compensation in the eyes of the courts - not the land owner. Our house is in an area undergoing some subatantial development right now, and we can get a good price for it. If it were to be expropriated, going by the recent assesment we recieved we’d get about half of what the devellopers will pay right now - and that doesn’t include the value we place on it… that don’t count. As for the treaties, my law book is buried somewhere but I seem to recall that although many things are set out very clearly, they are not truely enforcable. That’s not to say they won’t be 99.999% of the time, but if a very substantial mineral deposit were discovered on indian land, particulary if the country reeeeally needs it (I’m thinking crisis level here), the govt has the power to piddle around with the laws and eventually walk in and take it regardless of what they say.
I’m no expert in law, but from the courses I’ve taken I was left with some knowledge and the overall impression that for the most part the government and courts can do whatever they want with your private land given the right circumstances, and that you’ll never be able to put your foot down and say “NO!”… if they want it they can take it. Thankfully it’s very rare, but not unheard of.
So am I; see my location. Yes, if you’re looking to buy today it’s highly unlikely that you’ll get the minerals, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the government has them, which was your original post. It could just as easily be that a previous private owner has separated the surface from the minerals, sold the surface, and kept the minerals.
That’s because the surface owner doesn’t own the minerals, and therefore has no right to get the full value of them. Where there are divided property rights, the owner of one property right can’t bar the owner of the other property right from access to his/her/its property. Surface rights laws are an attempt to balance the respective rights of the two property owners, surface and minerals.
I was not speaking of the earlier period of treaty-making, but the current federal policy towards satisfying treaty claims. The federal policy is to provide mineral rights where possible.
Which is exactly the same approach as in the U.S. under the Fifth Amendment, which reads: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” “Just compensation” in expropriation lingo doesn’t mean what the private property owner asks for; it’s what the arbitration/court process concludes is a fair compensation, all things considered. See this link.
In most of California I believe that it is rare for mineral rights to go with the deed to the property. Most deed, I think, exclude mineral rights.
This is the origin of the Woody Allen joke, “The meek shall inherit the earth - but not the mineral rights.”