When you buy a house, do you own the house or the land or both?
Posted by ThePurpleRainmakerr@reddit | AskAnAmerican | View on Reddit | 858 comments
The question is geared mostly towards those who live in the suburbs and those super massive mansions. You've found your dream house and you buy it. What does that purchase mean? Do you just own the structure on the land or do you own the land beneath the structure or do you own both the land and the structure upon that land?
Flashy_Novel_9609@reddit
I was a real estate broker for a number of years before starting an ammunition manufacturing company.
Short answer is when your purchasing land you're buying a bundle of rights but not all rights to the land as the government keeps a few.
"When you buy a home in the United States, you’re not just getting a building—you’re acquiring a bundle of legal rights tied to property ownership. But those rights are not absolute. The government (local, state, and federal) still retains certain powers over your property.
Here’s a clear breakdown:
Your Rights as a Homeowner When you own property (usually in “fee simple” ownership—the most complete form), you typically have these core rights:
Right to Possess You have the legal right to occupy and control the property.
Right to Use You can use the property as you wish—live in it, rent it out, renovate it, etc.
But this is limited by zoning laws (e.g., you can’t open a factory in a residential neighborhood).
Right to Exclude You can keep others off your property (except for certain legal exceptions like police with a warrant).
Right to Transfer You can sell, gift, or pass the property to heirs.
Right to Encumber You can use the property as collateral (like getting a mortgage).
What Rights the Government Keeps Even though you “own” your home, the government retains several important powers:
If you don’t pay, the government can eventually place a lien or even foreclose.
They must provide “just compensation”
This principle is rooted in the Fifth Amendment
Examples:
Zoning laws (residential vs commercial)
Building codes (safety standards)
Environmental rules
Escheat If someone dies with no heirs and no will, the property can revert to the state.
Public Access / Easements In some cases, the government (or utilities) may have rights to access part of your land—for example:
Utility lines
Sidewalks
Drainage systems"
WhyNotZoibergMaybe@reddit
It depends
AutomaticRepeat2922@reddit
Neither. You rent everything from the state -_-
Grafakos@reddit
In most high-cost areas, the vast majority of the value of your "house" is the land under it. A typical house in Silicon Valley will sell for around $2 million. Of that, the structure itself is worth maybe $500k and the rest is the land.
Kapt_Krunch72@reddit
Around me there are a lot of housing developments. Because of zoning the lots are too small so the houses are considered condos. You own the house but you have to pay a HOA fee to pay for property tax and road maintenance within the housing units.
icehead1@reddit
You own both the structure and the land.
NoCarpet9834@reddit
With some constraints. In many places, you may not end up owning mineral rights associated with the property. There may be easements- rights for others to use some of the land for particular purposes, such as utilities like water pipes or a shared road.
Justmakethemoney@reddit
And there can be weird exceptions.
I live in an area that has a lake, but it and the land around it are owned by the municipality.
People are allowed to have houses along the lake, but you "lease" the property where your house sits. The municipality that owns the lake still technically owns the land.
PhilArt_of_Andoria@reddit
Right and for example in Palm Springs, CA there are lots of plots of land owned by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. People own their home but rent the land from the tribe.
plshelpcomputerissad@reddit
I saw a lot of that in Hawaii too, I was looking at houses online out of curiosity. A ton of them say “leasehold”, it sounds like a super long term lease of the land like 100 years or something. But what the hell do you do if whoever owns it refuses to renew lol. Pick up the house and take it away?
ejpierle@reddit
Generally you end up walking away. When the 50-100 yr lease finally expires, the land is worth so much more than it was when it was signed that large landowners want a number that few can pay. You are welcome to take the structure if you can (you can't) so you'll likely just walk away.
Drunk_Lemon@reddit
Makes me think of those giant trucks used to transport small houses. Some people be like "im taking this shit with me".
Radiant-Pomelo-3229@reddit
Or demolish it instead of leaving it— if the property owner won’t renew why should we give them a house?!?
stueynz@reddit
Here in NZ where Māori tribes have decided not to renew old leases (that were imposed in pretty sketchy Colonial circumstances) the leasee is REQUIRED to remove all structures at termination of the lease. Owning tribe doesn't want the expense of demolition.
HasturCrowley@reddit
There is a place near where I lived in Florida that was like this. Part of the agreement to lease the land was to maintain a structure upon it. The land is a sandbar. Almost every hurricane wipes out the whole neighborhood. I knew someone that bought a house there. One hurricane wiped it out. A week after he rebuilt it, Hurricane Katrina came through. It's a ridiculous place to build a house. It wasnt even a convenient location to where he worked. Prestigious? I guess... if you can make people jealous about how many contractors you know personally...
rotorain@reddit
Takes a good amount of money and effort to do that, most people aren't petty enough to bother.
Diesel-the-merciful@reddit
Fire take care of everything.
Radiant_Bluebird4620@reddit
maybe you could donate it to the fire department?
Unique-Company-7982@reddit
House fire, take the insurance check with you, easier to move than the house. Sorry I fell asleep outside with my valuable belongings while I was cooking bacon.
shelwood46@reddit
As a former volunteer firefighter: most states don't allow us to burn houses anymore for training. Sometimes we do get people letting us do various demolition type training (breaking down doors, cutting holes in the roof), but they still have to pay for actual an actual demolition company in both cases to clear the site. Most fire companies will take donations of land, but a house on leased land, absolutely not.
overeducatedhick@reddit
I expect the lease agreement specifies what happens to improvements affixed to the land upon lease expiration.
OOO0OO00O@reddit
Demolition isn’t as easy as it looks, yeah you can cause some damage with a sledgehammer, but if you want to take down a house you’ll just end up killing your self when a floor collapses.
Sans_Seriphim@reddit
That's why God gave us C4.
East_Committee_8527@reddit
I once watched a house fall off a truck. The truck was turning, apparently it was not secured. Slid right off the truck bed.
SpecialistBet4656@reddit
as it gets closer to the lease expiration date, the value generally drops. There’s probably a formula somewhere
SkyerKayJay1958@reddit
Usually you cannot get a conventional mortgage if there is less than 20 years left on the lease
NecessaryPopular1@reddit
That checks, usually cannot get conventional mortgage for coop-units. Must get a special coop loan instead, only from selected lenders. It’s a pain to own that proprietary lease to occupy. Arrgh! 🤬
Environmental_Bar824@reddit
When I was 8-9yo, someone moved a big old 2 story house to some land up the street from our house, so it can be done but probably isn't done often.
throwfar9@reddit
I lived in a 27-story condo on Oahu with a 99-year lease. It was brand new then, but I imagine the lease agreement had renewal provisions.
FairieButt@reddit
Many moons ago I learned about Land Rent, where you own the home but rent the land it’s on. Those contracts are 99 years because that’s the longest legally permitted contract term. Or that’s what I remember anyhow.
d3r3kkj@reddit
Sell 5 years before so it's someone else's problem and you don't lose the capital you've earned on your house
Alone_Ad3341@reddit
I think that would heavily affect the resale value if the lease expires in 5 years lol
NecessaryPopular1@reddit
You actually lose value of the property the longer the lease goes.
Alone_Ad3341@reddit
Yeah that’s what I said lol
Opposite-Peanut-8812@reddit
Yeah. Once a lease reaches a certain stage (usually within 10 years), the value of the property will decrease as a result, as the lease will need to be renewed and whomever owns the property at the time will need to renegotiate a new lease, for which they will need to pay for
NecessaryPopular1@reddit
I suppose they hope the owners in coop die the longer that lease non-sense goes on.
Boring_Material_1891@reddit
As you get closer to the leasehold expiration, the property value decreases more and more. Nobody wants to be the one left holding the bag.
My building was a leasehold property but the owners got together and bought the land rights from the lease holder. They made money and we kept our building/property, win for everyone.
NecessaryPopular1@reddit
That’s a coop. Also a possibility, the land can be purchased. However, no one owns the unit but the right to live in the unit and the obligation to abide by the communal ‘ownership’.
Boring_Material_1891@reddit
No, it’s not a co-op. It was a special assessment added to the HOA fees. It’s direct ownership by the individual unit (now property) owners and there’s no owning of shares by the owners/tenants.
NecessaryPopular1@reddit
Well, then there’s no lease of land either. You said there was, no? Or did they change? Anyway, I wouldn’t want a property in coop.
Boring_Material_1891@reddit
I don’t even know why I’m taking time to explain this to you. Our property was a leasehold. We didn’t own the land, just the building unit. When the leasehold came to an end, the building agreed as AOAO for the HOA to purchase the land. So the HOA levied a special assessment onto the current owner era which allowed for the purchase of the land, taking the building from a leasehold status to a fee simple status. That special assessment ostensibly added both the value of the land to each unit and allowed for partial direct ownership of the land under the building. There’s nothing co-op about it. It’s a very normal way for buildings to convert from leasehold to fee simple in Hawaii. No owning of shares, nothing like that. I directly own my unit and 1/154th of the land the building sits on. If I default, it’s all on me and not absorbed by the building/shareholders.
NecessaryPopular1@reddit
Understood now, that’s different if it converted to simple-fee and now you’re able to actually own the unit without that leasehold. Best thing is to own independently, sell whenever you want, or not. But at least unit owner has a saying.
No-Effect-4973@reddit
When I lived there (I rented) but I was always seeing on the news where people’s leases were expiring and the monthly payments were increasing 200-300%. This happened to people in condos as well.
NecessaryPopular1@reddit
Not in condos but coops. Condos have HOA, you own the unit. Pay cash or get a mortgage, as long as you’re compliant with the HOA, there’s no lease expiration.
poopiebutt505@reddit
Not true when I lived in Hawaii. What is magic about an HOA?
NecessaryPopular1@reddit
Condo/HOA vs Coop — acquisition is majorly different.
HOA (Home Owners Association) involves owning the deeded unit, which can apply to apartment or house within a condominium association governed by its bylaws. Buyer owns (magic word) the unit upon purchasing.
Coop is a corporation. You buy the right to live in a unit by acquiring shares of a proprietary lease. It’s a more communal ownership structure (no good), also features stricter board approval (unnecessary headache), higher monthly maintenance fees that includes property taxes compared to what’s called fee-simple ownership of an HOA.
Several-Buy-3017@reddit
I literally have seen trucks on the H-1 and H-3 with houses on the back where the land lease was not renewed. It’s crazy!
Different_Victory_89@reddit
How does Oahu have interstate hiways? 3 of them?
Several-Buy-3017@reddit
Yeah, they use the same signs as interstate signs without going to another state. Bottom line is that I don’t know why unless it’s tied to federal funding.
paypermon@reddit
My wife found an incredible deal on a house in Hawaii. Too good to be true. After further investing the price was accurate but there was only 6 years left on the lease. So essentially a $2 million house for only like $400K BUT basically only get 6 years out of it.
NecessaryPopular1@reddit
When/if something is too good to be true it’s not really that good.
BigRichard1990@reddit
One recent example of this is that a luxury coop building in New Your City was built in the early 1960s with a ground lease that ended in 2025. The landowners and the coop board are fighting it out now. For a couple of years now a search of apartments to buy in NYC would have lots of units at 100 W 57th St, New York, NY showing as surprisingly cheap. The owners were trying to get out with something, leave the problem to the buyers. The location, a block south of Central Park is now known as “Billionaire’s Row” and the land is worth much more than the residents can afford to pay rent on. https://www.morrelhirsch.com/57th-street-report/carnegie-house-ground-lease-dispute-west-57th-street/
ladybugseattle@reddit
This is the model for most of Britain and a plot point of the novel Howard's End when the protagonists need to move at the end of the lease for development of their house to an apartment block.
New_Part91@reddit
Ran into that situation in Florida as well. Bought a lovely condo in a small building right near the beach. I had a really good lawyer who found out that the condo building was sitting on rented land and therefore the condo was not actually a property sale but a lease sale. I would be purchasing at leased unit. I bought it anyway because it was a reasonable price in a beautiful area. after living there for 15 years, the condo board started talking about buying the land, which was on a 100 year lease that was getting close to the end of that 100 year term. of course, due to the location, right near the beach, the land now was valued at several million dollars. I knew that if there was a vote to buy the land, I would not be able to afford the assessment I would be charged for my portion. I sold the unit.
PacSan300@reddit
99/100 years is traditionally the maximum amount of time for a lease of land, so it looks like those houses are being held for the longest amount of time legally possible.
jhumph88@reddit
You also need to have a certain amount of time remaining on the lease to get a mortgage. I believe it was 50 years where I was living.
freshboss4200@reddit
So yes I feel like a lot of these leases get renewed or extended when there is still a bunch of time remaining
goodskier1931@reddit
Talk to hong kong.
jhumph88@reddit
I was going to come here to say this. When I was house hunting, I found the perfect place, but had to walk away since it was on leased land. The lease was $9k/yr and doubled every ten years, and it was 9 years into the current lease. I didn’t want to be paying $36k/yr within about a decade.
NecessaryPopular1@reddit
Worst type of coop is when it’s on leased land. You can buy (the right to occupy, live there) it for peanuts though.
jhumph88@reddit
When I lived in Palm Springs if you found a reasonably priced house, it was almost guaranteed to be on leased land. I just wouldn’t be comfortable not owning the land my house sits on.
NecessaryPopular1@reddit
Yeah, it’s like that everywhere. First thing to verify before jumping in because of attractive pricing: type of property. Common sense, I want unit and land too.
ancientastronaut2@reddit
First thing I thought of!
throwfar9@reddit
Same in much of Hawaii. You pay land rent every month.
Genesis72@reddit
In parts of Maryland too. I know plenty of folks in Baltimore that pay a nominal (like $6 a year) land lease for their rowhome.
Capable_Stranger9885@reddit
From 1990:
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/11/nyregion/indians-bill-new-york-town-as-its-99-year-leases-expire.html
IthurielSpear@reddit
So once again, the answer to OP’s question is: it varies. A lot.
lol
WildMartin429@reddit
Also modular homes often called mobile homes even though they're not really mobile have a title like a car does and is a separate asset from the land unless you specifically go to the trouble of marrying the title to the property deed. So like my parents double wide could be sold to anyone willing to try and move a 20-something year old structure that's no longer new. Probably a basket only get $5,000 or $10,000 for it though. This is why people who live in mobile home parks often lose the home that they own completely when a new owner takes over the rental of the property and raises rates to an unaffordable level. If they can no longer afford the rent they're evicted but if they can't afford the rent increase they also cannot afford to move their home to another location and often if the home has been there long enough the home is not going to survive being moved.
Ruth-Stewart@reddit
The reason they are called Mobile homes isn’t because they can be moved but because they came from Mobile Alabama!
Ok-Temporary@reddit
I can't tell if you are kidding.
The claim that "mobile homes" are named after Mobile, Alabama, is a common myth. They are called mobile homes because,,, starting in the 1920s and 30s, they were designed as travel trailers or "trailer coaches" that could be easily towed behind automobiles for travel. They are now officially called manufactured homes and are built to federal HUD standards.
Origin Misconception: While Alabama is a major hub for manufactured home production today, the term "mobile home" was not coined due to an original factory in Mobile, Alabama.
Evolution: Early units were small travel trailers. After World War II, they increased in size (10–12 feet wide) and became more permanent, often losing their "mobile" nature.
Technical Definition: The term "mobile home" specifically refers to factory-built homes made before June 15, 1976. Those produced after this date under stricter federal safety standards are called "manufactured homes".
"Mobile" Nature: They are transported to a site on their own wheels and chassis, but are typically placed on permanent foundations.
Ruth-Stewart@reddit
Well there ya go. Maybe I’ve been misinformed!
kiddikiddi@reddit
Are they called Sparkling homes if they don’t come from Mobile Alabama?
Ruth-Stewart@reddit
Ha! Nice.
Sallyfifth@reddit
Modular is something different, though! Modular homes are built in large sections in a factory, then trucked in and dropped on a permanent foundation. The roof is added after that. (Mine leaked for ages)
WildMartin429@reddit
Traditional double wide the roof is intact and you have two halves of a house and they just bring it in put it together and put it on the foundation. It's made in a factory. I think when most people think of a mobile home they think of the single wide trailers that are all in one piece.
TManaF2@reddit
A modular home is built in modules (right side lower floor, left side lower floor, right side upper floor, left side upper floor, roof, etc.) and is bolted to a prelaid foundation, the modules are joined, permanent connections (water, electric, internet) established, and the roof deployed. Usually the owner of the home purchases the land first, lays the foundation, and gets all the permits together as the factory builds the modules, ships them, and helps the homeowner find whatever contractors they need to complete the home and obtain a certificate of occupancy. Once onsite construction is completed, a modular home is a permanent fixture on the land and cannot be moved to another location.
A mobile home is essentially a trailer. It is driven onto the land, connected to services, and a skirt and entrance(s) (stairs, porch) built around it. Depending on the area, the landowner and homeowner may be two separate entities (this is almost universally the case in New Jersey), and depending on the zoning laws, you may or may not be able to remove the skirt and entranceways and move your home to another plot of land.
WildMartin429@reddit
I'm just saying that the term mobile home is misleading because once they have been put into place and have settled they really aren't mobile anymore without potentially falling apart if you tried to move them. So I'm not sure where modular popped up in my head but I suppose I meant manufactured homes. Potentially a single wide is the most mobile and the most like a trailer out of the different options but something like a double wide or a triple wide or one of the ones that is actually two stories it would be almost impossible to move them after they've been sitting for 20 years without there being significant problems.
Megalocerus@reddit
My roof was fine, but some of the plumbing had issues.
FireBomb84@reddit
I had a family member who added a permenent garage to their mobile home without talking about it to anyone… the built it on the side of the structure with the hitch so now there is no way to move it
MilkChocolate21@reddit
PE has been buying up mobile home parks and doing just that.
Travelsat150@reddit
That happened in Laguna Beach and the owner of the land refused to sell to the mobile home owners.
ancientastronaut2@reddit
I remember an ongoing lawsuit with a mobile home park in san juan capistrano too.
WildMartin429@reddit
It's happening more and more often as private Equity firms buy up mobile home parks from Individual owners and then turn them into corporate assets and start raising the rates.
bass679@reddit
and it can be the opposite too. I have a friend with a house on a lake, she technically owns about 1/4 acre of the lake based on the property survey. I think basically every house on the lake owns the land for 50 or 100 ft into the water and then the county owns the water itself or something like that.
DiHard_ChistmasMovie@reddit
Im willing to bet it works the same way as most rivers and beaches do. I have a 40 acre property with a river running through the bottom corner. Most of the property is on one side of the river but there is a small section on the other side of the river that I own as well. Even though the property line runs all the way across the river to the other side, I dont own it and anyone can go through there. The river itself is public, but I own the dry land on both sides. The boundry of what I own changes with the water level. The moment anyone traveling the river sets foot on dry land, they're technically trespassing.
plshelpcomputerissad@reddit
Thats my understanding as well, plenty of drama out there about a dude in a kayak/canoe paddling down the river when some goober runs out insisting he’s “trespassing” when he’s not, at all.
No-Drama-in-Paradise@reddit
Oh tons of drama. I work in a field where I deal with land ownership and management and riverside properties can be pretty wild.
Also rivers move and shift. You buy a property twenty years ago, and now 75% of what once was your property is under water because the river shifted and there really isn’t much you can do. It’s super fun when your house is now teetering over the bank!
FireBomb84@reddit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Río_Rico,_Tamaulipas
Or an entire town can become a different country
Jennings_in_Books@reddit
The flooding last year in North Carolina suddenly moved numerous river boundaries and erased numerous lots along with the houses on them leaving no place to rebuild unless the state comes in and does a lot of work to reconfigure the river. It also ate away the roads in some cases leaving no land for the roads to run
DiHard_ChistmasMovie@reddit
That's actually exactly what happened with my property. The river came through a giant horse shoe in the center of the property. They had cabins built all along one side. The center of the horse shoe and other side of the river were pretty much only accessible via canoe. The one side that was accessible had about a dozen cabins and about a 10 acre manicured lot/field and picnic shleter across the road from the cabins. In 2008, the entire area flooded. The cabins were all on raised on pilings about 6ft off the ground. Their roofs went completely under, that's how deep it got. (This area is all watershed) when the river receded, it had cut a swath across the bottom of the horse shoe and changed it's path. I gained access to nearly 30 acres of timber, and the guy who owns the parcel bordering mine on the other side of the river lost most of his beach front. He wasn't happy. He was wanting to bring in heavy equipment to force the river back to its original path but the army core of engineers wouldn't let him. To this day, there is a large, cleared and open sandbar just sitting in the middle of the timber like an oasis. That was former riverbed.
k8username@reddit
In the NorCal foothills where I grew up the goober typically had a shotgun
ray_ruex@reddit
The Guadalupe River in New Braunfels, TX is like that in places.
VerifiedMother@reddit
You definitely don't live in Colorado
Colorado has weird river access policies.
If you float through the river, completely fine, if you step your foot on the bottom of the river because you got stuck, you are technically trespassing because landowners own the land underneath the river
SkiMonkey98@reddit
No idea about your location but in a lot of places you own to the high water mark or the top of the river bank. So if the river's not at flood stage you can land on the bank without trespassing
msabeln@reddit
In Missouri, all streams are public “highways” up to the ordinary high water mark. You can canoe, wade, and camp on sandbars and banks.
FeelingPlayfulNow@reddit
I think a small amount of land travel is allowed here for portage, say you have to walk your kayak around a fallen tree blocking your way down a river.
Tomahawk513@reddit
Appropriate side-commentary for someone in MI. It can get further complicated with dams on rivers. A century or more ago, mills would buy property alongside a river and then damn it to control water flow. Technically, they'd own the damn. But what happens when the mill goes out of business? As people in Northern, MI are finding out, it's extremely complicated! Northern MI has seen a ton of rain and thus flooding, so severe that a lot of these damns built by old mills have failed. But society built up around the river expecting that damn would remain. So now cities, counties, and even the state are really in a bind trying to figure out who or what owns the land on which the damn was built, and how or even if they can fix it. It's a bureaucratic nightmare, and damns often take years and years to be rebuilt as a result.
Questions_Remain@reddit
This is usually called riparian rights. It’s “to the lowest water level” situation where you can build a sea wall, dock or pier but the property actual boundary is the shoreline today and that shoreline might change or a maximum distance from a survey marker well inland ( like the front of the property - not the lake side). But you can’t go beyond a fixed distance as that would interfere with others using the water - like a boater. And the shoreline will change over time so that’s accounted for in the plat to avoid problems later.
smh-at_you2@reddit
I forgot about the land leases. We have them here in Hollywood Florida too.
stevzon@reddit
And maybe it was a 99 year land lease, but if you buy it from the prior owner and it’s 98 years into the land lease, it’s gonna be a rough next 18 months.
BitterestLily@reddit
Happens also in areas where people live in houses on forest service or national parks land. There are some houses like thos inside the boundaries of Yosemite, for example.
let_it_grow23@reddit
I own property that adjoins a river - I own the riverbed but now the river itself. Which I guess translates to - I can put a pier in, but can’t dam the river and take all the water for myself.
ImaginaryCatDreams@reddit
My dad told me a lot of the property on the lake we lived on was that way. The power company owns the land, the homes are on leased land.
They were a bit like an HOA. Mostly insuring that all the utilities were properly hooked up and you had a proper septic system and weren't dumping sewage into the river. They would also send out notice for when they were raising and lowering the water levels.
Chimney-Imp@reddit
Yeah it gets weird with lakes. I rent a house that is next to a lake. If I fish while staying on land, I don't need a license. But if I were to get into a boat to fish, or step into the water, I would. And it's a similar situation with boats and kayaks.
Technically I can use a kayak without having to register it, so long as I stay so close to where my property touches the lake. However since the spot where the house is at is on a very round edge of the lake, the property line converges on it like a pizza slice. As a result I basically have a small 10 foot wide bubble I can kayak around for free lol
ucjj2011@reddit
There Is also an ownership structure called a Landominium, where the land is owned by a common entity (usually private) and they allow houses to be built there, with restrictions. The difference between this and condominium is that usually the structures are detached houses, whereas condominiums are usually either in a high-rise or townhouse type.
bemenaker@reddit
Same with creeks and streams. If there is water in them, people can traverse as long as they are in the water.
smokingcrater@reddit
My house is exactly that. I own the structure, the feds own the land that I lease. It also makes mortgages impossible, technically the feds could terminate the lease at any time, and no bank will touch that uncertainty. Cash sales only.
OkElephant1931@reddit
Not sure why that is. I owned a house on federal land and had a mortgage
smokingcrater@reddit
Uncertainty. You probably had a different lease with different options. Mine basically says they can give me 30 days notice to vacate at any time, and they own me nothing. For a bank, that is too much of a risk, even if it has never happened.
SpecialistBet4656@reddit
Def no mortgage with that kind of risk. Hopefully your house is priced to account for that risk.
SpecialistBet4656@reddit
You can get a mortgage on a ground lease, although you may have to go through a specialized lender.
Ground leases only get sticky if they have weird termination provisions or terminate within 5 years of the maturity date of the mortgage.
Justmakethemoney@reddit
We're looking at owning on that lake, and thankfully for us banks have no issue with mortgages.
BigEnd3@reddit
I've seen timberland do the same. The timber company owns all the land in an area and will do 99 year leases on the water.
Emergency-Poem-8963@reddit
Which is how it should be to be honest
hotpepperjam@reddit
I looked at a house like that recently, and passed on it. The land ownership situation is unusual here, and there wasn’t enough price difference between the house and comps that came with the land included. And it stayed on the market a loooong time. Plus the water it was on was a river rather than a lake, and a river that has a history of flooding to boot. The house was above the historical floodplain but with climate change…pass.
ThisIsATastyBurgerr@reddit
if the lake, or river, moves or dries up, then who owns it?
boomgoesthevegemite@reddit
This is how it is for my in laws. They live on a private lake. My father in law owns the house in perpetuity but technically the land is leased for 99 years. He can deed the house to someone when he dies but the lease on the land is separate and has to be leased again from the lake. Most people just sell when people pass away.
daveescaped@reddit
It’s also worth noting that for a quarter acre lot, the mineral rights aren’t worth much of anything. Any natural resources that lie below (oil for example) can be just as easily reached by any adjacent lot. So if you are imagining getting rich of mineral rights, you won’t be able to leverage being immediately above to any significant value.
For mineral right to have significant value you need to own a lot of the surface, which is also costly.
But sure, you can pump water to your hearts content.
bimmer4WDrift@reddit
Co-op complex land lease ends in 2052 https://www.reddit.com/r/nova/s/LTosc0225O
pandabelle12@reddit
And the easement can go further into your yard than you think. We were researching it because the last fiber installers were coming way up in our yards, nearly 7-10 feet away from the street in some instances. What I actually own is pretty small.
justanaveragerunner@reddit
In law school my property law professor said that real estate ownership is like a bundle of sticks that represent different rights associated with the property, and you almost never actually own all the sticks. You can own most of them, but there are things like easements that can take a stick or two. There are all kinds of laws, like zoning laws or even HOA rules, that can affect what you're allowed to do on your property- those are sticks too. There are also things like rental agreements or life estates that can further divide the bundle of sticks between different people or entities.
MilkChocolate21@reddit
I like that analogy.
ManicPixieGirlyGirl@reddit
My property law professor told us the same!
lisasimpsonfan@reddit
My Great-grandmother came over from Switzerland in the late 1800s. Her father bought a farm. No idea of who owns the farm today but I have inherited 1/8th of the mineral rights to the land. Nothing will ever come from it but I like to joke I am a potential Beverly Hillbilly.
slatchaw@reddit
On the plus side you own the area above your house with expectations for air travel
MileHigh_FlyGuy@reddit
In my dry area of Denver, I don't even own the water rights from the rain that falls onto my roof/land
MajesticBread9147@reddit
Haha. I mean, mineral rights are pretty far down on the list of priorities. And if there was anything valuable there it would've probably been found a hundred years ago when sewers were first put in.
I'd be much more interested in local transit lines than whether I could theoretically find coal in the 50x20 plot of land I could own.
itsmebrian@reddit
Fracking has entered the picture.
TeacherOfFew@reddit
Not really in the suburbs.
HopeFloatsFoward@reddit
There are absolutely suburbs in the Permian Basin
Frosty_Employment171@reddit
In Texas municipalities, the city owns the mineral rights.
HopeFloatsFoward@reddit
Suburbs are not usually in city limits. And cities can own mineral rights, but it is not a given even in Texas.
Frosty_Employment171@reddit
Most, many, all? Texas suburbs are incorporated;ie, cities.
HopeFloatsFoward@reddit
No, they are not.
itsmebrian@reddit
Check out https://www.psehealthyenergy.org/17-6-million-americans-live-close-to-active-oil-and-gas-and-fracking-wells/. This is from nine years ago and I am sure has not gotten better.
MajesticBread9147@reddit
I don't think fracking is a big thing where I live. I'd imagine there's zoning issues around it.
Plus a lot of our public transit lines are underground, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's bad to be pumping corrosive chemicals next to a cement tunnel.
Zeverian@reddit
Fracking is going on in the southwest of your state. The most impoverished part. It is a real tragedy what's going on down there (everything not just the fracking).
How deep do you think your transit lines go? Trust me it's nowhere near the depth that fracking generally occurs.
MajesticBread9147@reddit
That is true, but the majority of the state is quite lacking in natural resources that isn't like, timber and some coal on the far western part. Our state's history (from the perspective of European settlers) quite literally starts off with people coming here looking for resources and failing to find any while starving to death.
As for transit lines, the longest escalator in the western hemisphere is only about an hour away from me, so I'd say maybe a few hundred yards?
Zeverian@reddit
I grew up there i know. But you forget what the did find. Sand and timber to make glass and boats.
I know that escalator well I fell down 2 stories of it drunk in high-school.
Average depth for fracking is 8300 ft with some (the really bad ones) less than 3000 ft.
MajesticBread9147@reddit
Lol, I think you are talking about the escalator in Arlington. The longest escalator in the western hemisphere is slightly longer and in Wheaton.
Zeverian@reddit
Nope Wheaton. I have family in the area. I used to use the metro to go from my mom's to my dad's for custody weekends. Arlington no joke either.
I wasnt talking about what other people were talking about. I was addressing your comment. It wasnt lack of resources that made them starve.
MajesticBread9147@reddit
Ohh, the family bit makes sense. I assumed you were wrong because I couldn't imagine somebody choosing to go out for drinks in Wheaton.
Zeverian@reddit
You dont go out for drinks in high-school you swill MD2020.
And its always nice to have experimental verification about assumptions.
MajesticBread9147@reddit
Ah, MD2020, those were the days
BradleyFerdBerfel@reddit
Tell that to all the folks whose houses have been fracked around and under.
MajesticBread9147@reddit
Wouldn't that be a zoning issue?
Where I live the vast majority of areas are zoned for a combination of residential and commercial (offices and stores) with industrial being in places that were either claimed a century ago and built around or in otherwise undesirable land.
Salty_Permit4437@reddit
You have little say in zoning. Your municipal, county and state government does.
Curmudgy@reddit
You’ve never experienced an open town meeting debating a zoning bylaw change.
Salty_Permit4437@reddit
We had one recently for a zoning change that people suspected (correctly) that was for a new datacenter. The town council got all the angry feedback, everyone let it out their system, and just passed the resolution anyway.
People seem to vote for meaningless things anyway these days. They will forget about this and proceed to vote republican because republicans will tell them some stupid shit like immigrants or trans people are coming to take their jobs and use the restroom. And they’ll vote based on that.
TheBotchedLobotomy@reddit
Lol oil companies can do basically what they want. They own this country
MajesticBread9147@reddit
That may be true overall, but I checked and where I live, other than a couple of grandfathered quarries, there's a 20 acre minimum lot size for resource extraction, which would make it prohibitively expensive, and they'd make more money by turning that land into something more useful like a housing development.
Spirited_Ingenuity89@reddit
That probably just means they’d need 20 acres where they put the well head (and they generally need 5-10 acres anyway). Wells extract from an area that’s hundreds of acres. Looking at a map of mineral rich shale formations, there isn’t one where you live.
texasrigger@reddit
No. You dont need to actually be very close to a drill site for them to be fracking directly beneath your property. You can be as much as 4 miles from a rig and still have them drilling directly under your home.
MajesticBread9147@reddit
Holy shit that's wild.
texasrigger@reddit
Yeah, its pretty mind blowing what they can do. Drill straight down and then accurately bend the drill pipe 90 degrees to horizontal and then drill out laterally for thousands and thousands of feet. Ive seen drilling rigs go up close enough to my home that I have no doubt that they could be drilling right under me if they wanted. Im not even sure they are required to notify me.
Mad-Hettie@reddit
It depends. I'm in a mineral-rich state (at least it used to be) and "mining of non-metallic minerals" is a conditional use of all the Single Family residential zones I looked up. Now, there's lot of restrictions on it, but it is a conditional use.
aaronhayes26@reddit
If you can access an oil reserve from a particular plot of land that can be worth billions of dollars.
Mineral rights are a big fucking deal in a lot of areas.
MajesticBread9147@reddit
How do they divvy it up? Like what is stopping the guy two doors down from drilling "my" oil?
simplyexistingnow@reddit
Problem with things like mineral rights and all of that is whoever owns them can decide to come onto your property and extract them and then you have to deal with people and Machinery on your property
Spirited_Ingenuity89@reddit
I’ve only even seen people being paid (and paid well) for that kind of surface use.
Spirited_Ingenuity89@reddit
Everyone who owns mineral rights for the resource being extracted has to agree and sign a contract with the company who wants to extract. If there’s a hold out, they can’t build the well. Once they build a well and start extracting, each owner gets paid a percentage based on the size of their property.
Example: An 80 acre property is connected to 3 wells: Well 1 covers 25 acres, Well 2 covers 50 acres, Well 3 covers 5 acres. The property owner gets paid for each well proportional to the acreage on the well. If Well 2 is shut down for maintenance, the payment would change significantly compared to if Well 3 were down.
Harris505@reddit
You’re definitely not from one of the oil states. Mineral and water rights matter a lot.
jjinco33@reddit
Yeah, we have a family house in South Park on a couple of acres. We have to pay annually to have a set amount of water put back into the local streams as an estimate of the average amount of water everyone in the area uses from their wells. Domestic use only, set in the 70s.
Primary house we have a well with full rights to the water, no augmentation required.
Colorado has some interesting laws around water access.
quitealargeorangecat@reddit
TIL that South Park is a real place
FlamingBagOfPoop@reddit
Yep. My parents get a small check for their 1/4 acre mineral rights from the haynesvile shale. It’s not much but it’s a nice check to get and go out to dinner with it.
MajesticBread9147@reddit
Virginia is fortunate where we don't really have bad droughts, and water is cheap enough that a lot of landlords and condo buildings don't even bother metering each unit, they just include it with the cost of rent/ condo fees.
Harris505@reddit
We’ve been paying property taxes on an acequia that has been dry for 20 years. It’s a thing out here!
Salty_Permit4437@reddit
So if they found oil you would be like “meh?”
MajesticBread9147@reddit
I'm not a homeowner now, but I wouldn't want oil extraction happening in my community because of the health hazards and long term environmental consequences.
Salty_Permit4437@reddit
Yes please everyone please remember that all of NJ is like Elizabeth and Newark and definitely don’t move to Sussex, Warren, Morris or anywhere in in northwest or South Jersey because it’s all a giant shithole 🤣 (I wouldn’t live in Elizabeth or Newark, or Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston or New York City either)
As far as Newark in particular - I would think that the crime and gangs are a bigger problem.
Also, if you don’t own mineral rights, you could be forced off your property against your will. With payment of course, but you’d lose out.
texasrigger@reddit
I couldn't care less about the mineral rights beneath my land but the water rights are hugely important in my area right now. Im on a well in San Patricio county TX which is adjacent to Corpus Christi which is on track to be the first modern American city to fully run out of water. Their reserves are <10% and falling daily with emergency rationing expected by this fall. They just got a "temporary" permit to drill down into our aquifer and are about to absolutely suck us dry as well. They can do this because we dont own the water rights to what is beneath our feet.
Side note - this local story has national ramifications. The port of Corpus Christi is a major petrochemical hub and the busiest energy export port in the country. If it starts shutting down there is going to be some fallout on the national economy. Of course nobody is really doing anything about it.
NoCarpet9834@reddit
While certainly not nationwide, many people are interested in things like water and oil, especially in areas with oil or drought, which are usually included in mineral rights discussions.
Property owners who retained mineral rights and live in oil fields often pay their mortgage. There are regularly discoveries of new ways to extract resources.
ghunt81@reddit
In my area most people sold off their mineral rights a hundred plus years ago. Not much you can do about it now
Ki-to-Life-5054@reddit
Yes, your ownership rights are somewhat limited. And, unless you pay cash, the bank actually owns it until the mortgage is paid off.
NameLips@reddit
You often don't have water rights either, water is considered a public resource, and often it's technically illegal to even have a rain barrel to collect it for personal use.
EggInMyLeggings@reddit
Rain barrels are not usually illegal.
Most of the cases you hear about are people illegally impounding creeks that flow through their property.
Water law varies state to state.
Curmudgy@reddit
That’s only true in some states. CO is one that comes up frequently, but I can’t swear there aren’t a few other states with similar laws.
It’s not true here in MA. Our town encourages rain barrels for watering gardens.
ConcertinaTerpsichor@reddit
Or the air rights. Sometimes people can still fly drones above your property and you have no recourse.
Rescuepets777@reddit
Additionally, homeowners and landowners have to pay property taxes every year. If they fail to pay, the government seizes sells the property at auction to get their money. So, we never truly "own" it.
Tejanisima@reddit
While doing genealogical research, I discovered that an ancestor was the plaintiff in an 1862 Texas lawsuit that is still cited today in this regard, with the decision saying that somebody who buys the mineral rights under a plot of land inherently has the right to access the land in some way to get at those minerals, even if they don't own the surface land.
WhompTrucker@reddit
Yup. I live in a mountain town and my neighbor has an easement where he doesn't own a road on his land so people can drive on the road through his property. It can get complicated too in some areas
Common-Parsnip-9682@reddit
Ir water rights. Or rights to the water that falls from the sky.
Laws are weird.
LeftHandedScissor@reddit
The mineral rights are negotiable too. If you buy a house/property and find out there is a ground lease for the mineral rights you could always go to the holder of those rights and figure out what the cost would be to buy them back. It may not always be worthwhile to do so though, because the company often has a significant interest in developing those mineral rights, and unless you can do that yourself (incredibly unlikely) they may even pay for the right as tenants if they are ever able to produce oil, or natural gas, or w/e on the property. So the landowner gets royalties for allowing a company to profit from their property.
Flashy-Specific-4083@reddit
My uncle owned a cattle farm and oil was discovered under his land. He had no mineral rights but they paid him a crap ton of lease money for the drilling spot and a gravel road to and from that spot.
PBRStreetgang1979@reddit
Yes, though you still own land with an easement.
MostlyBrine@reddit
I own my house and land. Utilities have a 10ft easement in my front yard. The mineral rights are owned by Exxon.
LilRick_125@reddit
Yes on easements, I have one on my property. It's still a part of my property, I just need to allow access to our utilitiy company when the power line needs to be repaired.
Utterlybored@reddit
As long as you keep paying taxes and meeting the HOA requirements, if applicable.
sholt1142@reddit
If you don't pay property taxes, and the state can take ownership based solely on that, do you really own it? Or are you just renting it, effectively?
Utterlybored@reddit
I live in a wonderful home. If I'm paying $400 a month rent, it's a spectacular bargain. Along with the house, I get all sorts of governmental services and an educated populace.
ManicPixieGirlyGirl@reddit
They don’t just take it. They put what’s called a tax lien on the property. They are many types of liens that exist, basically a security interest/legal claim.
So no, you aren’t renting it.
sholt1142@reddit
A lien will become a levy. Property is the only thing 99% of people will encounter in this regard. What else do you "own" will get taken away if you don't continually pay money to keep it?
ManicPixieGirlyGirl@reddit
If you don’t pay your contractor, they can put a lien on your home. Are you renting your home from your contractor?
Of course not. Because that’s not how renting works. The courts are not your landlord.
Tardisgoesfast@reddit
Same with a mechanic who works on your car. If you don't pay him, he gets to keep your car.
InfernalMadness@reddit
I wish this were true, as soon as you stop paying property taxes you will realize you don't "own" it like you thought you did. More like renting the land and the house just sits on it. Sure you can do whatever you want to both, but it can easily be taken away.
mykepagan@reddit
Unless you live in Ocean Grove, NJ. There you own the home but only have a 99 year lease on the land because the entire town is the property of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (a Methodist Church organization).
Same in Mount Tabor, NJ too.
These were originally something akin to religious summer camps for entire families.
roasted-toebeans@reddit
You don’t own anything. Once paid off you are essentially renting yearly with property taxes. If you own your house but don’t pay property taxes guess what? You no longer own that house.
Odd-Staff6245@reddit
Depends, if you purchase a condo or townhouse maybe not. And some communities on the NJ shore are 100 year land leases. You own the structure but pay rent for the land
WARitter@reddit
In Maryland you can kind of own the land and still own land rent because feudalism (the state was originally the personal fief of Lord Baltimore).
WARitter@reddit
Forget if the state finally abolished it.
Bolo_Knee@reddit
Technically you own a Deed to the land. A Deed in actuality is a perpetual/inheritable lease that says you owe the government a percentage of the value of whatever you do with the land. The land is only yours as long as you keep paying.
madcowbcs@reddit
Kinda of true. You pay a mortgage to the bank for 15-30 years unless you have enough money and pay interest on that loan. Every month you also owe local taxes, which go up every year or two. Basically, you don't ever stop making payments on your house and land ever in most places in the US.
Wne1980@reddit
Where in the states do you pay property tax monthly? It’s generally once or twice a year…
chirop1@reddit
We have our property taxes and insurance tied into the escrow with our mortgage, so those tax estimates do get paid out monthly. Granted, thats our choice though.
Wne1980@reddit
Yeah, you’re just talking about your installment plan to pay the taxes while the bank owns the house. You pay property taxes twice a year
AilanthusHydra@reddit
Taxes are not a payment on the land in the same sense, though. They're intended to be a payment into the public good, to support community services that don't come free to the municipality. As to how/when they increase and why, and what limitations there are on such increases, this depends on the state.
Admittedly, I'm forever tired of people who mistake paying private for-profit companies to replace public services for freedom.
But yes, if you have a mortgage, you've borrowed money against the value of the property, the loan typically has interest, and if you miss payments, the mortgage company can take possession of your property.
ForumDragonrs@reddit
Having to pay property taxes is functionally no different from leasing/renting the land from the city/county. You will be removed from your property for non payment just like you will be for not paying your rent. Even empty pieces of property with no houses are subject to property taxes, as well as ones with no municipal connections to water, sewer, garbage, and electric.
Think about something like a car. Mine is fully paid off, no lien on the title, nothing. I own my car to the fullest extent of the definition. Even if I can't register it, I still own it. It cannot be taken away from me due to not paying for it every year or not paying the registration (with limited exceptions like asset seizure).
AilanthusHydra@reddit
Cool. I like funding schools, libraries, road maintenance, etc. My house isn't my car, and I live in a society and a community. Yeah, it costs money, because those public services cost money.
If I own extra land, it is fair that I pay more in taxes to support the public good based on my resources (the land). Yes, vacant land is also taxed, though you will typically pay far less in property taxes on vacant land than you will on a house. They are generally calculated using some estimate of the value of the property.
A car is a different beast. Driving for work aside, you cannot be generally assumed to be able to derive additional value from the car. But land? You can build. You can farm. It's not going to rust away, and if it's subject to erosion, that is normally taken into account when the value is calculated.
ForumDragonrs@reddit
My comment wasn't meant to be anti-tax. Property taxes are a good thing. I'm just pointing out that if you have to pay for something on a recurring basis, forever, and it can be taken away from you for not paying, you don't own it. It's a concept that really only applies to houses and property. All other material assets (that I can think of at least), you do own.
Fit_Log_9677@reddit
Even if you have a mortgage you are still the legal owner of the land.
Ditto taxes.
Ownership rights are separate from either of those.
Of course, if you don’t pay your mortgage or your taxes you can lose your ownership rights, but having to pay them doesn’t mean you don’t own the property.
Quartia@reddit
What is the practical difference, though, between being on a very long mortgage and renting the home from the bank?
Fit_Log_9677@reddit
A lot.
You accumulate equity in the property. If you rent an apartment for 20 years and move out you get nothing. If you buy a house and pay the mortgage for 20 years, and then sell it you get the difference between the remaining amount of principal on the mortgage and the selling price of the house.
The bank cannot require you to admit them to your property except under very limited and specific circumstances. A landlord can require you to admit them to your apartment for inspections and for maintenance, or just to show it off to other potential renters.
You can renovate and remodel the property however you want so long as you aren’t trying to maliciously damage or destroy its value. You can’t knock down walls in your apartment without the landlord’s permission.
You can do whatever you want in your own property so long as it doesn’t break the law. The bank can’t forbid you from installing a hillbilly hottub in the living room or hotboxing your bedroom in the same way a landlord can.
In the US most mortgage interest rates are fixed, whereas rent is not. The amount you owe on your mortgage should never go up (unless you agree to a refinance), but your landlord can raise your rent however much they want every year (unless you live in a rent controlled apartment).
Muvseevum@reddit
There are adjustable rate mortgages, but you should avoid those.
Aspen9999@reddit
Equity value in the home vs the landlord gaining equity value in the home. Your rules vs those in a lease.
Sabertooth767@reddit
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/083115/renting-vs-owning-home-pros-and-cons.asp
Popular-Local8354@reddit
You do not own the rental, you do own your home.
rocky8u@reddit
The fact that you pay taxes does not mean you do not own the land. Most countries charge landowners some form of taxes.
Salty_Permit4437@reddit
You still do own the property but effectively paying property taxes is like paying rent.
hail_to_the_beef@reddit
Right, but the ownership is yours. The mortgage is to pay the bank back - they lent you the money to buy the house. It's your house and you own it. They can come take it if you stop paying them back though.
Dry-Huckleberry-1984@reddit
If you don’t pay your property taxes though (in states that have them) you will very quickly not own it anymore
Texan_Greyback@reddit
I view it as renting the land, cause if the government can take it away, you don't own it.
Premium333@reddit
Just wait until OP learns about mineral and water rights.... And air space rights
Persistent_Parkie@reddit
I'm pretty sure the quickest way to start a brawl in the agricultural area where I live is to bring up water rights.
Premium333@reddit
Yeah. Water rights are absolutely fucked for most of America. It's wild that water rights is an entire legal professional.specialty.
Crochet_Corgi@reddit
Not always. Mobile homes can be on, but rented spaces. Condos can have shared ownership. Etc.
Aspen9999@reddit
Not always. You can be on land with a long term lease, such as a 99 year lease.
BradleyFerdBerfel@reddit
If you're leasing it, you didn't buy it.
nomuggle@reddit
There are places where you own the home but lease the land. It’s super common in the towns surrounding the beach we go to.
scolbath@reddit
And in places like northern Maine, where my grandparents had a summer camp on paper property, with a 99 year lease.
Not American, but I love how in the UK people regularly have property on land that has a lease measured in multiple centuries. You can see this on the real estate listing - "remaining lease: 920 years"! This is I believe land owned either by the crown or by the Church of England.
Tardisgoesfast@reddit
Similar to Hong Kong. The Brits had it on a lease from China but China refused to renew the lease. Which had a big affect on Hong Kong.
BradleyFerdBerfel@reddit
Okay then. But that sounds like such a horrible deal, I wouldn't even consider it.
nomuggle@reddit
To each their own. We did it because we are waterfront for a fraction of the price and the neighborhood has a ton of amenities (5 pools, tennis, pickleball, volleyball, shuffleboard and basketball courts, dog parks, 2 bars/restaurants, community center, etc) that are included.
mfigroid@reddit
You are buying the structure and leasing the ground. I lived in a house in the Coachella Valley in CA with a 99 year ground lease from the Indians. We owned the house.
Aspen9999@reddit
Uhm… I think that’s what I said. That you can be on land with a long term lease. What’s your problem comprehending that?
Tooch10@reddit
Ocean Grove, NJ
VeronicaTwangler@reddit
Yes. Jekyll Island was this way. You bought the house, but the land was a 99 year renewable lease
AcanthisittaWhole216@reddit
You don’t completely own the land and the house cos you still need to pay property tax and they can take your house if you don’t pay the tax
KyleAltNJRealtor@reddit
Not always.
Ocean Grove, NJ for example. All the land is owned by the Methodist Camp Meeting Association.
It’s not an HOA. Each home pays a nominal fee to perpetually extend their land lease every year for 99 years. But you do not own the land. Just the improvements.
PurpleAriadne@reddit
Mobile Home parks you own the house but rent the land.
CPAFinancialPlanner@reddit
In some of those trailer parks you just own the structure and not the land. Which is why they typically depreciate instead of go up
Better-Strategy8798@reddit
is there a law about how far you can dig? lol just curious
ArcticBeavers@reddit
Often times, you also own the air space above your home, to a degree.
ivhokie12@reddit
No A320s allowed above my house!
Remote_Ocelot9600@reddit
You definitely own 83 feet. Anything above 500 or 1000, depending on area, is air highway, the middle is grey area as far as ownership vs public.
RonPalancik@reddit
I am now busy designing a house on 84-foot walking stilts. I'm just going to find people I don't like and position my stilt-house above theirs for months at a time.
jd732@reddit
Uh oh, I better tell the kids to pull that kite down a few hundred feet
Remote_Ocelot9600@reddit
Legally, everyone has a right to use that space. Drone pilots, your kids, etc. it's just within the short distance that it is specifically your property.
Gunzablazin1958@reddit
Not at my house.
We live near an airport and are in a no fly zone for drones that ends between my house and the neighbor’s 30 feet away.
thndrchld@reddit
I live directly under an airport approach. I have a maximum airspace allowance of 300' AGL, but even with that, I have to contact the local ATC tower and request permission to fly above 50' AGL. Fortunately, the process is automated via an app, and I've never had a request denied.
Check the airspace zone you're in. Unless you live directly next door to the airport, it's unlikely that you have a 100% no-fly restriction.
Gunzablazin1958@reddit
I have no doubt you are correct.
I don’t have a drone, I’m simply repeating what I was told that by a man measuring my roof for solar panels as he folded up his drone and pulled out a ladder.
Travelsat150@reddit
Not where I live. Privacy rights. I think they have to be a certain distance away and absolutely not looking into people’s backyards.
VerifiedMother@reddit
Somewhere in Europe I'm guessing
ivhokie12@reddit
I see that 83 feet is from an old supreme court case but damn that is oddly specific.
tawzerozero@reddit
The Supreme Court case was military planes flying low over some dudes farm. 83 feet was the lowest verifiably recorded overflight of a plane, when the farm had like a 70 foot tall barn, and was basically recognized as clearly too law and encroaching on the farmer's home.
Questions_Remain@reddit
Well it’s an even 25.298 meters so it makes sense. No it doesn’t. Maybe thats twice the distance a person could throw a rock straight up. 🤷
FuckIPLaw@reddit
And not an ANSI or ISO standard average person. Some judge just asked some guy to throw a rock one day and that was the number they went with.
Questions_Remain@reddit
And the court will adjourn to the parking lot, OK pick up that rock and toss it over top of that three-story building. Bailiff go measure the building, court will commence after a lunch break.
Bailiff you’re findings, 41 1/2 feet Your Honor
WildMartin429@reddit
I did not each state has its own regulations on that and there's usually a gray area between what the states say and then what the FFA States so there's usually a portion of the air above your house that is not clear who owns it
VerifiedMother@reddit
Future Farmers of America doesn't tell me where I can fly my plane
Top-Bicycle-7363@reddit
I'm more inclined to listen to orders from the FFA than the FAA.
WildMartin429@reddit
LOL I think I meant FAA but that's funny enough that I'm just going to leave it.
PrincessWolfie1331@reddit
My dog agrees with you. He doesn't allow birds in his airspace, or thunder.
Gail_the_SLP@reddit
That explains why my dog is always barking at airplanes. Or maybe he’s just an idiot.
ash_274@reddit
Have any planes tried to land or crash on your house? Dog is doing a good job
goteed@reddit
Just to clarify the point of owning the airspace above your property. A property owner typically owns the airspace up to 500 feet (360 feet in rural areas) above their property. However, the airspace is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA maintains authority over all airspace, including low-altitude airspace, for safe operation of unmanned aircraft. I'm a commercial drone pilot and I constantly have to educate people about this. While you may own the airspace, the FAA has authority over it and has granted me the authority to use that airspace.
Now before someone goes all Karen about this, I respect peoples privacy and do everything I can to not fly over peoples property that is not part of the flight I am conducting. Sometimes though it is unavoidable. However you can rest assured that commercial drone pilots could care less about your property or what you re doing in your backyard. We have an objective that we are trying to achieve, in my case that is filming a specific thing. Some examples are the house a realtor is trying to sell, or an installation of a solar system that a company I'm working for is doing. You are of no interest to me because filming you in your back yard doesn't pay me a dime!
Salty_Permit4437@reddit
I bet you got that very wrong 83 foot number from AI. It’s wrong, don’t trust AI.
All airspace is regulated by the FAA. You don’t own it. There’s no number of feet either. Courts have ruled on this. What you occupy is what is yours. All aircraft including drones can legally use the airspace above your home. Interfering with aircraft is a felony, too.
MyUsername2459@reddit
The Supreme Court explicitly said you own the surface to 83 feet in United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946).
FAA regulated airspace begins at 500 feet.
Between 83 and 500 feet is legally ambiguous.
People have destroyed drones under the 83 foot altitude as trespassing and been exonerated by courts.
Salty_Permit4437@reddit
You’re misinterpreting what US vs Causby says.
The Causby case involved 83 feet altitude but this was not the supreme court’s holding that you own up to 83 feet. In this case the plaintiff’s particular case was 83 feet but this doesnt mean that everyone owned up to 83 feet.
They did hold that:
The common law doctrine that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe has no place in the modern world. This means that you do not own an infinite amount of or really any airspace.
And
“Flights of aircraft over private land which are so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land are as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it. “
So it’s not that you exclusively own up to 83 feet. In this case the government had the glide path of an airport runway so low that aircraft passed so frequently and so low that the owners could not enjoy the property.
This is a FAR cry from an aircraft, including a UAS, simply flying over your property. You don’t own airspace.
paypermon@reddit
Maybe not in Hawaii.
Vizkos@reddit
You own them as long as you're paying property taxes. Is it really owning if it can be taken away?
Odd-Respond-4267@reddit
To clarify: yes typically you will own both structure and land, but:
mobile homes are often on leased land (and contrary to name aren't typically moved, except to deploy).
Also most new builds are part of an HOA, and many rights are are irreversibly given to the HOA, which may then enforce rules such as color of house, or parking on driveway, etc. (even though it's your property)
And sometimes mineral rights are sold off separately.
freshboss4200@reddit
A further caveat here you do "own" the land but you have to pay taxes on it and if you dont pay, the municipality takes your land. So in effect you do have the right to exclusive use of the land in perpetuity but if you dont pay your fees you lose the right. In a way it is similar to renting the land from the town with a perpetual term lease. Not too different from some other places in the world.
I can think of a town or two as well where one organization owns all the land and does rent you the land. In the past it had been a company or religious organization that would buy the whole thing and set it up but people dont do that as much any more. Most of these arrangements are gone but some still remain.
For commercial land often there are land leases for long term. This is much more common
Buckabuckaw@reddit
For most of us, the bank that loaned the money and holds the mortgage owns the house and the land. If you ever pay off the mortgage, then you own the house and the land.
CH11DW@reddit
Unless you live in a double wide (often referred to as trailers). You own structure but not the land.
erice2018@reddit
I once had a house that had a 1950's bomb shelter in the basement. In a national emergency, we would still have to allow others into the shelter. It was built into the deed.
Emergency_Coyote_662@reddit
most places, yes.
DontRunReds@reddit
Usually.
There are times when you own the home but not the land. The two notable exceptions I can think of are:
LustfulEsme@reddit
Unless you are land that can only be leased. Land around our lake in my city ís leased land. You lease it from the city utility.
Serious_Coffee_8066@reddit
And by own, you only own it as long as you pay taxes on it, otherwise you no longer own it, the town or county does.
RergTheFriendly@reddit
You own the structure and surface rights but probably not the mineral rights.
MrShortPants@reddit
If you are expected to pay taxes on either the house or the land, and the state can take your property away if you don't pay those taxes, then you OWN nothing.
Alternative-Law4626@reddit
Typically, you own the house and the land. I know of exceptions, but don’t worry about them, they are rare.
You are typically taking out a mortgage on the property (a loan secured by the property). You fail to make your payments enough, your co-owner (the bank), will come take the property. If you don’t abide, the government will loan the police to remove you by force). A friend of mine just saw his neighbor removed by force today. It’s rare but it does happen.
Potential-Drawing745@reddit
You usually own both, but you may or may not retain mineral rights.
anotherdudeonhere25@reddit
Stop paying property taxes and you'll find out who the true owner is...
Salty_Permit4437@reddit
In most places in the USA you own the house and surface rights to the land. Airspace is federally controlled and mineral rights may vary. Also there are easements where certain entities can use parts of your property for utilities or other public infrastructure.
Suspicious-Fish7281@reddit
Those property taxes are not just for the privilege of owning your home though. They buy you things like a law enforcement to protect your property and civil liberties, a fire department, a road network, a school system, acess to recreation, a social support system, ect.
I have a strong Libertarian bent, but even I see some amount of taxes as a fair trade for the protections of living in a civil society. How fairly those taxes are levied and the efficiency and even desirability thier use is a separate argument.
Salty_Permit4437@reddit
Then don’t tie them to property ownership if they aren’t just glorified rent.
wolferiver@reddit
Property owners are the aggregate of a town's collective jurisdictional area. I don' t understand how a town would afford to pay for road upkeep, self governance, schools, crime prevention, fire protection, water and waste utilities, and communal parks system if they didn't levy property taxes. I suppose they could instead impose a sales tax, but in a small town that wouldn't net much if there aren't many stores, or people could just drive over to the next town or city and do all their shopping there thus avoiding the higher sales tax. Another option is for a town to collect income tax from their residents. As you might imagine, this is no less popular than collecting property taxes. (Some cities collect both property taxes and an income tax.)
Even renters have some portion of their rent go towards property taxes, but it's their landlord who pays the property taxes. (I lived in Wisconsin for many years and renters could itemize a percentage of their rent as a deduction on the state tax returns.)
For an interesting experiment of how libertarianism can go wrong read up on the recent history of Grafton, New Hampshire
librarianbleue@reddit
A few years ago I stumbled onto the book telling Grafton's story; A Libertarian Walks into a Bear. Excellent read.
Muvseevum@reddit
Right now in Georgia, the Republican candidates for governor are claiming that they’ll cut your property tax in half and eliminate state income tax. They don’t say how they’ll pay for anything, but they’ll probably want to raise sales tax so poor people shoulder even more of the burden than they di already.
wolferiver@reddit
Same in Florida. The legislature already has their plan mapped out. They definitely will raise the sales tax in the state, and leave a loophole that allows cities and towns to do special assessments to cover anything that needs to be paid for.
Salty_Permit4437@reddit
Road upkeep is actually paid for by fuel taxes. It’s the perfect example of a usage based tax.
The rest of stuff, charge a separate residency tax applied to homeowners and renters. But if you own your home you shouldn’t be paying rent to the government just to keep your home.
IShouldBeHikingNow@reddit
Whether or not property taxes pay for road upkeep varies by state and jurisdiction as does the impact of property taxes on home ownership. New Jersey has some of the highest property taxes in the US, and it may well disincentivize ownership. In California our property taxes are capped on 1% and annual re-assessments are capped at 2%. The implementation in New Jersey might be poor, but it's not the only option.
Also, if you remove property taxes, local government will need to find another revenue stream or significantly degrade services. Sales taxes would be the obvious option, but increasing sales taxes by 10 - 15% would have a host of different but equally bad consequences. Other options could include a partial homestead exemption for primary residences or split roles, where commercial and residential real estate pay different property tax rates.
Salty_Permit4437@reddit
It’s universal that fuel taxes in the US pay for road maintenance and transportation infrastructure. Federally there is a fuel tax and every state has a fuel tax.
NYC collects city income tax to pay for local services. (They also collect property tax but their rate is lower than the state rate). That’s a better system than charging the property tax rent. The idea is that someone shouldn’t be making expensive, perpetual payments to stay in a home they’ve been told they own.
Many other countries do not have property tax and they have roads and public infrastructure. So property tax isn’t even necessary for that.
IShouldBeHikingNow@reddit
Fuel taxes not near high enough to pay for building and maintaining all the roads in the US. On a local level, property taxes fund the building and maintenance of local roads.
https://pirg.org/california/resources/who-pays-for-roads/
New York still levies property taxes, as do all states. But I agree that income taxes are less burdensome to low-income residents, and would be an effective way to reduce property taxes. That's exactly how it works in California.
Suspicious-Fish7281@reddit
I'm willing to entertain how they should be levied. It does seem like funds spent locally on local programs and designed to benift primarily locals should be raised locally though. Keeping both the funding and the spending locally is helpful. I can't show up and sit down and have a conversation with the president or even my senator about Social Security. I could do that with my state rep or mayor about the playground at my park though.
Property taxes do buy things not connected directly to your property ownership though. I believe it is important to not consider them as nebulos overhead but as funding the specific programs that they do as it is easier to demand that local governments spend it wisely
Salty_Permit4437@reddit
City income tax like NYC. Nobody should have to pay rent for a home they own.
Sir_Auron@reddit
Property tax is by far the fairest way to fund a city/county budget (maybe next to a land value tax), everyone chips in and values remain relatively stable and predictable, necessitating only minor adjustments to the rate to provide stable, predictable estimates for municipal budgets.
If you want lower taxes, vote for fewer services.
Suspicious-Fish7281@reddit
I'm not shooting this down entirely I am of course as a home owner intersted in more fair alternatives.
What if I don't work or am retired? No local taxes? What if I have a primary home and 10 acres of forested land a state over? Do I pay income tax to both? In relation to what? My earnings or to my property value? In a lot of ways I think property tax combined with homestead or age based vouchers is most fair.
Salty_Permit4437@reddit
Why should someone with no income be paying rent on a home they own? Retirement is the perfect example, retirees actually use less services.
No property tax should be on primary homes. I do support wealth taxes. The rich should be paying more, not the retired homeowner.
Suspicious-Fish7281@reddit
I am now arguing against my own best interests. I am 52 and looking at retiring in 3 years. Since my home is now paid off my biggest expense in retirement by far is going to be property and the related school tax. The elimination of my property tax would allow my to have retired at least 2 years ago.
I still believe that I should be contributing my share to fund local services for a good many years more. I will be using less, but still will be using some.
No property tax would shift the tax burden away from retirees and onto younger workers. That would be good for me as I am about done, I am not sure about society in general, I am positive that would cause some outcry from those workers earlier in life. My state does offer a property tax rebate at 65.
174wrestler@reddit
The problem is investors snap up properties and leave them empty, creating a housing shortage. Housing costs go up hurting people who live there while investors get rich.
Major problem in places like Vancouver and Australia.
Salty_Permit4437@reddit
Then narrow it to owner occupied properties, private owners primary home only.
174wrestler@reddit
Many places in the US have that... it's called a homestead exemption.
MyUsername2459@reddit
They aren't "glorified rent".
The idea that you don't own land because you have to pay property taxes on it is delusional ranting by people who don't understand property law, or really law at all.
ForumDragonrs@reddit
I don't think it's right to say property taxes but you services like police and fire department, schools, and all that, at least not in the traditional context of the word. If you stop paying for something, you'd normally just be denied the service.
I pay for netflix every month. If I stop paying, they don't repossess my TV, I just can't use Netflix anymore. If I buy a car outright, but don't pay the registration, the fee for my driver's license, or insurance, I couldn't drive in public roads, but could drive all I wanted within my property. No one can take that car away from me as long as I don't break the law by "stealing" services I don't pay for, i.e public roads paid for by various taxes and/or fees.
Houses and land do not receive the same treatment. If I don't pay my property taxes, despite the house or land being completely paid off, I'm not denied services. I'll just be foreclosed on. This is more akin to something like an condominium with a common area. You can own the condo, but if you don't pay the fees for the common area, you lose your condo, not the rights to the common area.
I want to say that I'm not against property taxes. I'm also not saying that cities should deny you fire service when your house is burning down because you didn't update you CC info and missed your tax payment. I'm saying that there is a clear distinction between buying the rights to use a service and renting something (your property) with the agreement that your rental money (taxes) will allow you to use whoever you're paying's shared services (police, fire, schools, libraries, etc.), with the threat of forfeiture of what you rent.
SeaGurl@reddit
"I have a strong Libertarian bent, but even I see some amount of taxes as a fair trade for the protections of living in a civil society."
100%
I live outside the city limits so we have an emergency service district that levies taxes to you know...pay for emergency services. The HOA usually coordinates and manages it. A neighborhood near me got some hardline libertarians on the hoa and the voted to not extend a contract and then we're surprised when the fire department wouldn't show up.
Sometimes, taxes are worth it.
Accomplished-witchMD@reddit
I agree we need this money I dont agree that it be tied so closely to property ownership. People use those service regardless of property ownership and with mortgages owning a home doesn't necessarily make you wealthy. I have equity yes but that's not money in my pocket or my bank account. Its tax on maybe money.
174wrestler@reddit
If you rent, the property tax is effectively passed through as part of your rent. (California, for example, lets you take a state income tax credit if you rent to account for this) So everybody pays for the services directly or indirectly.
The idea of property taxes is that land is inherently limited (key words Georgism) and labor is not. It is possible to have a monopoly over land and natural resources, see board game of Monopoly and investors snapping up residential properties and leaving them empty in places like Australia and Vancouver.
So the result is Texas: you don't have income taxes and instead get the revenue from property taxes. If you're rich enough to have a big house, you pay more. If you're rich enough to own two houses, you pay twice. If you're rich enough to buy property for investment and leave it empty, you also pay twice.
iwriteaboutthings@reddit
I think people get caught up in “my” land. They don’t think through that it is also simultaneously “US”, State and Locality land.
Well, that, and a lot of folks just want other people to pay.
amazingtaters@reddit
And even more fun for condos, you can own other parts of the structure independently as well. It's pretty common here in Chicago if your building has parking to own both your unit and, under a different tax PIN, your parking spot. It's a decent solution when there isn't a 1:1 unit to parking ratio.
MajesticBread9147@reddit
Lol, the separate parking spot reminded me that somebody tried to sell a wall a few years ago. Literally just the wall for $50k..
amazingtaters@reddit
$50k for a wall is some peak Georgetown shit.
SabresBills69@reddit
you own some of the air space. fed air space is a few hundred feet off the ground.
Salty_Permit4437@reddit
Wrong. You own what you occupy. All airspace is regulated by FAA.
MyUsername2459@reddit
Once again, you are wrong.
Per the Supreme Court, you own the surface to 83 feet outright per United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946) and that can't be regulated airspace .
SabresBills69@reddit
Wrong. If that was the case you could fly a remote aircraft or kite or drone
Salty_Permit4437@reddit
Anyone can legally fly an aircraft over your property, from surface to infinity. The FAA can also prohibit anyone including you the owner from flying a drone, balloon, kite or any aircraft. In fact near airports there are altitude restrictions set by the FAA. When the president is in town, there’s also a 30 mile radius no drone zone. You simply do not own the airspace.
SabresBills69@reddit
Cite the code of federal regulations that says this. BTW a supreme court decision says you own the air above your home.
Ok_Gas5386@reddit
Doesn’t allow me to exercise my God given right to build a space elevator in my backyard
Cheap_Coffee@reddit
Don't you hate NIMBYs?
Solid_Lab3422@reddit
You own the house, and lease the land from the government in the form of property taxes.
Icy_Huckleberry_8049@reddit
neither, the bank or mortgage company does until you make the LAST and final payment
HermioneMarch@reddit
Usually both
NoKing9900@reddit
Typically both, but there can exemptions to that based on the municipality and even the development itself.
Soggy_Information_60@reddit
Mobile home parks. You rent the lot and may have bought the mobile home itself.
psl1959@reddit
You own the land, whether it is empty land or has structures in it, the legal description of the land is what is recorded under your name.
Wen60s@reddit
Here in Kentucky, or at least where I live in Louisville, both house and land.
Visual-Fig-4763@reddit
Usually both. There are some situations where a person might not own the land but the majority own both
Normal-Sprinkles6799@reddit
Generally you own the house and the land BUT if you buy into an HOA, you own the house only as long as you follow their rules. HOAs are allowed to go to court and take your property if you won't follow their "laws". And, you're paying an extra fee every month just so you can be treated as a child.
jonwilliamsl@reddit
Both, except, bafflingly, in Baltimore, Maryland, where you own the building and rent the land long-term.
https://www.peoples-law.org/understanding-ground-rent-maryland
mykepagan@reddit
Same in Ocean Grove, NJ
Dr_One_L_1993@reddit
Came here to note this, that "ground rent" is a thing in Baltimore and some of the close-in suburbs. I have a friend who owns a home in Linthicum, Maryland (technically in Anne Arundel County vs in the city) and she also pays ground rent. In contrast, I live 25 miles out from the city, 2 counties over, and I own both my house and the land that it's on.
Ok_Gas5386@reddit
Both. Only exceptions I’m aware of are trailer parks, where you own the trailer but have to rent the land it sits on.
mykepagan@reddit
The town of Ocean Grove, NJ is an exception. The land is owned by a Methodist Church organization and house owners get a 99 year lease on the land.
x_Caffeine_Kitten_x@reddit
Trailer parks, condos, and occasionally townhouses/duplexes.
Alert-Potato@reddit
Not necessarily true. In my HOA, owning a condo means that each of the 144 units own the land equally.
Ok_Gas5386@reddit
With condos, if I’m not mistaken, you do have an ownership stake in the land. The condo association owns the land, which includes you. You pay fees for upkeep, but not rent to a landlord.
I’ve seen a lot of townhouses and duplexes where the property line runs down the party wall, so each resident does own the land directly in front and rear of their unit.
Username_5647@reddit
When I was a condo owner, the property line ran 'up to and including the drywall'. The HOA owned the 2x4's in between units.
MajesticBread9147@reddit
This is true.
Except the rare situation of some condos that have a lease back situation, where they have a say, 99 year lease where things are up in the air what happens then.
There's a highrise condo building in my hometown that is consistently the cheapest real estate, because the lease is up in line 15 years and thus a 2 bedroom condo is like $200k.
Ok_Gas5386@reddit
My understanding is that most condos are pretty much worthless after 50 years anyway, especially in the suburbs. They need so much renovation after several decades that the arrangement no longer makes financial sense.
My hometown has a similar building, built in the 70s, where the units are also often listed unsold for under $200k. There’s no lease situation, the building is just old and shitty.
bicyclecat@reddit
It’s not really condos, it’s the type of condo build. In Chicago there are lots of small/mid size 100 year old brick condo buildings that hold their value. The units midcentury concrete high rises are hard to sell because the maintenance on those buildings becomes very expensive.
Ok_Gas5386@reddit
I’m pretty sure the first condominiums were established in the late 60s. There are condo buildings built before that, but they were converted to condos some time in the 20th or 21st century, using an influx of capital from a developer to renovate, said developer recuperating their investment from the sale of the units.
I live in such a building - built in 1867, converted to condos in 1996. The building is almost 160 years old, but the condos are only 30 years old.
All buildings require major renovations in addition to regular maintenance over a significant time horizon, which 100 years well exceeds. A condo association without the foresight or resources to anticipate this could easily wind up defunct well before the lease is up.
GreenStrong@reddit
A friend of mine ended up in this situation. The structures themselves were serviceable, but a significant number of the units were owned by slumlord landlords who didn't want to pay for preventative maintenance. This led to frequent emergency repairs, depleted maintenance budgets, and the actual owner- residents being forced to vote against funding good upkeep because their personal finances were depleted by special assessments for repairs. It is a bad situation and there is no obvious path to recovery.
zeezle@reddit
I was looking earlier at some of those now-worthless condos in Florida. After that one building collapsed and the laws changed, a lot of them are being hit with 100k+ special assessments to repair them (which is uh, certainly better than your building collapsing on you!). Many of them are now being sold for like $10k, but the buyer pays the assessment or the monthly dues are now like $1600+ a month to pay off the repairs.
Or a wild one I just saw that is $20k for the condo, $1500 a month, and has a "nonrefundable initiation fee" of 150k cash due at closing. I don't know who the fuck is signing up for that (it's not an assisted living facility), hence the thing probably being hard to offload for even $20k...
relikter@reddit
Are you talking about River Place in Arlington? That immediately sprang to mind for me too.
_oscar_goldman_@reddit
The condo association owns you?!
Cheap_Coffee@reddit
In the last townhouse condo I had the association owned the structure and the land, and I owned everything from the wall studs, in.
Ok_Gas5386@reddit
You (individual) own everything from the studs in, but you (collective of condo owners) own the building and grounds. When you sell the condo, you sell your unit, but your partial rights to the building and grounds also transfers.
Cheap_Coffee@reddit
I am aware.
Mayor__Defacto@reddit
You, as a Condo owner, are part of the Association.
Cheap_Coffee@reddit
I am aware.
ExitingBear@reddit
With condos, you typically own the interior of your unit (sometimes referred to "from paint to paint") and a percentage of the building and the land beneath the building. Co-ops work differently.
Of course, your deed will detail exactly what it is you own when you buy.
wvtarheel@reddit
Duplexes can be either way though. Just depends.
Wessssss21@reddit
And then the really fun domain of HOA's. Where Karen from down the block and put a lien on your house because your shutters are blue instead of black.
AnybodySeeMyKeys@reddit
I was wondering when the lazy HOA stereotype would arrive.
The very large percentage of HOAs aren't that way at all. They have a board that does their level best to keep the property up.
You have a pretty simple set of rules to follow.
If you don't like HOAs, don't live in one.
Cheap_Coffee@reddit
That's not how it works but your point that one is not living "free and clear" is correct.
DoublePostedBroski@reddit
Some townhouses are “fee simple” which include the land.
jmc1278999999999@reddit
Land leases are common in California, where you also would not own the land your house is on. Which is crazy to me since they’re permanent structures
Ambitious-Sale3054@reddit
Jeckyll Island,Georgia is a state park and even though there are about 600 private residences they own their houses but lease the land. Annual rent is 0.4% of the fair market value of the land. The leases are long term and current leases expire 2049-2088.
Ok_Gas5386@reddit
How long are the leases generally for? If they’re for like 50+ years I could see how that might make sense to allow for efficient redevelopment, but having to renew your land lease under the house you own every year seems asinine.
another-princess@reddit
In Maryland, ground rent was historically in perpetuity. That actually created a major crisis, where people were finding old ground rent contracts from colonial times and placing liens on the house over contracts that the homeowner didn't even know existed.
jmc1278999999999@reddit
Couldn’t tell you how long those leases are but I can’t imagine it’s yearly.
IShouldBeHikingNow@reddit
Outside of tribal lands and federal land, I've never really seen long-term land leases used in residential real estate, but I'm mostly familiar with LA and Sacramento. What was the context for the land leases?
SopaDeKaiba@reddit
In Hawaii it's very common to have 99 year leases on the land rather than owning it outright.
SnooFloofs3486@reddit
There is such a thing as detached condos. They're single fam houses on shared land. Happens when a local jurisdiction sucks and prohibits subdivision of bigger parcels but allows multifamily. Solution = detached condos. For all practical purposes they're single family. But they do that to bypass a dysfunctional rule.
Red_Sox0905@reddit
Some of the most valuable houses in the city I was born in are on land owned by the city. The people who own the houses essentially get 99 year rent free "leases".
Cyberspots156@reddit
When I was in Hawaii there was a couple of options when purchasing a home.
You could buy the house and the land it was on.
You bought the house and the land was leased. I’ve seen homes for sale where the land was leased for 99 years.
elizabethandsnek@reddit
Some retirement community homes are also setup where you only own the home, not the land
KingOfTheNorth91@reddit
My family had a small cabin on a lake when I was growing up that was like this too. We owned the structure, rented the land
ManateeNipples@reddit
Land leases are a thing in Hawaii. You can own the building without owning the land it's sitting on. My husband got obsessed with moving there after a vacation so we discovered that in our research lol
Rdbjiy53wsvjo7@reddit
It's not unusual to lease the land on major water bodies, government entities own the land and homeowners just own the building, but not always.
We grew up in the Mississippi, the Army Corp of Engineers owned the land, but we owned the structure.
cavall1215@reddit
Or a condo where you don't pay rent for the land but do typically pay fees for maintenance of it.
Ok_Gas5386@reddit
Maintenance fees are more like property taxes than rent. Collective payment for the common upkeep of common infrastructure.
cavall1215@reddit
Yes, I was drawing a broad comparison of a fee that one pays for monthly services. If we're getting technical, property taxes aren't a great analogy either as that money goes towards all sorts of government services that are unrelated to to the domicile's infrastructure like education, public services, etc.
CPA_Lady@reddit
Or you could have a long term lease of your land, like 99 years if the land is around something like a reservoir that is managed by an authority. Not terribly uncommon here in Mississippi. The Pearl River authority that manages an enormous reservoir here in the Jackson area. So you own your house but not the land. The lease transfers when the house sells.
PineappleLevel8716@reddit
We own nothing because we rent through the government via property taxes
Narrow-Research-5730@reddit
Neither. Quit paying your property taxes and you'll find out shortly who actually owns it.
DooficusIdjit@reddit
You own the structures and the surface land. You don’t necessarily own the rights to anything below your land.
ProfessorUrandom@reddit
Here in Hawaii we have what is called Lease Hold Land. You own the house, but lease the land. We also had Fee Simple where you own it both - like most of America.
Ecstatic-Seesaw-1007@reddit
Both.
However there are lots of exceptions, like easements and rights of way (utilities and roads) and stuff like riparian (water) rights can be both federally regulated and state regulated, like along the Colorado River where more water rights are apportioned than actually flow, because it goes through 7 states.
Large properties, like in the midwest, usually come with both surface and mineral rights, but sometimes the property was already developed and sold say mineral rights.
Or, you have a property that came with a lease, something like Timber or Grazing and more recently, telecommunications (cell phone towers).
Some really old leases come up on properties, sometimes.
For people on (American) Indian Reservations, their land is considered to be held in trust by the US government for the tribes. Then the tribe leases out the land and can divide up the allotments.
My federal government career was in government trust land and trust land law. One of the major goals of BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) is to bring land into trust for the tribes.
Correct-Olive-5394@reddit
Neither…..as long as I’m still paying taxes on it I truly don’t own it.
Charlea1776@reddit
Usually both for permanent homes.
Trailer homes are Usually just the trailer and you rent the land. Yes this Usually means you lose the trailer if the landowner decides to sell and the new owner wants the land for other uses. Once a trailer home settles, moving it will make it fall apart. I am not sure how this is even still legal, but no one votes to change that. Occasionally, someone buys a trailer for their land and permanently affixed the title to the land and it becomes more like real property and you are buying the home amd land together.
Then there are communal properties where you own the home (apartment, condo, townhouse, or cottage home) but the land is technically owned by the community HOA. You pay HOA dues, like rent but not called rent, and the HOA is responsible for exterior maintenance. This can vary from being responsible for all things exterior even the roof and siding, to only landscaping services for the entire community and private community park if applicable.
The vast majority of property is land and structure which is really what you want if you ever buy in the US if you move here. HOAs are not reliable enough in my experience. Sometimes they have good accounting and sometimes they fail to collect for a decade and stuff goes very badly and everyone has to come up with 15,000 or even more to afford say replacing leaking roofs. That's the current homeowner paying up on the last however many owners that weren't paying in enough and you got stuck with that bill.
davyj0427@reddit
I guess technically you own the land as you can sell it, but you’ll be forever renting it from the government.
gobaldridefaster@reddit
Neither. The way taxes are handled, the government owns all land and structures. People don’t like to think of it that way, but home ownership is just payment of a licensing fee. You cannot truly say that you own a house or land if you have to keep paying yearly to have it not taken away by the government.
No-Flan3302@reddit
You never really own it. If you don’t pay real estate taxes, they can put a lien on your house and seize the property.
Bubbly_Delivery_5678@reddit
Both unless it’s a condo.
Educational-Ad608@reddit
It can get complicated, but for the most part, you own both of the land and the property upon which it sits. Until you fall behind in your property taxes… It’s alarming how many states allowed for the sale of your home and property to pay for back property taxes, with the state being able to keep the entire sale price. It’s only comparatively recently that, in some states, laws have been put into place whereby the state can only take the amount that it’s owed, and has to remit the remainder to the original owner.
theevilhillbilly@reddit
you own both unless it's a townhouse or condo. then you just own the structure
LavenderKitty1@reddit
It depends. It depends on the title of the land.
The majority of properties in Australia you own the house and land. You are responsible for all utilities, rates, maintenance etc.
There are some exceptions such as over 50s villages which you own the building, but lease the land. You are responsible for utilities and internal maintenance and the village committee looks after external maintenance and security.
CustomerSecure9417@reddit
Depends. In most states, you own both. In Hawaii, most people own the home but have a long-term lease on the land, an artifact of the land originally being owned by the Hawaiian royal family.
Character-Salary634@reddit
You own nothing. You pay the local governments extortion money for the privilege of maintaining the house. You have to pay for all the maintenance. Eventually you die, and someone else takes over the extortion bill.
auntlynnie@reddit
Most often, you own both. Sometimes, you own the structure and pay a lease on the land, but the real estate listing should specify that, as it’s nonstandard. Mineral rights and water rights can be different.
Junior_Ad_7613@reddit
Usually it’s both. And over the past 20+ years we have watched ours go from house and land being roughly equal value on the assessment to house being sliiiightly more than it was and the land being 7x what it originally was, because our city can’t expand at all and our schools are great. I know with my mom’s house once it gets sold the chances are very high they will tear down her 1960s rambler and build a huge monstrosity, because again, most of the value is in the land.
beach_bum_638484@reddit
Both, but it can get complex with mineral rights. Someone else may own the minerals in the ground on your property. I’m not sure about water rights.
ReddyKiloWit@reddit
Typically you buy and own both, maybe with some mineral or water rights restrictions in some areas.
A few places in the US, Baltimore, Maryland, for example, still have "ground rent" where you own the house, but the land is owned by someone else and leased under a long term lease (like 99 years with the right to renew) and the homeowner pays a fee, usually pretty low, every year. It's a quaint old practice.
redbeard312@reddit
You kind of own the land and the structure, but if you have a mortgage the bank also owns it, and the municipality always also owns it (property taxes are basically a perpetual lease that you can never get out of)
normiepitbullmom@reddit
You own both but sometimes the government can take it due to eminent domain. This isn’t common, but it does happen. If you fail to pay your property taxes, the house can be seized.
Top-Committee-954@reddit
"When you buy a house, do you own the house or the land or both...suburbs and those super massive mansions?" Generally, you own the house and land, as well as limited airspace (depending on local, state, federal laws) above the property, and underground (depending on local, state, and federal laws) below the property. House is generally a depreciating asset. In "normal" markets the land increases in value to offset the loss in value of the house. Regular maintenance and upkeep offset loss in value, and "improvements" (e.g. kitchen remodel) may or may not add to the value of the house.
gmhunter728@reddit
Neither unless you don't have property taxes
Snoo78959@reddit
I know of an old subdivision that the land was on 100 year lease…but that was one 400 acre area…never saw it after
SkyPuppy561@reddit
Both
SofiaDeo@reddit
Depends what the deed says.
AwareAd7651@reddit
You own both. You only pay taxes on the land. However, you may not pay taxes and then have liens placed on the property. Either way, you’re paying taxes, dead or alive.
Living_Molasses4719@reddit
Generally both, I know Hawaii is an exception though
Apart-Shelter-9277@reddit
Generally you own both, but you have to pay property taxes and, in most areas, it's based on current value not what you paid for it. Also, if you don't pay those taxes, the government can come seize your assets.... the land and the house. So.... do you really own it own it at that point?!
Bolo_Knee@reddit
Technically you "own" a perpetual/inheritable lease granted by the government that requires you to pay that government a percentage of the value of whatever that land is used for, every year (also known as property tax). The structure on the land is an "improvement" to that land, which is considered inseparable. As long as that "lease" is in good standing, you have the ability to do whatever you want with it UNLESS specifically prohibited by law or other agreements (such as HOAs or ordinances). If you do not pay the government the lease amount they will take that land back and re-sell it. (this is simplified but accurate).
eac555@reddit
You own both but you have to pay property taxes on it. If you don't the government can take it from you.
Bird_Watcher1234@reddit
I own my house but I have to pay rent on the land via property taxes. Even though I own my house debt free, if I don’t pay the taxes, the government will take it from me.
StupidLemonEater@reddit
Almost always yes, when you buy an unattached house you are buying the structure and the lot it sits on.
Dubricna@reddit
Sometimes (often? idk) attached houses too
logaboga@reddit
My mom owns a rowhome in Baltimore and I just found out she just had to buy the land itself from some lady who owns it. She’s owned the building for years but apparently not the small yards in front and behind it
meatinmybriefs@reddit
Interesting. I was always under the assumption the land underneath automaticallly is part of the house itself in terms of ownership.
TManaF2@reddit
Not always. There are a number of New Jersey shore towns where the land is owned by a developer (individual or corporation) and the homes on it are owned by individual homeowners. This created a bit of a legal quagmire in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy when both homeowners and landowners were in need of federal disaster assistance, and there was some question of whether or not the landowners would allow the homeowners to rebuild (and how)
meatinmybriefs@reddit
Yeah but wouldn't that not apply to older rowhomes? To my understanding, the modern developer model simply didn't exist back when those would have been built. Unless I'm mistaken?
TManaF2@reddit
The homes in the Jersey Shore towns in question are single-family, detached homes. I think they may have been built some time between the 1930s and the 1970s, but I don't know the details (I have some friends who own one of these houses and use it as their summer and weekend home.)
snow_big_deal@reddit
This is normally the case with attached houses, unless the house is part of a condo corp (in which case you own a share in a corp that owns all the land).
Creative_username969@reddit
That’s a co-op, not a condo. With a condo, you own the apartment
LopsidedGrapefruit11@reddit
No, when you buy a condo you are buying your unit as well as a shared interest in the whole development.
QuietObserver75@reddit
No, you own a deed to the property. You don't own shares.
LopsidedGrapefruit11@reddit
That’s not how condos work.
QuietObserver75@reddit
It is, they work similar to HOA neighborhoods.
LopsidedGrapefruit11@reddit
Similar in that there is an HOA, but by law, a condominium project divides ownership of all common areas in addition to the walls in portion of a unit. Look up a legal description for a condo and you will find that it differs from that of a unit in a coop or a single family residence inside or outside of a HOA.
A house in a PUD has an HOA to maintain select common items, but the legal description of the property only includes the plot and house in the ownership.
Curmudgy@reddit
It sounds like you two are saying the same thing but don’t realize it.
TheScrote1@reddit
Yes, condos, at least in my state are platted like subdivision lots
ash_274@reddit
Condos can be complicated. In my case, I own the land directly under it and I own the garage door and the entire interior of the building and interior from the fence of the front patio. The external (and shared) walls, the front door, the balcony, the roof, and the fence belong to the HOA and are their maintenance liability.
No_Recognition_9354@reddit
How high in altitude does the lot go?
Happy-Bluejay-3849@reddit
We were told the lot includes the airspace above it (US). Meaning no one can build a structure over the lot at any altitude. The lot ownership doesn’t include the right to stop planes, spacecraft, satellites, etc. from flying through, of course.
NoForm5443@reddit
It depends on the country/state/jurisdiction. In the USA it's 'reasonable use an enjoyment', or sorta kinda 500ft up
Basically you can't forbid an airplane from going over your house ;)
And it's law, so there may be exceptions and precedents
Kayki7@reddit
Ehh. You technically own the home and the land, but really, you are just renting the land. If you don’t pay your property tax every year, they will take your land from you. So essentially you’re paying never-ending rent on your land.
Chicago_Avocado@reddit
You always own both, but there are some weird exceptions. Like, if you buy a condo you only own the inside of the house.
dobbydisneyfan@reddit
Depends on the area really. Most times you own both. But there are always exceptions.
willyd_5@reddit
Both… except in Hawaii
94grampaw@reddit
Both
WhichWitch9402@reddit
Most of the time it’s both. I do know of a few instances where folks own the home and rent the land. It’s an odd situation.
Middle-Wealth-6755@reddit
Typically you own the land and the house but there can be exceptions. And even if you own the land you probably don't own the mineral rights.
not-quite-alt@reddit
You cannot own land anywhere. You can own the right to enjoy, modify, prosper from, and live on the land but the land always belongs to the country. There are but very few exceptions in the world.
DissentChanter@reddit
Depends, some states still let you do deals where you own the house but lease the land. So you basically had lot rent on a house. Then even when you do own the house and land it sits on, sometimes you only own like 20ft down and the land under that (mineral rights) can be purchased at which point the owner of those rights and get an easement to access them ie dig up your yard/place a well. Finally, there is the situation you picture as “normal” you own the land, the house, and the air above you for whatever distance FAA says.
Eat-Ca-Ca@reddit
Both, but if you don't pay taxes, then you don't.
Brilliant_Buns@reddit
Both. You may have easements which are subject to village or city laws, though. For example, we could not build our fence out onto the easement.
CPeeps323@reddit
Both. You own the land and the house. So if house burns down or is destroyed you rebuild on your land.
IdislikeSpiders@reddit
This is why insurance coverage doesn't cover the value of both. When I worked in insurance people often wanted their coverage to match the value of their home, but really it needs to be the rebuild costs. So some people would demand they carry like $450k coverage but really rebuild costs would be around $225k. One agent used to say, the land doesn't burn down so you don't have to rebuild that part (as a way to explain the discrepancy in values).
jbcsee@reddit
While that is true, the rebuild costs most insurance companies recommend are criminally low. It costs roughly $250-300/sqft to build here, I have a 2200sqft house, the insurance company wanted to insure rebuild cost at $250k! I'm not even getting the cheapest builder in 200 miles to rebuild this place for a little over $120/sqft!
I have a friend who lost their house in a fire, the replacement they are building is both smaller and lower quality, because they just took the insurance company at their word.
DelkrisGames@reddit
Depends on location. Here in KC metro the rebuild cost is criminally inflated. I am forced to insure dwelling for almost twice the rebuild cost of my house because of whatever bogus calculator the underwriters use. My builder is literally still building houses. I know the rebuild cost because I literally asked the builder how much it would cost. Nope. Won't underwrite the coverage lower than their program tells them. Balloons my insurance several hundred a year.
heridfel37@reddit
This is true for a single-home fire. This is doubly or triply true for a wildfire which burns down many homes and skyrockets build prices.
-Moose_Soup-@reddit
If you are in that situation, the best thing to do would be to take that money and leave, IMO. Maybe hold onto the land itself until local property prices rebound and you can sell it.
heridfel37@reddit
Santa Rosa, CA lost about 5500 homes in 2017. There are still plenty of vacant lots 9 years later
VividFiddlesticks@reddit
Yes...I lived in a city that had wildfire tear through and destroy a significant number of homes and I personally know/knew about a dozen people who had what they thought was good insurance but were forced to sell their bare land and move because they couldn't afford to rebuild with what insurance paid out.
WhoWouldCareToAsk@reddit
I looked at this value just this week. If I would be selling today, my home is valued at $650k at the minimum. I don’t live in a fancy home in a gated community - it’s a fairly regular house in Idaho suburbs. Since October of last year until today the rebuild price for my home went up by $25k to nearly $500k. However, the insurance has a clause that they cover the initial value (from October) plus 50% to rebuild the house in case of a total loss. 150% of the initial coverage would bring it up to $700k, so I left it as is.
In October the home insurance may go up by $120-$140, and I’m unsure how I feel about that…
So I’m not familiar with what you’re saying.
chirop1@reddit
That's why you have to have an agent you have an actual relationship with. Just getting a quote online is a huge mistake.
IdislikeSpiders@reddit
Although I agree, to account for inflation the agency I worked for did the rebuild + 10%, but not every insurance agent/company does their due diligence. This was automatically recalculated upon renewal annually.
FlamingBagOfPoop@reddit
My agent explained that to me almost right off the bat. “It’s the cost of the wood and nails to rebuild the house. Not the dirt it’s on.”
Lowe0@reddit
Centralia, PA: “Challenge accepted.”
Practical-Emu-3303@reddit
Ha - I was the opposite. I lived in a 100 year old brick house. They wanted me to have coverage to cover the full rebuild. I said "no one would ever rebuild with construction like this at that cost in this area." They didn't care. I found a different insurance company.
Crayshack@reddit
There are natural disasters that can erase the value of the land, though they are unlikely in many places. For example, if your house is near a body of water, a severe enough flood might reshape the land enough to put your plot permanently under water.
IdislikeSpiders@reddit
For those that lived within the 100-year flood plain they were required to have flood insurance. Often natural disasters (earthquake, flood, etc) aren't even covered by standard insurance usually and you have to get supplemental plans.
I live in Idaho, so the natural disaster thing (besides flood) doesn't really apply here.
MajesticBread9147@reddit
Yeah honestly this will be a big part of the solution to places becoming "uninsurable". The bank doesn't want to take a loss if the house floods or burns down so they force you to have insurance for the home throughout the mortgage period.
But it's completely feasible to just buy the structure (usually a small fraction of the overall home value in major metro areas) and take out a mortgage for the land.
Kamwind@reddit
Also mineral and water rights can different.
Unless there is something in the contract you will own house, land, mineral, water, air and some other things linked to the house.
bryku@reddit
When you "buy a house" you own the land, but there may be some restrictions depending on the location. For example, cities often have height and depth limits due to planes and underground utilities. For example, you might own a plot that is 500x500x100x50 (length, width, height, depth). This really depends on the location.
Additionally, in some situations you might have roads that go through your land for maintenance, fire prevention, and stuff like that. Where you technically own it, but the state needs to use it. Exactly how this works varies from place to place and can also apply to other things like pipelines, powerlines, and other utilities.
dararie@reddit
Where I live you own both but there is a town near here where you pay land rent to the city but only in the original part of the city. It’s very strange
bjanas@reddit
Typically, yes, and yes. There can be more complicated arrangements, land trusts and such. But usually you buy the structure and the land.
Also, your smart friend from high school who will shout "THE BANK OWNS YOUR HOUSE!" is just straight wrong. Don't listen to them, that's not what a mortgage means.
Zealousideal_Safe150@reddit
After you pay for the home, you own it. But you’ll forever pay the government yearly lease payments to have the privilege of using/ “owning” the land. Then once you stop paying them, they’re show you who the real owner is on both the land and house.
kateinoly@reddit
It depends. Make sure you find out, as it could be either.
Parking_Champion_740@reddit
Both.
VioletJackalope@reddit
Depends. When you buy a home, the deed states the legal description of what is included in your property. Typically, it’s both the land and the structures on it but there are exceptions.
Standard-Outcome9881@reddit
And as far as I know, in the US at least, generally speaking you own the property below your land all the way to the center of the Earth.
burningmanonacid@reddit
Real estate law gets extremely complicated snd nuanced, but the short answer, especially as it concerns a suburban mansion: yes. The structure, the land (to a certain depth) and the airspace above your land (to a certain height).
Sometimes, there are areas where you are legally must allow either a specific party or the public. You don't always own the minerals such as oil or gas found naturally occuring on the land. You can't always build what you want on your land if someone else has a negative easement on your property (for example, I have solar panels and you try to put up a tree that would make them impossible to use so i take you to court). Then there's adverse possession...
But most people never have to deal with any of that and, if they do, it is usually very simple such as not building over utility lines under their property or having a public walking trail cut through a corner.
Feisty-Saturn@reddit
You own both. However, you have to pay property tax for the rest of your life to retain it. If you miss on property tax for several years you can lose both your house and the land it sits on, even if the house is paid off for.
featherknife@reddit
Doesn't that mean you're renting the land and house from the government?
Admirable-Apricot137@reddit
No, it's more like paying a subscription for being connected to public services and infrastructure.
Feisty-Saturn@reddit
You own it in the sense that you can give it to your decedents. You can also sell it for whatever price you want to sell it for. You can do whatever you want on the land. Whereas my landlord has rules for what I’m allowed to do in their property. The governement cannot come and declare it as theirs whenever they feel like it.
Property tax changes depending on the state. So in my state my parents pay $900 a month in property tax. But in the neighboring state property tax averages about $250 a month. Property tax on a paid off house is significantly cheaper than renting.
dogWEENsatan@reddit
Holy fuck 900 a month is insane and criminal.
Feisty-Saturn@reddit
It definitely is. We have some politicians in my state that have discussed lowering the property tax for elderly people. Maybe one day that will happen. A lot of people do end up leaving the state as they get older and move to cheaper states because their social security or retirement fund are just not enough to cover expenses.
dogWEENsatan@reddit
Is basically not even close to owning your own place. That’s another monthly payment. Ouch. Hope that gets changed. All my elders have the same problem. After owing their places for they are still paying large tax bills. Insanity really.
Tardisgoesfast@reddit
Both.
ClassicAdhesiveness1@reddit
Land in some places is where the actual value is. My parent home on the peninsula (Bay Area) is worth a RIDICULOUS amount but it’s the land, not the 70s ranch style that hasn’t had any upgrades since before we bought in 1980. Oh wait, new carpet in the hall and bedrooms. Had to remove the shag!
cheekmo_52@reddit
Unless you buy a condominium, chances are that the purchase price includes the plot of land the house was built on.
Ladypeace_82@reddit
You allegedly also own the air space above it up to a certain point. 🤣
Sharp_Ad_9431@reddit
Depends on your contract. In some cities in California the houses are built and sold with a land lease of 99 years. You could move the house but unlikely.
Tiredofthemisinfo@reddit
Depends if it’s leasehold or fee simple
jakerooni@reddit
I don’t feel like I own shit because even once I pay off my mortgage, I will owe property tax every year forever. If I lapse, the bank takes my house. How do I ever truly own my house?
EmploymentEmpty5871@reddit
I bought the lot our current house is on about 4 years before we built. My lake house is used the cottage on that lot a couple 2 3 years before I tore it down and built the new one.
Usagi_Shinobi@reddit
It varies by state. Generally speaking, you own the land to a certain depth, and any structures on that land, but this is not always the case.
edelmav@reddit
both, but if you're like my family and live in a country club subdivision the rules get a bit iffy
Brief-Hat-8140@reddit
Usually both
BananaJelloXlii@reddit
The bank owns it, not you, until it is paid off.
Salty_Permit4437@reddit
That’s incorrect. The bank has a lien. They don’t own the home. Your name is on the deed and title. The bank have a secured interest in the home and land. If you fail to make payments they can then take possession but as long as you keep paying you own the home.
BananaJelloXlii@reddit
What's the difference? They can still take that "ownership" away from you.
NecessaryPopular1@reddit
If the bank is financing your ability to acquire that property, of course you must make payments or you lose the property if you don’t pay off the loan. However, in some cases, respecting certain conditions, you may have the option to short sell.
LtPowers@reddit
That's not really accurate unless you stretch the meaning of "own" quite a bit.
BananaJelloXlii@reddit
Who holds the title/deed? Who can foreclose and take it due to nonpayment. You "own" it in the fact that the property is yours and you are responsible for it, but it can be taken from you for not paying taxes, falling behind on the mortgage, etc. Until you actually have the deed/title in your hand and the house is paid off, it is not truly "yours".
LtPowers@reddit
That's generally true, and if that's your criterion no one owns anything.
wmass@reddit
Correct. You borrow money to buy the house. The mortgage is a special type of loan that gives the lender the right to foreclose, that is, to sell the property if the mortgage payments are not paid. The buyer is the owner and has the right to alter the house or sell it. The mortgage lender has the right to collect what is owed at the time of the sale is the mortgage is not already paid off.
Far-Drawing-4444@reddit
You own the property, so the land specified in the sale, and the buildings on it.
Not having a landlord is pretty great.
Having to maintain and repair your home and property is a mixed bag. On one hand, you can pretty much do whatever you want. On the other hand, you are the one who has to do it, or pay someone to do it.
NecessaryPopular1@reddit
Single family homes on a lot, you own the property/structure and the extent of the lot it occupies. There’s no HOA, so the house is yours. However, in order to modify anything on the structure, or even add a pool on the lot, you need special city/county permit to carry on the construction as a homeowner.
kalelopaka@reddit
Both, as long as you pay taxes and your mortgage as well as insurance.
marla-M@reddit
Most own both. An exception is mobile homes which are permanent structures and not at all mobile but in my mom’s park the she owns the home but the space is rented
plywooden@reddit
At realtors school they taught us that owners own the land all the way down to the center of the earth and above to the heavens. Lol ..
SJHillman@reddit
That's one of those "in theory, yes, but in reality, no" things due to competing interests like mineral rights below the land and airspace rules above the land.
plywooden@reddit
Oh, I know. That's why I'm laughing...
xSir-@reddit
It depends. Usually you get the land and the house. But its possible to literally just buy a house and move it. If the sale was setup that way.
epchipko@reddit
Both but you may be subject to some resrtctions. Large -> Small. You probably do NOT have mineral rights under your land in a developed area. Those would be retained by the state govt. In a more rural area, those might be included. You may be subject to city/municipal restrictions on what you can do especially regarding any structures on the land. These typically involve permitting requirements on changes or additional structures. These would mostly involve things visible from the street. They dont care if you if remodel the kitchen (unless contractors are involved) but might require something about fences or not keeping cars on the front lawn. HOA (Home Owner Association) - similar to municipal restrictions but smaller in span of reach; these are typically limited to a neighborhood. In my experience an HOA is like a city council in structure but a much smaller span of geographic control. When you buy, you are given a bunch of papers about the rule book but the council can change the rules and anyone in the district can run to be on the council to change the rules. It is not a government office with predictable elections but more like a club.
ambirch@reddit
If you buy a house, you own both. If you don't own the land, you own a condo
SJHillman@reddit
There's a number of non-condo ways in which you may own the structure but not the land too. It's pretty common for trailer park residents to own the trailer, but lease the land its on.
Ok-Cap-204@reddit
The title is issued for the land and then all structures on that land, usually.
There is something called leasehold. That is where you can construct a building on land you rent for a specified number of years, normally 99 years. There is a minimal fee due monthly as a “ground rent”. After the leasehold expires, the buildings convey back to the owner of the land.
kartoffel_engr@reddit
Assuming that you’ve secured a mortgage, the bank/lender technically owns it all, but you are the registered owner.
If you paid cash, you own it outright, but stop paying your property taxes and you’ll find out right quick we don’t truly own it.
Nearby_Initial2409@reddit
Hi Realtor here,
There is something called the bundle of rights when you purchase property and without getting into the nuts and bolts you can portion off these rights as you see fit and when the property is sold to a new owner the owner may or may not receive all the rights depending on what the old owner still has. The most common of these is an easement, basically saying someone has the right to use your property usually for a specific purpose. For example I helped a couple buy a piece of land that had no public road leading to it. This is because it was originally one massive plot owned by one owner who eventually split it up for their kids to use and then those kids eventually split it up for their kids to use, so on and so forth until it was a patchwork of different properties some on the road some not some still owned by members of the original family some bought or sold. This property was so far from the road you needed to cross two other peoples properties to get to it from the road using a small dirt trail.
Basically my clients while buying this land were also buying the rights to cross these other two properties to get to it and the owners of those other two properties while they technically owned the dirt trail couldn't actually use it however they wanted. They could drive on it but they couldn't build on it or do anything else to make it unusable and anyone who they sold their property to would have to honor that. So the answer is usually yes but sometimes with an asterisk.
Biobizlab@reddit
This all depends on the specific property. If there is a HOA the land has restrictions so you don't fully own it. If there is a land lease, the land is not owned by you. If there is mineral rights then land is not truly owned by you.
sp0rkah0lic@reddit
You own the structure and the property it's built on, up to the property line. The city or local municipality determines and keeps record of the boundary lines of each lot.
LordLaz1985@reddit
If it’s a normal house and not a trailer, then you own both.
In trailer parks, it’s common to own the trailer but not the land it sits on, which can cause problems down the line.
1911Earthling@reddit
Both.
Weird-Comfortable-28@reddit
Like many people say you really never own it because you pay property taxes and fees to a Town who can indiscriminately raise him on you and I know people here on Long Island who when they retire have to move because they can’t afford the taxes that’s a shame you pay off a mortgage and the taxes are more than a monthly mortgage. Sickening.
TeeDotHerder@reddit
Americans may never own the land their houses sit on even if they have a deed. They just pay property taxes forever at a value determined by the government that rises as the value the government deems rises.
You also generally do not own mineral rights or air space. The old "from heaven to hell" thing doesn't exist anymore.
Ok_Two_2604@reddit
You own it and the land, though often not the mineral rights, and only as long as you keep paying the government every year to keep it.
underhand_toss@reddit
The typical situation is that your purchase includes the land and house.
sgtm7@reddit
Although there are a few exceptions, most home purchases will be for the land and the house.
RoppFTW@reddit
Both, in theory. However, refuse to pay annual taxes on it and see how strong that claim of ownership gets you.
Maleficent_Ad_5175@reddit
The house owns you
ShelbiStone@reddit
Both the structure and the land. And if you really did a good job you own the mineral right to the land too!
Ok_Coconut4898@reddit
It depends. For traditional site-built single family homes, you usually are buying the house AND the parcel of land it sits on.
However, there are also situations where you are buying only the structure and not the land. For example, there are manufactured home “parks” where people buy/own the structure but not the land it sits on, so they have to pay rent for the land.
There are also condominiums and co-ops where you are buying a specific unit in a larger building or group of buildings and depending on how those sre structured, you might share joint ownership of the land (and common areas of the building(s), like hallways, fitness room, etc.) with the people who own the other units.
No matter what, you still have to pay yearly taxes to the government on the house and land you own, though, and the government can take it away from you if you don’t pay those taxes, so even though you legally “own” it, in practice you are renting it from the government.
Bargle-Nawdle-Zouss@reddit
When buying an unattached single family home, then yes, you own both the house and the land.
I believe the legal term is "in fee simple".
Sergeant_Crunch@reddit
They certainly tax me for the house and the land.
wieldymouse@reddit
It depends on where you live. I would say you mostly own the structure and land, but there are some places where you only own the structure and rent the land.
VulpesInculta907@reddit
Neither. You rent the land from the government, you don’t pay they take away.
BigRichard1990@reddit
In the majority of the US, you would own a fee simple title and own the land and improvements. Is a few places, it is common to have a property with a long-term ground lease. Hawaii, New York City, some planned communities. This is not well-accepted by mortgage lenders, so it creates an issue. Also, what happens at the end of the ground lease?
Some affordable housing is built in land owned by cities who rent it for $1 per year, to reduce costs of developing housing for low income tenants. Presumably, the city will use their leverage at the end of the lease to either preserve affordable housing or take it over. This is kind of new, so no one knows.
Emily_Postal@reddit
Where I live you own the land.
GrayMareCabal@reddit
99.9% of the time when you buy a house in the US you are also buying the property the house is on.
I have heard of a few rare examples where there's a leasehold or something on the land, so you might be purchasing the house while renting the property the house is on. But I'm pretty sure that is exceedingly rare.
Buying a condo is probably the closest common equivalent of a leasehold. Where I assume the condo community owns the property, but when you buy a condo is the property, you're only buying your living space. But theoretically, your condo/hoa fees go to maintaining common spaces including the land the condo community exists on.
DesperateYak9078@reddit
You own but the government is the real owner, because if you stop paying taxes they will take it away.
SnazzleZazzle@reddit
Yes, the land and any structures on that land.
Latter_Effective1288@reddit
You own both some people even buy the house and knock it all down to build a new house or something else entirely
Content_Ground4251@reddit
Both.
CavemanRTD@reddit
You “ own both “. It since you pay property tax you own nothing.
Ryan_TX_85@reddit
You own both the house and the land, except in Hawaii which has weird rules about that sort of thing
ArrrcticWolf@reddit
The bank owns the land and structure and lets you keep some of your stuff there
ButterscotchOdd8257@reddit
While there are rare times when you can buy just the house, it's almost always the house and the land.
There may be easements attached to the land that give others certain rights, for instance, the local utility company might have an easement that gives them the right to have a pipe or cable under the ground and to come on the land and dig to maintain it. But you still own the land.
mostlygray@reddit
You own the house and the land. Depending on the county, you may not own any mineral rights. MN varies. Up on the Iron Range, they can dig under your land because you only own surface. Where I live, I own the surface rights, but what 's underneath me is not defined. My previous house defined my property as full rights from a point starting at the center of the earth to infinity so technically I owned the universe above. Yes, the deed was written poorly.
However, yes, I own my land and I can do what I want with it. I own the house, I can do what I want with it. However, there are covenants that preclude me from building a McMansion because the houses style must be in keeping with everyone else's houses. I wouldn't want a McMansion anyway so it suits me fine. I like my house.
MrMackSir@reddit
You usually own both. In some rare instances, which I have seen in Chicago, you are buying the rights to the land or rights to the air above the land (I have only seen this on former railway and military property or air rights on buildings that are built over active train tracks)
-Blue_Bird-@reddit
Most of the time you own both.
On federal or state land sometimes they sell the structures but not the land and permit the residences.
Also of course trailer homes in trailer parks, some of which are very much like regular houses / much nicer than you see on TV, can be retirement communities, etc you only own the structure and not the land.
notthegoatseguy@reddit
A single family home you own the plot and anything on the plot.
This is how urban neighborhoods work too . There's tons of houses in cities
modelcitizendc@reddit
Yeah, I own a detached home in a major US city and I have far more property rights than friends or family who own in HOA governed communities or condos in the suburbs.
City code is pretty lenient, as long as you aren’t doing something obviously dangerous or anti social you are gonna be good to go.
A few of my neighbors have bee hives and chicken coops. People work on cars and run woodworking tools in their driveways. I don’t need a board to approve the color of my deck furniture.
Ok_Individual960@reddit
This is how it reads in my state - you are buying the land and all improvements. I'm certain cases mineral rights might not be included.
ExcitementMurky2156@reddit
I own a house in Philadelphia. I had to look at our deed yesterday, and it sets out the exact area of the house and yard. Yep, we own the house and patio right up to the edges of the adjoining properties
Fyaal@reddit
You should also own out to the street.
bourbonandcheese@reddit
Yup, when our new next-door neighbors were buying, they did a survey and discovered that the fence they were responsible for was built about a foot too far over and was onto our lot. We had to find a notary on vacation at the beach to sign the piece of paper agreeing that it was no big deal but that the land was still ours and that when they rebuild the fence they agree to do so in the correct spot. It was holding up their closing, and we disliked the old neighbors so much we were eager for them to be gone!
RonPalancik@reddit
Where I live, the land is often worth 8 or 10 times the value of the house. Because many houses are broadly comparable to one another, location matters more.
The next person who buys my quirky, small, old house will really be buying the lot and its proximity to things. They'll probably tear down the house and put a new one its place.
TheDrake162@reddit
You own the structure but since you pay property tax you technically don’t own the land
FormerlyDK@reddit
You’re buying both.
paypermon@reddit
Technically both but really you are just leasing the land so to speak from the government through property taxes. Stop paying the property tax and its just a matter of time before they take it from you.
BoBoBearDev@reddit
Yes and no. The term ownership is subjective. Because you have to pay property tax, not like a regular item you own. In a sense, you are renting the land with perpetual exclusive license and you can transfer this perpetual exclusive license. But if you don't pay the annual license fee, eventually they will take away your property.
It is no so different than China's never own the land policy. But with a major difference. China is a time limited license, you are guaranteed to lose that license when time expires. USA is a perpetual license, you are guaranteed to keep the land as long as you pay property tax.
This property tax is essentially a wealth tax. You can't sit on old money for forever. Even if the property tax doesn't trickle down to the entire state/nation, it is still a form of wealth tax.
I heard some of the European countries didn't do this, which is kind of odd to me. Because there are very wealthy people just hoarding their land without any consequences.
WonderfulVariation93@reddit
You own both. People will bring up ground rent which is still a thing here in MD but it is SO insignificant that no one would ever lose their house over it! In fact, ground rent ownership is a PITA & those who own them often are begging for the people who own the houses to buy it (and they are maybe a couple hundred dollars)
Piney1943@reddit
Yes, I own a supermassive mansion. First I own everything. I also own the subspecies that used to live here, better known as the locals. I am just wallowing in my wealth and sucking up the most wonderful part of living like a perverted sub person living the life of Trump. 🤡
onlyreason4u@reddit
For a regular detached home you almost always own the land. There may be easements on your land. Utility easements allow the utility companies to come and dig up a certain section of your property if they need to. Access easements might allow someone to use a road on your property to get to their property, etc. You can do whatever you want with the land as long as you obtain any necessary approvals.
For mobile homes, it's common not to own the land if you live in a mobile home park (trailer park). They charge a monthly rental fee, which until recently was pretty low. Venture capitalist have figured out that they sqeeze these people and have been buying up mobile home communities then jacking the rent way up. They've realized most of these people can't afford to move their mobile homes to a new lot somewhere else so they will either just pay, or if they can't be forced to leave their home on the lot at which point it becomes the property of the park and they can turn around and rent it or sell it.
Then there are condos. In that case you own the inside of the home. The outside (including roof, siding, etc, and the land) are common property. You can't do anything to them. The association pays to maintain it all via monthly fees.
Quick_Sherbet5874@reddit
both.
That-Resort2078@reddit
Both but there may be public and private easements encumbering the land. Most people don’t realize their front lot line includes half the city street. You usually do not own the mineral rights.
tcrhs@reddit
You own both the structure and the land. You must pay property taxes. If you don’t pay property taxes, the local government can seize your property for unpaid taxes.
Honest-Government967@reddit
There are still some places where you only own the house. Millinocket, Maine, comes to mind. For well over a century massive paper mills (companies) have owned all the land that you lease but you own the house
Also, many/most mobile home parks own the land and you own the structure.
AtheneSchmidt@reddit
By now you get that you usually own the house, and land, but don't necessarily have mineral rights and there may be easements.
I haven't seen this yet so I wanted to also mention that you may not have water rights, either. It's usually not an issue in the suburbs, most of the time there is municipal water. But you want to make sure you have water access or water rights if you are more rural.
Particularly in the West in the US, water rights tend to be separate.
Additional_Low8050@reddit
Both
Ponchyan@reddit
Mostly likely the bank owns the house and the land, until you pay off the mortgage. Actually, you never really own the land, as you can’t take it with you. The United Stares government “owns” the land. What you purchase is “title” to use the land, until the government decides to recind the title. You do, eventually, own the house built on the land. But again, you can’t really take that with you. Not without great difficulty.
stuck_behind_a_truck@reddit
Just to be clear, OP, many if not most, suburbs are not made up of “super massive mansions.”
With actual mansions, people often buy the land first and build their home as they see fit.
In most suburbs, the homes are already built, and when you buy, you are buying the land and home. The suburbs will have a huge variety of home sizes and values, but neighborhoods themselves are usually similar home sizes and values.
As always, we are a MASSIVE country with many, many different housing types and property arrangements.
CheesE4Every1@reddit
Both. I can do whatever I want in the privacy of my own property
ancientastronaut2@reddit
Both.
But there's some exceptions. With a mobile home you often rent the land it sits on. And with condos you generally own the land collectively.
donnacus@reddit
You own both house and land, but there is a possiblity you don't own the mineral rights. Less common with small plots of land. If you have 5+ acres, you may want to check.
w3woody@reddit
In Glendale we owned (with the bank) the house and the land. There was an 'easement' along the sidewalk, where we may 'own' the land but in reality we did not 'control' the land. (Meaning people using the sidewalk had the right to use the sidewalk even though it was on our land.) Our rights to the land in Glendale were limited to surface use (with zoning review)--meaning we could build or modify or plant what we wanted, and we could keep people off our land. But we did not have 'subsurface' rights--the right to minerals, subsurface water, or other things that were below the surface. (We did have the right to dig holes in our land for things like footers--but we didn't have the right to dig a well, for example.)
Here in Raleigh we own our house and property outright "in fee simple", which in North Carolina means we have exclusive possession of the land, as well as mineral rights, oil rights and the like, including the right to drill for water (and we have a well).
Of course our rights to the land must all be 'reasonable' and 'not malicious'; for example, I can't simply dig a gigantic hole in our back yard to extract all the water beneath the surface and open a water bottling plant. And of course in both case (Glendale, Raleigh) I'm subject to zoning restrictions: I can't build a skyscraper and I have to honor environmental rules and property setback rules.
But I do own the land here in Raleigh, as well as what's underneath.
TK1129@reddit
Your house your piece of property. However, my grandparents bought a beach bungalow down at the Jersey Shore in the late 60s and owned it up until the late 90s when they were getting too old to drive down and take care of it. They owned the house but not the actual lot that the house was on. When these beach houses were built, the land owners leased the land to the residents. Every year my grandparents paid a land lease fee.
pinaple_cheese_girl@reddit
You don’t own it “outright” until the mortgage is paid, and then you own both the land and the structure :)
redditusermatthew@reddit
I have a 5 acre plot with a modest house, good well water, septic, only available utility is electricity. AMA
athenamarz@reddit
You “own” both but even if you’ve paid off your mortgage you still owe taxes every year and if you don’t pay those you will lose your property.
Dapper-Presence4975@reddit
It depends on the legal description, but most homes include the land, unless it’s a condo in a multi-unit building.
Grimaldehyde@reddit
Typically both. But I don’t know if that’s the case 100% of the time.
skyHawk3613@reddit
Both
iowanaquarist@reddit
What country are you from, OP? and do you not have home ownership?
zdriveee@reddit
Its possible you only own the structure, usually if someone is in that situation they got taken advantage of.
Exciting_Vast7739@reddit
MOST of the time you own the land it's on.
There are situations where you don't, but they are rare:
Mobile homes are often in a "park" (Trailer Park!) where you rent the land underneath the home.
Some free-standing (not attached to another home) homes are actually condominiums, where the community owns the land underneath the home and manages sidewalks, roads, and community centers. This is like a homeowner's association, but worse, and more complicated to get mortgages on. Usually condominiums (and their close relatives, cooperatives) are all in one building, but not always. Some are freestanding buildings in communities.
Some homes are built on land that is "leased." For the trailer park people, they lease their land month to month or year to year, which can result in really insecure housing for them. But you can get longer leases, and some homes are built on a 99 year leasehold. You'll see these occasionally on Native American land, or government owned land (I think).
But most of the time, if a home isn't connected to another home, it's sitting on land that the homeowner owns.
Tejanisima@reddit
My late brother's small home was this type of condominium. Each home was an individual, small house, built in a Victorian style and one of the restrictions was that if you painted it, you had to choose from a limited list of colors that were consistent with Victorian era color schemes. Some neighbor painted their house a rather gaudy shade of purple and had to repaint it because they didn't get it pre-approved.
_haha_oh_wow_@reddit
Usually both
tanstaaflnz@reddit
In some places you can own the structure & land, but not the mineral rights. So someone could dig a mine under your property.
TankDestroyerSarg@reddit
Normally, both. Whether urban, suburban or rural. In certain circumstances, like 55+ retirement or "manufactured homes" (trailer park) communities, you own the house technically but the plot is still owned by the community management company and is nominally leased to you.
Interesting-Long-534@reddit
In some places like around lakes, you lease the land. The local lease is for 99 years.
shakeyshake1@reddit
But this definitely isn’t universal. I live on a lake and own my land, including the shoreline for my property.
Suitable_Ad7478@reddit
True. Depends on the locality. I own my lake front land but the power company has an easement up to a certain point. Looked at some properties where the entire thing was a 99 year type lease. Decided I couldn’t wrap my head around those.
slightlystitchy@reddit
Both. My parents bought a house that sat on a single lot back in the 90s. Mid 2000s they got asked if they wanted to buy the neighboring lots once the old houses were removed. So they owned the land but didn't own the homes that were there for a brief time.
OwnEqual8219@reddit
In most places, you own the land and the structure. In Baltimore, Md., a lot of people have something called ground rent. This means people own the structure, but not the last and pay a nominal fee quarterly or annual fee to someone else. I’ve never heard of this system anywhere else.
Feikert87@reddit
Both
Smooth_Fall2382@reddit
What you're talking about in terms of houses in suburbs is probably something called fee simple/freehold ownership. It means you own the house, the land beneath it, and the airspace above it (to a certain distance). You can sell the house/property, pass it on, and so on. (An alternative type of property ownership is called leasehold, which is when you own the house but you lease the land... usually for a long period of time, like 99 years.)
When you own property, you have a title to that property. A title is like a little description of your ownership rights in a certain piece of land, and this can -- and often does -- include some restrictions to your ownership.
One type of restriction is an easement, which gives somebody else the right to use a piece of your property. In suburbs, property easements are usually for things like utilities (which let the electric company put a power pole on your property, or run a sewer line, and so on) or sidewalks. You're usually required to allow the person with the easement onto the property to maintain their equipment, and you're not allowed to damage it.
You can also have covenants, which are agreements to do or not do certain things on your property. HOAs, or homeowner associations, might have placed covenants onto your property when the house was built. It's usually things like maintaining your front lawn, maybe limitations on building styles or paint colours. So when you see those subdivisions where everything looks really similar, you might be seeing properties with HOA covenants. Sometimes there can be a lot of covenants, or the covenants can be really restrictive. So you own your house and land, but other people can have a lot of say in how you are allowed to use your house and land.
Neither of these are considered ownership, weirdly. But those restrictions get passed down with the property title when you buy it. So you're treated as having agreed to them, and whoever has the easements or covenants can make you follow them.
8-Cylinder_Wombat@reddit
Nobody in the US truly owns land other than the federal government. It's called Eminent Domain and they can take your land away from you any time they want.
Eureecka@reddit
Depends.
Usually both, but that may or may not include mineral rights. And a lot of beach front properties are deeded such that you own the structure but have a lease on the land.
It’s usually location based, so you have to be careful about mineral rights in Texas and out west. And if the property is on any body of water larger than a puddle, there’s some weird rules around who owns what.
Fuzzzer777@reddit
The land lease is usually only for mobile homes, not large "stick-built" houses. I have a manufacturered home. Commonly called a mobile home or trailer. I own the building, but lease the lot it sits on.
RHS1959@reddit
Former lawyer and Realtor here: lots of people are listing lots of exceptions, but short answer: Yes. Most Americans who own houses own both the built structure and the land it sits on, often considerably more than the house’s actual footprint. Some wealthy towns require a minimum of two acres for a single family home. Most Americans who own real estate own it under mortgage from a bank. Some people rent, and own neither house nor land, and “trailer parks” or manufactured home communities, are a notable exception. Some people buy a trailer (a manufactured home usually 12’x60’, which can be transported on public highways) and place it on a lot which they rent, and they could theoretically hitch it up to a truck and move to a new location.
Tacokolache@reddit
Both
Vikingkrautm@reddit
Both, if you buy a house on a foundation.
Footnotegirl1@reddit
Generally, you own both the structure and the land on it.
The exception would be a) Mobile homes (where you just own the home but usualy rent the land it gets put on) or b ) condominiums, where you own the living space (which may be anapartment, a townhome,or even a detached home) but not the land.
Also, in some areas, HOA's have a LOT of power and though you ostensibly own both the home and the land on it, they can sell it out from under you if you break certain rules.
scarlettohara1936@reddit
Interestingly I found out when I bought my house, that when you purchase homeowners insurance you're insuring the structure, not the land. So if you bought your house for $200,000, you're only going to insure it for about $140,000 or so.
That would be the price it would cost to rebuild the structure because obviously the land is still there. IDK why that surprised me as much as it did
tkecanuck341@reddit
In most situations, you own the land.
In some areas of the US, when you buy a house, you don't actually get to own the land, but rather get a "long-term lease" of the land for a long period of time, typically 50-99 years. These are called community land trusts.
California Community Land Trust
Sea_Animal_4626@reddit
The land value is more important than the house. If you spend 20 million building a house in an area with 300k houses, it is unlikely it will be valued that high. Odd properties that don’t fit with the rest of the market are often very undervalued. But you do own both.
shammy_dammy@reddit
You usually own the land as well.
Icey_Raccon@reddit
You purchase the land, you own the land.
HOWEVER.
There are exceptions to the rule. Native wetlands technically don't belong to you. The state can show up at any time and tell you you aren't allowed to do X.
X can be anything from putting in a dam or weir to planting non-native plants. Other people have mentioned easements - if someone buys the property behind yours and they have to go through your property to get to the road, you have to allow that.
Twichl2@reddit
If its a regular house (or a giagantic mansion) you own the land too, but these can also be part of a home owners association. You still own the land but you dont have complete rights.
If its a manufactured home it depends, if its in a park- no you pay lot rent. If its on private land -yes.
Townhomes and condos - yes you own the land, but you are also part of an HOA, so its not complete ownership)
Apartments- no
peter303_@reddit
Usually. There are some locations like Palm Springs, half owned by an Indian tribe, you may just get a long land lease.
Xemlaich@reddit
Depending on where you live, you own neither.
That's the whole point of property tax
BigPapaJava@reddit
If you buy a traditional, freestanding house, you buy the house and the land that it’s built on.
If you buy a trailer/manufactured home in a trailer park, you will own the structure but not the land. You will be charged a monthly rent for the land it sits on.
If you buy a condominium (an apartment you own, basically), you own the space on the inside of the structure but not the surrounding building or land. You will be charged Homeowner’s Association Fees to cover maintenance and repairs on the parts you don’t own.
chileheadd@reddit
Depends on the area.
The normal is you own both the land and the structure(s) on it.
In some areas you own only the structure and rent or lease the land or vice versa, you own the land but lease out or rent the structure (less common).
In some areas you own both, but not mineral rights.
It varies.
LonesomeBulldog@reddit
In Austin, there are some standalone "condos" that are basically multiple houses on a single lot. You have joint ownership in the condo association that owns the land. You own your house/condo separately.
Itsworth-gold4tome@reddit
We own the buildings and land.
FrozenHusky@reddit
Everyone else is correct...for the most part. In general and for most purposes, if you buy a house, you own (or at least have a mortgage to obtain ownership) both the house and the land it sits on. One factor that can play a role is mineral rights (oil/gas/coal/etc) under the surface...you do not automatically own those rights...minerals rights can/may be separated from surface ownership rights. Not always, but a possible exception to "owning the land"
Repulsive_Client_325@reddit
You have the concept of mortgages backward (as do many people). You own the land but you grant a real property security interest (a mortgage) in that land to your lender (typically “the bank”). The lender does not own the land (you do) but can take it (foreclose) or make you sell it (much more common) if you don’t pay them.
FrozenHusky@reddit
I am aware...I'm keeping it simple for someone who doesn't understand what buying a house means to Americans
GooGuyy@reddit
You own both which is why you pay taxes for both
jaethegreatone@reddit
This depends on who you buy the house from.
I have owned a home where I didn't own the ground it was built on. I had to pay ground rent, which was $7/year. Where I lived at the time, it was rare to buy the ground on a row house.
The next home I buy, I fully intent to buy the ground with it.
DruncleMuncle@reddit
If you're talking about a standalone home, then you own both. If you're buying something like a detached condo, then you really own from the "walls in", and the land will be owned by the condo association.
thndrchld@reddit
The answer isn't as simple as most of the top replies in this thread would have you believe.
For the vast majority of cases, yes, when you buy property, you're buying the land AND the improvements that have been made on it (house, workshop, driveway, etc).
However, there are exceptions: (note that these are broad generalizations, and there will always be exceptions and/or weird situations).
Condos. In the case of a condo, you own the inside of the structure, but not the outside or the land it sits on. For example, if the condo takes the form of a standalone house, you might own the inside walls, doors, floors, etc, but the exterior walls, doors, yard, windows, etc belong to the condo association. You can freely modify the inside as much as you want, but you can't make any changes to the outside without approval.
Land lease. Sometimes, you may fully own the structure that sits on the land, but the land may be owned by somebody else who has issued you a long-term lease for its use. In essence, you pay rent on the land itself, but you own the structures that sit on it. You might see an arrangement like this in a trailer park - you pay rent for the land, but you own the trailer that sits on it.
Commercial property. Commercial property ownership rules can be really weird. I'll give a real world example here. I'm a member of an organization that recently purchased the building and land we're located in. We own the building. However, we had previously rented in the building, subleasing from another organization we share the building with, who holds the master lease. After purchasing the building, we still sublet from the master lease holder, who in turn rents from us (at least until the lawyers can figure out a satisfactory master lease transfer agreement). So in essence, we're renting from our own tenant, who is in turn renting from us. So we're subletors in our own building.
Mineral and airspace rights. For most land sales, you own the ground surface, the structures and flora that are built on it, a set distance of airspace above the highest point occupied by structure or flora, and a set depth below the surface. The exact amounts vary by jurisdiction. Higher airspace and deeper depths aren't included in the sale. So, say you dig down a few hundred feet on your land and find gold. You could be charged with theft for mining it because you don't own the mineral rights. Likewise, you can't just throw up a 500ft tower on your land without getting airspace clearance from the FAA, as you'd be exceeding your maximum altitude based on existing structures.
There's a handful of other gotchas and whatabouts, but these are the most common of the uncommon situations.
WhompTrucker@reddit
Usually the structure and land. My house is in an HOA and we own most of the lot but the HOA owns the side piece which is like community space.
I owned a townhouse before now and I owned the land and my part of the roof.
It all depends but usually you own at least the land the structure is on. Then sometimes the yard or more land around it.
dgmilo8085@reddit
Depends on the purchase, but I own the house, the dirt, and the sky above it.
hellogoawaynow@reddit
Both. I am the proud owner of 1/4 of an acre of land and the cardboard box that lives on top of it!
TurduckenEverest@reddit
It depends but generally speaking yes to both.
papercranium@reddit
Usually both!
I live in a townhouse, so we own everything above the foundation and below the roof, but the land isn't ours.
(I mean, technically the bank owns it, but it'll be ours in like 7 more years if we don't sell it and move.)
Odd-Savage@reddit
In the US it depends on the structure. For a single family home on a plot of land you buy the right to pay taxes on the land the home sits on. The land is yours for as long as you pay taxes on it. Occasionally there are stipulations where you cannot use the land for certain purposes. In areas with zoning laws you can’t buy the property and run a business out of it. In other areas you own the land but don’t have rights to the gas, oil, minerals, or water underneath it.
washtucna@reddit
Both
tbodillia@reddit
Well, now it depends on how rich you are. The super rich guys own the house and the land the house sits on, the exact footprint of the house. Their company, their corporation owns all the land surrounding the house. Dude lives on 50 acre plot, but only owns the house and it's footprint. Company owns the rest.
yurinator71@reddit
If you are paying taxes on it do you really own it?
Amaranth504@reddit
There is an exception to what people are telling you, but there are only 2 single tax colonies left in the country. One of them is Fairhope, AL. In Fairhope, you sign a 99 year lease with the city for the land your house is on. My parents live there. When they pass, that lease does NOT pass to me and my brother. Rather we would have to sign a new lease with the city if we wanted to keep the house.
Farm_girl_Bee@reddit
Most of the time you own the land and house. Manufactured homes/mobile home neighborhoods being an exception. In that case you buy the building and pay rent for the land. Condos or owned apartments would not include any land for yourself but you'd get access to the building common areas.
MorddSith187@reddit
usually both but sometimes just the building itself.
DG-MMII@reddit
Depends. Generally, you buy them both. But there are some places where you can buy a trailer home and rent the land. (Sometimes people literally pick up their houses and move elsewhere)
theflipflopqueen@reddit
The short answer is…. It depends.
You can own it outright (house/land/ all rights)
You can own part (house/land/some rights)
You can have a land lease (own the house, not the land). This is really common on low income/first time home properties that are on land trusts, tribal or USFS land (cabins)
the USFS ones are usually 99 years and are based on a property tax formula. A bunch expired a few years ago on a lake here that has exploded in property values and the leases jumped into million dollar range…. For small lake lots and cabins from the 1920, that hadn’t been maintained or updated because the owners knew they weren’t going to be able to afford the new lease.
The land lease for low income/first time buyers usually are usually small and have lots of stipulations attached to it (owner occupied, profit cap, must be first time buyer, application and lottery system to qualify) they also have really strict HOA requirements because they are designed to change hands every 5ish years. They aren’t built for long term family ownership. Although I live in a very HCOL place and people stay in them and make them work much longer because housing is out of control.
Or you can be on lot rent (own the house, pay monthly rent for the land) this is common with trailers like in a park. Although it was more popular and prevalent in 60s-80s it’s still very common here…. Again HCOL due to housing.
It can really vary from place to place. Where I live you see all of these, so when you’re house hunting you have to be really careful.
WowsrsBowsrsTrousrs@reddit
Maryland still has some properties that have "ground rent" - you buy the house, but rent the land under it for a nominal fee per year paid to the holder of the ground lease. The lease is usually for 99 years. It's very limited in purpose, though - the owner of the ground lease has no rights or say concerning the structures/houses built on it.
PipelinePlacementz@reddit
Most of the time you own both, unless it is a multi-family structure, like a condo. Most places you do not own what is beneath the land though, i.e., mineral rights.
Don't get me started on property taxes though... Do your really ever own the land/structure if you must pay a lease to the government to own it? You stop paying, they take it from you.
Competitive_Web_6658@reddit
The city where I live has a trust that makes it easier for working class people to buy a home (reduced costs, assistance with the down payment, etc.). But buyers only own the building; the land still belongs to the trust.
This is uncommon when it comes to unattached, single-family homes, though. Most of the time you own the land, even in a city.
Diligent-Variation51@reddit
Same. I live on a land trust. The city owns the land and we have a 99 year lease. We own the house (ours is single-family home, though most are duplexes or townhomes). Most people also have subsides from the city, too (essentially a second mortgage, interest free, that only needs to be repaid when selling).
This has given us a solid middle class lifestyle, but you can end up feeling trapped if you stay “too long” because the increased value is a split ownership with the land trust. The purpose is to be an inexpensive start to homeownership with the intention that most people will use the lower cost as an opportunity to save for a move to a traditional home, freeing up the land trust home for a new family to move out of expensive rentals. The reality is a significant number of people never have enough savings/income to qualify for a traditional loan and another portion of the population (like us) are simply too old to start over, since our time earning income is limited. It’s a bit of a gilded cage, but much better than being subjected to ever increasing rent
mmmsrhjnh@reddit
You own both but you may be beholden to the HOA (homeowners association). To the HOA, you must pay dues and follow their rules and regulations to how your house and property must look and be kept. Not all homes are in an HOA, but if you’re in a suburban area, then most likely you will be in an HOA.
The only common exception to not owning both home and land is mobile homes. These homes are meant to look stationary with siding covering essentially a trailer that the home sits on and can be moved with. They don’t often move them, but you buy the structure and rent the land from the mobile home park.
OGIBLP@reddit
Trailers, like the type of houses in trailer parks, are different. You pay for and own the house/trailer, but most of the time you’re paying rent for the plot of land. I think this is because they’re also known as mobile homes and are technically on wheels. They can be towed anywhere.
MartyPhelps@reddit
Both, unless it is a mobile home or a condominium.
Perfect-Librarian895@reddit
I read the contract the fracking company sent when they wanted to use our land. In my opinion it was laughable. It basically said they could do whatever they wanted in perpetuity, but you had to read every single word to get to that. It was very long.
Even if you didn’t sign up they could still drill down and extend horizontally under our land because the original deed/title did not include the mineral rights. For all we know they did.
AnastasiusDicorus@reddit
You own the structure and the land surface, but not always the mineral rights. Some cities/counties/whatever restrict the granting of mineral rights to residential property owners because they don't want you digging a gold mine in your back yard. If you want something like a well to be dug you would have to apply for a permit in those areas.
bvlinc37@reddit
You own both, but also neither. They are considered your property, but they'll be taxed yearly. Fail to pay your property taxes and you lose your property.
ToughFriendly9763@reddit
you own the house and some amount of land surrounding it. my house came with roughly 0.75 acres of land.
Astute_Primate@reddit
Both usually. Gotta look into local regulations about what's under the land and above it though. How far above and below your property you own can be tricky sometimes. Water rights, mineral rights, and air rights could be deeded differently
GamerDadofAntiquity@reddit
In the US you typically own the land to a specified depth. Incidentally, you also generally own the airspace above your property to a specified height. I believe where I live it’s somewhere between 75 and 100 feet. If planes fly too low over your house they may technically be trespassing.
The amount of below ground and airspace you own is typically defined by local laws though, and won’t generally be specified in your land title. There are also a huge number of exceptions to what you own or don’t own that would have to be included in the title/deed.
SunshynePower@reddit
Depends on the state and their laws. Some states restrict ownership on parts of their land for certain groups.
For example Hawaii has land set aside for natives.
Reservations have restrictions.
PuppySnuggleTime@reddit
It depends on where you’re buying. In the vast majority of the United States, you’re buying both a house and the land. However, there are some places where you only get a land lease and then you own the house until the land lease expires. I suppose you couldn’t move the house with you, but it wouldn’t be practical here. I’m in Hawaii and the least thing is a reality for many properties here.
I_kwote_TheOffice@reddit
I'm confused about the question. Do you not own the house and land in other countries? It seems like that's the only obvious answer with the exception of possibly some communist countries or states.
GaryJM@reddit
In England and Wales, some property is owned as "leasehold". This is when there is a "freeholder" who owns the land and buildings and sells a long-term lease to a leaseholder, which gives the leaseholder the right to occupy the property. The leaseholder can sell the lease to someone else, in the same way that you would sell a freehold property.
I_kwote_TheOffice@reddit
Wow, that's interesting. Isn't that kind of the same thing with more steps? There is still an owner at the end of the day. They own the property and land. They make the loan payments (if any), pay the property taxes, control the equity, etc. They lease it to someone (renter) even if that lease is paid for in only one installment payment. That person can sell that lease to someone else if they choose.
GaryJM@reddit
For most purposes, yeah, there's not much difference. I think the main one is when the building has multiple properties in it. With leasehold, the freeholder is the one responsible for the maintenance of the building and the communal areas and the leaseholders are only responsible for their own properties. Leasehold is very rare where I am (in Scotland) and I don't like the idea of only owning a lease to a property, rather than "really" owning it, but on the other hand whenever there is any work needing done to the building my flat is in, it means getting all the owners together to agree to it and that can often be a pain in the arse.
Illustrious_Sort4386@reddit
tldr both.
but it depends. In PA there are 4 estates, Real-estate, Water estate, Coal estate, and Oil Gas and minerals. generally when you buy a property you are buying real estate, and water estate, and some times ogm rights. the coal estates at least out west have already been consolidated buy mining corporations. OGM is now in process of being consolidated with the advent of fracking and exploration of the marcellus shale formation.
Real-estate is the surface to the sky. Coal is subsurface mining, OGM is drilling, and water is wells and aquifers. generally Coal and OGM estates take precedence over realestate and water when it comes to surface land use conflicts.
keep in mind i am a normie. my only experience is buy property in Fayette co PA so some of my info may be wrong
OtterSnoqualmie@reddit
So, OP, as you see here the answer is complicated, mostly because the US is huge and specific items can vary by state and smaller jurisdiction. I've try to use the term 'common' and 'generally' wherever possible as there are differences in terminology and application throughout the US.
Buckle up. ;)
TL;dr
There is a concept on the US of a Bundle of Rights in relation to property ownership. When we refer to an ownership type i it is generally Fee Simple or Leasehold. (Yes, there are other types of ownership, but for the purposes of OPs question leasehold and fee simple are most common.)
Fee simple is the land and everything attached to the land, houses, barns, wells everything. Leasehold typically gives you ownership of the improvement (see above), and a long-term land lease. That lease will give you rights regarding what you can do on the land.
Source - I'm a general appraiser (which means I can appraise all property types).
The most common purchase in the US is called Fee Simple. This type generally affords you all of the rights to that property and any improvements in the property. All of the rights include everything above and below within an area limit - air, minerals etc. the improvements often include a home, and other strutual items like a shed or barn or guest home or pool or whatever.
Fee Simple right are subject to government things. For instance, many/most areas have land use conventions; often called zoning but terminology can be regional. Zoning is agreed upon by the area representation and effects what can be built on the property. An office tower may be precluded in a rural area with agriculture. But the zoning also establishes some of the rights I mentioned. It will often indicate the maximum height of a building, for instance.
The other ownership type is leasehold. This is when the improvement is purchased but the land is on a long-term lease. There is no established term for a land lease but in my experience they tend to vary between 50 and 99 years. There is always a renewal clause and it's always convoluted to include appraisers and lawyers and anybody else who can make money on it. Land Lisa's can apply to homes or businesses. The most common example would be homes built on land reserved for native tribes, or properties we refer to as mobile or manufactured home parks or communities. Tribal leases tend to be long. Mobile home park leases can often be year to year, with the land owned by another private individual or corporation.
There are other effects on land rights that can often vary from region to region or state to state. In some states beachfront access for instance is reserved for the public good, and anybody can walk along any Beach. That's not true in every state. The federal government reserves a variety of rights. Often these rights are related to a treaty or agreement and includes a large area not just a single private property.
There are agreements that follow the property sale. They are listed on what we refer to as a deed for that property. The deed is the 'pedigree' of the property it tells you where the property is who owns what rights to the property and establish his ownership. These agreements can come in the form of homeowners associations, covenants, easements, in a variety of other tools utilized in both commercial and residential real estate. These tools are used to give limited rights to a third party. In the case of a homeowner's association this may be an agreement to pay a regular fee to keep the street clean, but if you visit r/hoasucks you'll see that some homeowners associations are a little excitable. They have thoughts and lots of them. But that property is bound to that homeowner's association by deed. An easement as another example might give a utility company limited rights on a property. Easements are very specifically defined within their description so typically it won't apply to the entire property but a percentage of the property. It may include the right to put power lines under the ground it may include the utility companies right of access to that particular little section. Easements can be innocuous and nobody notices (tunnel easements), or they can be a lot and you can see them from satellite image (sidewalk easements, above ground pipeline easement, utility line easements, driveway easements, etc). It just depends. An easement will also include a list of activities that are either restricted and not allowed, or activities that are absolutely permissible in the easement area by the property owner.
There is also a concept of condominium ownership. We see this most commonly in residential towers, but it also appears in commercial things like offices and even small industrial buildings. In a condo, you own everything within the walls of your unit, then pay to an overarching organization of other owners within your property to service the outer envelope of the property and whatever might be on the land; good examples of this might be the roof, the siding, parking areas, common areas. If you look at the deed for a condo in some areas it will include the square footage of the individual unit as well as a small portion of the land, typically commensurate with the square foot percentage of the unit versus the entire building.
Hopefully this is helpful. :)
No-Carry4971@reddit
Both.
LA_Nail_Clippers@reddit
Of course it depends on your area and specific laws, but a real estate lawyer I know says "you own your structure and the land, with the cooperation of your government."
This means while it's mostly yours, there are some exceptions that might tweak that - easements, mineral rights, airspace, taxes, and eminent domain rights.
Maleficent_Scale_296@reddit
Generally you own the house and the land. Sort of. If you don’t pay your taxes the government can seize and sell it.
Prize_Consequence568@reddit
"The question is geared mostly towards those who live in the suburbs and those super massive mansions."
So you don't think it's possible if you live in urban or rural areas.
freebiscuit2002@reddit
It depends. Some house purchases are house and the plot of land it occupies. Some house purchases are just the house, and someone else owns the land.
urquhartloch@reddit
You normally own the house and land but its not unheard of to own only one of the following: building, land, and mineral rights. Mineral rights are things that are pulled out of the ground (such as oil, metal ore, or gemstones).
Specific_Age500@reddit
None of it. Either the bank owns it, or the government does. There's also air rights and mineral rights, most likely also owned by people other than the homeowner.
They call it property tax, but it's no different than rent. Stop paying it and you're homeless. If the government needs to build something on your land, they'll throw you some peanuts and bulldoze away.
houdini31@reddit
Both but not necessarily the mineral rights
Joel_feila@reddit
The land is included. Except for mobile homes that can still move. Then the land is seperate. You can permanently attach the mobile to the land making it a regular home if you own the land.
Silly_Guidance_8871@reddit
It depends. Generally, if it's a standard home (on some kind of foundation), you own both; if it's a mobile home, it's common that you rent the land under it.
As for mineral & use rights, that depends on state/municipality.
gray-beard53@reddit
Bought house in small town I own house in land but no mineral rights
msabeln@reddit
A lawyer friend told me to look for property titles that were “fee simple absolute” which gives you the most available rights to the property.
There was an English property developer who was planning a park, and to finance it, he planned to lease homesites around the edge of it, with a 99 year lease. That’s common where he was from. Very few people bought leases, as their value decreases every year.
Traditional_Trust418@reddit
You almost always own both if you buy
kbmoregirl@reddit
Usually both, but in the Baltimore area there is something called Ground Rent i don't fully understand where you don't own the land.
thankyoufriendx3@reddit
Usually you own both. There are places where you get a 99 year lease.
Maddad_666@reddit
Both. Historically this was easy, but lately land and houses are very expensive and line Mark Twain said “…buy land cause they don’t make it anymore”.
tinksalt@reddit
Very much depends on where you make the purchase. In Maryland, ground rent is a thing. Mostly in Baltimore, but it exists in the state. You might own the house, but if I own the land, you’ve got to pay me ground rent every year. It’s not a lot of money, usually a couple hundred a year. I remember when a friend bought a house in Baltimore they had to track down the owner of the land to try and negotiate buying the land as well.
ExultantGitana@reddit
Yes. Own both.
amc365@reddit
Both
LoooongFurb@reddit
You own both - the house itself and the land it is on.
Budsygus@reddit
The house itself and the land are part of the sale of most houses. It gets slightly more complicated when you buy a condo or attached townhouse, but it's still pretty much the same.
What a lot of people don't understand is that when you buy a house you DO NOT own:
- The view from your window
- The air above your house
- The sidewalk
- The street
- The noise level
- Anything on your neighbor's property
I went to a city council meeting discussing new construction and literally everyone but me was there to complain about the new construction blocking their view or making noise or something. I was the only one who didn't step up to the mic because I was mostly there out of curiosity over what the plans were for construction across the street from me.
One lady was PISSED that they'd spent $300,000 on their house and now the view from their back porch would be blocked by a house instead of remain open forever. She actually said "Can't you just NOT build the two units behind our house?" Like the developer is gonna just give up over a half million in revenue to keep this lady happy.
After the meeting I talked to her and her husband and said "Ma'am, that's just how it goes. You bought your house and if you wanted to preserve your view you would have needed to buy the lot behind yours as well."
She got mad and said "But it's ridiculous that I could spend SO MUCH on a house (lol 2017 housing prices) and have my view ruined without me having any say about it!"
I told her "Ma'am, you building your house blocked my view of the lake from my front porch. What rights did I have to block you from building your house there?"
She got mad and her husband gave me the stink eye and they walked off. These people seriously thought they could get the city council to make the developer NOT build new houses when they'd already broken ground and had every permit under the sun. The delusion of the average person is unreal.
TEG24601@reddit
In most cases (99%), you own it all. There are exceptions. Some manufactured homes are part of a park. The park owns the land, you own the home, and rent the land. These aren't trailers, which usually have the same setup, but otherwise normal homes. There are also some places were you get a 99 year lease for the land, including some places in Hawaii, but own the home. And there are systems to make housing more affordable, where you own the home, but the land is owned by a 3rd party. You only pay property taxes on the structure and improvements, but not the land, the non-profit that owns the land pays any taxes required (which are usually zero, because they are a non-profit).
cofeeholik75@reddit
Exception: Manufactured or Mobile home. You buy the home, but lease the land it sits on.
hiketheworld2@reddit
Usually, you own the house and the land if you purchase a house. However, if you purchase a condominium, you generally own the building and the condo association owns the land and has responsibility for maintenance of the common aspects, for example the roof and shared walls.
As others have mentioned, there are exceptions such as buildings on reservation lands or that abut public access features.
HoselRockit@reddit
We own both and we get taxed on both.
JuanOffhue@reddit
We used to have a river property in Indiana, and as I recall if it was a navigable waterway you owned down to the normal high-water mark on the shoreline, and if was unnavigable you owned to the center of the channel.
lfxlPassionz@reddit
The land and almost everything on it.
demonspawn9@reddit
Most of the time you own both. Occasionally you can buy a structure to move it or they are selling just the land and plan to move the house. It isn't common. There are also 99 year lease, which a subdivision near me has, it's why I didn't buy in there. I didn't realize they still existed. You actually don't own the land and I have no clue who actually owns it and expects to take it back in 100 years and do what with it. Id just rather not get tangled up in it as it was already 40 years into it.
jrc5053@reddit
Generally, you are actually buying the land and all improvements (buildings), subject to all valid easements, restrictions, and partial sales, as well as any statutory mechanisms that diminish ownership in terms of land use, riparian (water) rights, or air rights.
In the US, the general rule is that you own from the heavens to hell, and you can sell any portion. So many times, people have sold just the coal underlying the property, or the oil and gas, or the right to store oil and gas in caverns underneath the land
harpejjist@reddit
It depends. Usually both. Not always.
Sometimes you only own a small percentage of the land underneath. And not a specific piece of land either, but a percentage stake in a large larger plot. (HOA, condo, townhouse)
Sometimes you don’t own any land at all but pay a rental for land use (mobile home, pre-fabricated home, floating home)
If you own a home in an HOA community you also own responsibility for the shared community land and in some cases you don’t own the specific land under your house even if it is a single-family home on its own lot. Every owner in the homeowners association would own an equal share of the entire plot of land of the entire complex including streets, sidewalks, parks etc.
If you own a condominium or townhouse (including multi million dollar penthouse apartments in New York City) where multiple residences share a roof, you own the interior of your home and then a percentage share of the communal property such as elevators, courtyard, the roof, etc.
In these situations you would pay a monthly fee to cover the costs of all shared amenities and resources. And the upkeep and administration.
If your home is mobile or pre-fabricated (and yes they have large, fancy, multi bedroom houses in this category), you pay a month to them and connect to communal utilities. In the case of floating homes, you would pay dock fees at the shore for your slip, utility hook ups etc.
But normally yes, accepting these situations outlined above, you own the land
Kman17@reddit
You own the land and the structure on it.
If it’s a condo or apartment, it’s percentage ownership of both governed by terms of your agreement.
Land & property are perpetually taxed on ownership, so you can make a little bit of an argument that you never truly own it; you just lease it from the government. But that’s a little bit of libertarian philosophy.
WhoWouldCareToAsk@reddit
For me it’s both, but my brother once owned a home on indian reservation land that “lent” him the land for 50 years at the time of purchase. He sold the house since and, from what I understand, the same tribe renewed the 50 year lease at that time for the new owner at the time of purchase.
I don’t hate that, but the 10k sq.ft. of land my house sits on is mine.
splanks@reddit
shockingly, in some areas in the US you still might have to pay land rent.
latin220@reddit
You own both and none. Technically on the superficial level when you paid off the mortgage you own the deed to the house and the land that it’s on assuming the city registrar and the state agree that you have the land and house on it for as long as the town/county/state/federal government doesn’t need it.
A lot of Americans are ignorant on imminent domain laws and the ugly history on how land ownership works they think for all intents and purposes it’s theirs. Because far too many Americans are hyper individualistic and short sighted.
Technically the federal government and the states own the land your family lives on the land and has a deed of rights to own and live on that as long as you abide with local, state and federal law as well as the government accepting that at this moment they don’t need the land for other purposes like building a road or a bridge or a dam etc.
The Native Americans can tell you how much your deed and lease agreement is worth. Same with African Americans who had their lands taken by the local and state governments whenever they wanted same with Latinos in the West Coast. Even now we’ve seen in these past 20 years that those people of color often have their lands taken from them not for failure of paying property taxes but due to white families simply don’t leave using adverse possession and the right to squat on a nonwhite family’s land. Famously this is still legal in many areas and if the property owner who ain’t white doesn’t fight them the county or city will just grant the land to the squatter.
This has been done in California in prime real estate land owned by poor nonwhites and in the Carolinas on the islands where black and brown families find themselves with squatters and those adverse possession claims to their land and the state turns around and gives their land to the white family. It’s jarring and infuriating for nonwhites but it’s still happens though not as much as before but within these last 15 years still states and counties allow it. Simply put land ownership is tied to race and ethnicity. Even though on paper we are supposed to be equals. Those laws are not always enforced equally.
Churlish_Performer@reddit
Where i live here in Milwaukee (actually, South Milwaukee - different munincipality), you own both the house and the land. However, there are special amendments by way of what is colloquially known as "common good" easements. So for example, the city will not automatically replace my sidewalk - I have to pay them to hire a contractor that's already approved by the city, to replace it in a very lopsided no bid situation. Likewise all lateral lines throughout the city for sewage and drainage - they do NOT need permission (although they do need to post notice) to, at any time, cut into and modify those structures. HOWEVER, I AM responsible for ALL upkeep on the easements. I am also not allowed to make significant, upgrades "beyond baseline" to those easements - so no flower beds, flagpoles, signs, etc. Essentially it's my responsibility to help ensure public safety and access and in that, i "own" that easement but what it really means is that I'm legally liable for it while they can do whatever they want to it.
So, my understanding is that most cities do it this way. Rural areas still have certain right-of-way allowances as well so for instance in my state, homeowners can opt in or out to the DNR which gives them a significant tax break that then allows sportsmen to cross their land without "trespassing"
LHCThor@reddit
You generally own both the land and building.
Inkspotten@reddit
I own both my home and my land :-)
Reaganson@reddit
You own it, but you are still required to pay real estate taxes to your State. If you don’t, the State will take your property.
Ravenna92@reddit
Small correction: you pay real estate taxes to your county, municipality, and/or school district, not your state.
ClockAggressive1224@reddit
In most states, you buy the right to rent your home and land from the local government via real estate taxes.
blipsman@reddit
You are buying both. The land is often what has the majority of the value due to its location -- that's why a 1500 sq ft house that's in San Francisco might cost $2 million when it's $200k in Akron, Ohio.
Three are limits to how high and how low one owes... air rights do not go to space, and typically property owners do not control mineral rights below their property below a certain depth.
MaleficentCoconut594@reddit
Both. You pay property taxes annually on the land you own
Ravenna92@reddit
Usually both, but there are some exceptions! In Maryland it's not uncommon to not technically own your land, and instead owe "ground rent" property taxes to the company who actually owns the land. It's usually only around $45 twice a year, but still, I thought it was crazy when I first heard about it.
TemperMe@reddit
You own both (to a degree). You will always have to pay a property tax for the land you own. Some would say this means you’re renting or leasing the property from the government but that’s just silly imo.
VoiceArtPassion@reddit
I’m the exception to the rule. I bought a house on an Indian reservation so I don’t own the land technically, I’m on a 250 year lease. So for all intents and purposes I “own” the land and for the next 250 years I can do whatever I want with it, but I have to give it back in 250 years. I also have to pay the tribe for water rights on top of my water bill.
g3294@reddit
Thanks to property taxes and eminent domain, your ownership is completely dependent on the whims of the government.
quitealargeorangecat@reddit
That’s how it works in every country.
DankBlunderwood@reddit
In general, you own both the home and the land it sits on, minus any encumberances or easements, which are not the norm.
MotherofPuppos@reddit
My home isn’t McMansion huge, but I think I can can answer.
You own everything except for some technicalities. Like, you can’t refuse water or gas companies access to pipes that might be under your property. For very large lots, you can get permission from the town to subdivide them into multiple properties (most townships have minimum lot sizes). If you want to get really technical, your ownership goes to a certain footage above and below ground.
Wild-Sky-4807@reddit
When we bought our house my husband joked that we owned it all the way to the core of the earth. Not so sure about that, but we own both the land and the house.
TheKiddIncident@reddit
Normally both.
There are restrictions. You can't suddenly dig a gold mine on your property and you can't divert a creek that goes through your back yard, etc. But normally you own the land and the house and everything on it.
JBoy9028@reddit
Depends on what you buy.
Typical house: you own the land and structure.
Townhouse/Condo: you own the structure, land belongs to the association.
Mobile home: own the structure, rent the land.
As always there are exceptions. But this is the standard.
feistlab@reddit
Don't let him do anything right because he called and pressured her into doing it and he claims oh yeah I could see the link right there just threw a couple of stitches and that's six hours a week right? I'm a couple stitches and Lawrence says that's not what happened correct correct first and Lauren wouldn't believe she said a dealer structure to the Bible. It's hard because it is inside you know after I oriented her. She's like first section we took look at the cancer in it. I'm like yeah that's why what I did was I went to the right file of preoperative land was cancer free shopped there and no no no can't do that. We're doing it. I know I'm mad chopped send that negative on this side positive that is a class case where most people would've just gone go go go. I don't want to take too much of the document then positive margin margin margin and then Marta one cut one march and one house clean.
feliniaCR@reddit
You own the house and the land.. BUT there some notes:
1) there may be an easement on your land which gives someone else the rights to use or control that part of it
2) the mineral rights (the value of the stuff under your land) might belong to someone else, giving them the right to dig into your land
3) you might be part of an HOA which can impose rules about what you can and can’t do with the house and land
squats_and_sugars@reddit
For clarity, to OP, this doesn't mean that someone (or company) can just pull up an excavator and start digging while leaving the homeowner with the cleanup. Mineral rights and extraction is a whole legal field.
LopsidedGrapefruit11@reddit
You usually own the house and the lot it sits on with some exceptions like mineral rights as mentioned previously.
There are some single family residence developments that are site condos. In that case you own the house and a percentage of the land of the complete development, so there are more restrictions on what you can do to your yard or in terms of remodeling your home.
9inez@reddit
In the US you normally own structure and land. BUT, in suburban developments you do not own the mineral rights of that land area.
In more rural areas, that are not organized developments, one should try to keep minerals in tact.
Hylian_ina_halfshell@reddit
In most cases, suburbs, cities if you own a single residence home, you own the land and house.
SudburySonofabitch@reddit
Both, although you have to pay taxes on it in perpetuity to fund your municipality and can lose it of you don't.
TheJokersChild@reddit
You own the house and the land it's on. And the land is the main reason you pay taxes.
winerdars@reddit
You own the land and structures when you purchase a house. In a trailer park, you own the building on wheels and rent a spot to park your home. In condominiums, you own the individual condo but not the entire building or land the building resides on
chicagoliz@reddit
Typically you own both the land and the structures on it.
ChaoticReality4Now@reddit
You own both on paper, but you still have to pay taxes on it. Also, if the government wants the land, they can take it whenever they want.
silversurf1234567890@reddit
You own nothing if you pay property tax
Practical-Ordinary-6@reddit
You can just buy the land first with the intention to build a house on it. In an area being newly developed, that's a common situation. Sometimes the period before a house is built is a very long time.
Charlesinrichmond@reddit
It can be structured in a million ways, but 99% of the time you own the house and the land.
pantslesseconomist@reddit
I own my house but lease the land from the local church (technically Camp Meeting Association), but this is very much non-standard. The lease is 99 years long, renewable, transferable to heirs, and a few hundred dollars a year.
clintecker@reddit
at my home in colorado i own the land but i don’t own the rights to the minerals under my house and nor do i have a right to consume the water that falls on my land
jrhawk42@reddit
The answer can be a little tricky depending on what you consider ownership.
On a basic level you own the house and the land, but you're subject to any zoning restrictions associated with it. Some can be unimpactful like not allowed to drill for minerals, or some can impact your ability to fix and expand on the property like your home being recognized as a heritage site. You're also always under the threat of eminent domain where your house can be seized, and you are given "just" compensation.
imnottheoneipromise@reddit
It’s usually both but there are definitely exceptions like seen here.
One thing I haven’t seen when quickly scrolling is the HOA issue.
If you own a home that is part of an HOA, you never truly own the home even if you own the deed. That’s because HOAs can put a lien on your home for basically anything they find “wrong” or against their rules and you don’t immediately bend to their will.
In our old home they put a lien on our house for 300 bucks that we didn’t pay in fees because they wouldn’t fix their ratty fence that was on our property.
LadybugGal95@reddit
The land and the structure with one caveat. There are likely easements on the land, especially if it’s in the suburbs. Generally the first xx feet from the street has a city easement. That means you own it and maintain it but are very restricted as to what you can do with it. A lot of times this is because the sewer/water/electrical for your house and the neighborhood run underground there (sometimes it’s esthetics governed by bylaws). The city can come and dig up those things for repair/upgrade at any time. There may also be access easements (to get to cable/electrical boxes on the property), drainage easements (to allow for proper water runoff for the neighborhood), etc.
Consistent_Damage885@reddit
Usually you own the land and home but not the mineral or water rights, but there are some exceptions, so you have to read the fine print
Suspicious_Dust_6939@reddit
Both
ncconch@reddit
Well, the bank usually owns them until you pay off your mortgage.
r2k398@reddit
You own it as long as you pay your taxes. When you don’t pay your taxes, the government can take it from you.
wendydarlingpan@reddit
In Hawaii on occasion you don’t own the land. It’s a “leasehold” property, so you own the structure but pay to lease the land. Often the lease is renegotiated every decade or two and rates go up.
It’s often land previously owned by the Hawaiian royalty, now held in a trust like Kamehameha Schools, Queen Emma Foundation, or Liliuokalani Trust.
KoRaZee@reddit
Both but nobody has sovereign rights over the land we own. No kings
as1126@reddit
Unless it’s a “mobile” home, which is a depreciating asset, then the house comes with ownership on a plot of land. Insurance covers replacing the structures, not the land, So, typically has a lower payout. There are exceptions, but most homes in the suburbs include the plot of land with clear boundaries.
PsychicPopsicles@reddit
In my state (CO), you own the house and the land surface. But you don’t own what’s beneath the land (mineral rights) or water that runs through your property (like a stream or river). Mineral rights and water rights must be purchased separately, if that is even possible; maybe the state owns it or maybe a private entity owns it, and they are not obliged to sell it to you.
This has become a problem with companies drilling for oil. Their drills go sideways to extract oil from underneath your property, causing all sorts of problems for the homeowner (like polluting your water supply), and you have little to no recourse. Municipalities have tried to enact laws to protect the homeowners, but the state Supreme Court always overrides them.
Calaveras-Metal@reddit
Usually you own the house and land. But there are some weird suburban subdivisions and towns that were started in the 19th century as intentional communities where you do not. One of my relatives lived in one in Delaware. They actually had a civic ordinance against fences. Because all the land was owned in common. Only the houses could belong to anyone.
TranslatorOutside909@reddit
In the USA most are "fee simple" but there are certain areas which are "leasehold". Hawaii is the most common example. NYC also has a variation with co-ops and some condos. California has a variation with some large estates where the govt owns some of the land
Significant-Owl-2980@reddit
It all depends. Some people can own the house/structure but not the land. Like in a mobile home park or condo situation.
Other times you own the house and land.
However, even if you have paid for your home in full, you are required by law to pay taxes on your property. If you do not pay these additional taxes, the state takes your home. 🏠
Horrible policy and needs to change.
WhiskeyKisses7221@reddit
Typically, you own both the house and the land, but there are exceptions. Sometimes you might own the structure, but another entity owns the land. These type of arrangements tend to be more common in commercial real estate than residential.
Drawn-Otterix@reddit
For the most part both, house and land.
There are situations where you just buy the house and rent the land, like with trailer house communities, some condos & townhouses, homes on tribal lands, vacation properties etc.
theoldman-1313@reddit
You own the house and some of the land. Usually there are exclusions that give other companies rights to certain aspects of your land, typically mineral rights and sometimes water rights. In extreme cases a mining company can move your house to stuff underneath it. This is very rare, but still a possibility.
FlamingBagOfPoop@reddit
Urban vs suburban typically doesn’t matter. I own a single family home that’s basically in the shadows of the downtown skyscrapers of one of the largest US cities. I own the building and the dirt under it.
I happen to own the mineral rights too. But I am NOT allowed to build an oil Derrick on my land. Yea, that specific language was in the paper work I signed to buy the house. Not sure if that is a general regulation or an HOA thing. Regardless, no oil derrick in place of my house.
TheMuffler42069@reddit
You don’t really own any of it. You can pay off a mortgage but then you can still lose the house in many ways. Also, even once you pay off the mortgage or if you buy the house outright, you still need to pay property tax on the land forever and if you ever stop paying the government can take the land AND the house that is on it which you “own”. It to mention that the government can also choose to take your land if it wants to or somehow needs it, I believe they’re obligated to offer you market rate for it and the house but I don’t believe they’re obligated to actually pay you. If you put up a fight, they can just take it.
weedtrek@reddit
House, usually both. Now mobile home, those are oftrn in parks where the trailer is owned by the person, but they rent the land. If there is protection in play, like a tenant owned park, it's not too bad. But often it can be predatory, where parks sell the home cheap, with cheap rent, then jack up the price of rent until it is unaffordable, the people can't find someone to buy the mobile home so they forfeit it to the park, since they can no longer afford the rent or afford to move it (if it can even be moved), then the trailer park sells it off cheap again and repeats the process.
Educational-Big-6609@reddit
Usually both
Lifestyle-Creeper@reddit
You own the structure and the surface of the land. However you probably do not own the mineral rights, the air space above your land over a certain altitude, and there may be easements on your property which would allow others to use/access your land for various reasons (like utility companies to access their equipment, or maybe your neighbors to use a shared driveway). The mineral rights issue is usually not a problem, unless you live in a mining area (look up Centralia, Pennsylvania).
JennyPaints@reddit
The vast majority of people who own a house also own the land it sits on. But there are exceptions:
Some Indian reservations have “sold” subdivisions for non tribal housing. The tribe cannot actually sell the land so the lots are sold on very long leases instead.
Families may allow family members to build on their land without selling it to them. People who inherit a life interest in land may build on it. Some golf courses and resorts sell homes but not the property the homes sit on.
I am sure the are other exceptions too, but all of the exceptions are uncommon.
Turdulator@reddit
There are some rare exceptions, but generally if you buy a single family detached home, then you are buying the plot of land and anything built on it. If you live in an area that’s at least a little desirable then usually the land is worth quite a bit more than the addition value of the house.
For example: if you pay a million bucks of a 1300sqrft house in SoCal, usually only like 100k of that 1,000,000 is for the house. (Obviously this varies quite a bit, but the land is almost always worth more than the house)
Hairy-Ball5246@reddit
Generally, you own the house and the land out to a certain point. The state or city owns the road and usually about 6 to 12 feet (2-4 meters) past it on either side for things like ditches, sidewalks, and utilities. Once you get past that 10-12 feet, though, the land is yours to do with as you please, though it may come with some stipulations if the neighborhood has a homeowners association or is affected by specific local laws like zoning or environmental requirements.
WellWellWellthennow@reddit
It depends. The subdivisions with larger size houses are often sold as site condos, where you would own the house and the right to use the lot that it sits on. Other especially older subdivisions are platted where you own the land outright. The really huge estate mansions on a fair amount of acreage of course own the land.
But if you don't pay your property taxes, the government can seize it so really you're renting it from the government no matter what.
llamadolly85@reddit
I haven't seen anyone mention leaseholds in Hawaii, where you own the house but lease the land.
PastNefariousness188@reddit
Both, but you will owe taxes on both every year that you own it.
Chemical_Basil113@reddit
You own the house and a portion of the surrounding land which varies greatly. My dad lives on a land farm with a house and I think a 5 acre yard and 150 acre field.
I live in the city and have a pretty decent size yard for my area. Not sure on the acreage but from my back door to the fence is 150 feet. It’s something like 70 feet wide. I also have a small front yard that’s probably 25 feet long or so
Toriat5144@reddit
Both
Mocjo111@reddit
Oh no. The joys of homeownership will only continue if I pay property tax and whatever the township deems my house worth
JJCalixto@reddit
Both land and the structure. I suppose there are likely to be a few exceptions, and some instances such as mobile homes where you may own the home and lease/rent the land it’s on.
Also a common shituation for new built suburban homes is the next-year’s tax bill. The initial purchase appraisal will be based on the naked land, then the contractor builds, and the next year’s appraisal will be a sharp increase in value due to the new structure. That can turn into a huge tax bill that screws some people over if they werent prepared for it.
knowlessman@reddit
It can be either, but it generally is both.
Aloh4mora@reddit
I wouldn't be interested in a property where I didn't own the land itself, only the house on top.
It's my understanding that in some countries, you don't really own the house, you only lease it from the government for 99 years. I prefer the system where I can actually own it myself.
Throwaway-ish123a@reddit
In Baltimore, with the row houses, a lot of them have a thing called ground rent. Also, in a lot of retirement communities in Florida, the person owns a permanently ground-attached trailer, but they still don't own the land so they also have ground rent.
Eric848448@reddit
99.99999% of the time, both.
Cautious_General_177@reddit
Generally both, but there are outliers, like mobile homes where you own the “home” but rent the land it’s on.
We also have easements, which allow certain entities access to specific parts of the property. Usually this is for utilities, but may include neighbors who lack access to a main road being allowed to use your driveway to access their property.
There’s also mineral and water rights, but that’s getting into weird legal territory that I don’t know anything about beyond its existence.
Green-Mix8478@reddit
Everyone rents. If you think you own it then try not paying your property taxes. The government will boot you after taking your money.
Carlpanzram1916@reddit
There are exceptions but in 99% of the cases, when you’re talking about a single family dwelling on its own lot, you own the land and everything on it, house included.
There are condos and townhouses where you ow the “house” but don’t really own any land and there’s communal property within the complex that everyone pays to maintain through the HOA.
But when we’re talking a regular single-family home on its own lot, you’re buying the whole thing.
ProfileBest2034@reddit
In America you only ever rent from the state.
bones_bones1@reddit
Neither. You’re just renting it from the county.
kamakazi339@reddit
Both
Lazy_Nobody_4579@reddit
Both. Leaseholds on the land are not a thing in the US.
redditreader_aitafan@reddit
Both plus the air above the land up to so many feet.
andmewithoutmytowel@reddit
You own the house, the land, and anything on the land. Sometimes the land can be worth more than the house.
Living_Fig_6386@reddit
In the US, the land and structure are typically sold as a package deal. If you bought a condominium, you'd own the unit and a shared interest in the shared space and grounds.
It is technically feasible to sell the structure without the land (so someone could buy a house and move it, for example), but that's not common. Likewise, it's technically possible to sell the land but not the structure, but that is even less common.
When we say that you "own the land", it's important to understand what that means in the US. It means that you have certain rights to access and place structures and fixtures on that plot of land, subject to local zoning rules and regulations. The land may come with easements: permanent right of way granted to specified parties (for example, a path to a public beach that you cannot block people from using, an access route for utility companies, or access to utility poles / lines that you cannot block). And ownership of the land does not necessarily grant you mineral rights to that land - that is that it might be that the right to extract oil or ore from that land is considered a separate thing.
alwaysboopthesnoot@reddit
Depends. You can buy a home that is a condo, a townhouse or a stand-alone condo home. In those cases you may not own the land the home sits on and all land in the development or community may belong to the entirety of the group of owners, the development, the owner of the building units purchased sit in, a homeowner association, or the city, county, etc.
If you buy a home that is not in an HOA or county, city run or other special development? Generally, you own both the structure and the land and the mineral rights.
If you want the mineral rights to what is in or on or under the land? Enquire. about that and make sure it’s included in the deed and sale.
If there is a deeded right of way for another entity or person to use, or some sort of agreement for an easement on your land, your full use of all the space and the conditions under which you can, need to be defined.
AdministrationTop772@reddit
You own it all.
IHSV1855@reddit
To put it simply, you own the house and the land.
You also own a certain depth below the surface of the land and a certain height in the air above the land, but there are very complicated laws and legal history around that aspect that isn’t worth detailing here.
Content-Car6395@reddit
You are purchasing house and land. Except you never truly own it. Property taxes are forever, a perpetual fee you must pay to the state! There are a few states that don’t require property taxes, however they are outliers.
Whatisthisnonsense22@reddit
We live on about 7 acres/2.83 hectacres in a rural housing devolpment.
We have a 40 foot/12 meter utility easement on one side of our property.
We technically own that easement and have to pay for it, the mortgage and property taxes. But we can't build anything on it or plant trees/shrubs/hedgerow because there is a natural gas pipeline under the ground and they are laying fiber optic cable in it right now.
Malicious_blu3@reddit
I live in a townhouse. I own most of my structure but none of my land.
Ok_Buy_9703@reddit
House, land, sewer line to the main line in the street even if its off your property. The sidewalk is the homeowners responsibility to maintain, town has the curb and gutter. Typically you don't own the mineral rights below the surface of the property, in a suburb...
mackelyn@reddit
You own both as long as you keep paying property taxes for the rest of your life.
RetreadRoadRocket@reddit
Mineral rights may be separated but you generally buy both the land and the house on it.
IanDOsmond@reddit
It's a little more complicated than a lot of people realize.
For most purposes in most places, you own both. But there might be restrictions. The buildings are mine, but local heritage preservation laws may restrict under what conditions I can tear them down, or what types of modifications I can do. Local zoning laws may restrict how I can use them, and building codes and permitting restrict how I modify them.
The land is mine, but, again, I may have restrictions. Public rights of way and rights of access are a thing which exist in the United States, although they're not as universal as in some other countries and don't exist everywhere. In most coastal states, "private beaches" only go up to the high tide line - if it's low tide, you can hang out on the wet sand, as celebrities in California have found out to their paparazzi-chagrin.
I have rights to the things on the surface, but there may be environmental regulations, water usage regulations, and things like that, which restrict what I can do.
I may or may not own mineral rights to things underground, Indeed, there are cases where someone could start a mine next door to me, then tunnel sideways under my house.
Communities charge property taxes, because there is a sense in which the land itself is owned by the community, and you pay, with taxes, to use it.
And many other complications.
So ... for most purposes, yeah, you own the building and the land.
Except when you don't.
Illustrious_Try478@reddit
In Maryland some properties have something called "ground rent" where people own the structure they live in, but not the land it's on. So a house owner on such a property pays the land owner ("leaseholder") an annual fee.
The laws on ground rent, and who can redeem it, and whether the owner has to let you buy it are complicated.
The argument given in favor of ground rent is that it makes a house more affordable to buy, but it's been subject to a lot of abuse. A bunch of laws have been passed to try to reform ground rent. The most recent one created a mandatory registry, but a court struck down a provision that took away the leaseholder's right to ground rent if it wasn't registered by a deadline.
metricnv@reddit
I bought a residential lot with a mobile home on it. The real estate belonged to one person and the structure/vehicle to someone else. I had to negotiate with the second person regarding the ownership of the home.
Appropriate-Taste124@reddit
Typically you own both. There are situations where that is not the case though
professor-3@reddit
In the United States, private homes come on "lots" of land. That lot is your parcel that comes with the house and you own both as a unit but the size of the land the house is on can affect your taxes on the house and land in most states. You can even buy an empty lot and, depending on state, put pretty much anything you want on it.
Soulful_Panda@reddit
Usually both. However I have family in south Texas that owned land and once the government decided they needed it, they took part of it under eminent domain and used that part of their property to build the wall.
cyvaquero@reddit
Not a massive mansion or even big by today’s Texas standards (1800 3/2/2) but yes I own the two acres it sits on, including water rights.
Should be noted our development was platted in the 70s before HOAs were big and my house was built in the mid 80s. It was a buy the lot and find a builder development that was a good 15 miles from San Antonio city limits. Development has blown past us since we bought in 2013. To this day there are lots still empty but quite a few got snatched up and seven figure homes were put up post-Covid.
Conversely, when my grandparents retired they bought a double-wide manufactured home in a retirement golf community in central Florida, they owned the house but not the lot.
garster25@reddit
Others have answered but I'll give my take.
Yes. In fact the property tax assessed value is broken out to Land Value + Improvements Value. Where I am from the land is worth most of the value, in my case its twice as much. Which make sense as a house is just a bunch on wood and concrete put together by smart folks.
AdamOnFirst@reddit
Usually both
K_N0RRIS@reddit
It depends entirely on what the deed says. About 90% of the time, you own the land and all the improvements on that land, including the house, garage, shed, pool, and fences.
But there is a weird exception in certain historic areas, particularly in Maryland and Pennsylvania, called ground rent. This is basically an amount of money in your mortgage paid as rent to some trust fund kid in their 70s whose great-great-great-grandfather owned a large portion of land in the city a long time ago and technically still owns that land today.
In this case, the house is your property, but the dirt it sits on is leased. It is usually not a lot of money, but it is always due. And yes, the land owner can legally try to evict the homeowner if ground rent goes unpaid.
Mobius3through7@reddit
It DEPENDS, but typically you own the structure and the land. SOMETIMES you own the ground beneath the land as well, which is called the mineral rights. Depending on the state, ground water extraction rights may be a separate item as well.
In VERY RARE cases, you only purchase the home on the land, emphasis on very rare.
For example, my home is on 13 acres. I own the house, I own the acreage, and I own the right to drill water wells into the aquifer beneath the land. However, I do not own the geological layers beneath my home, I cannot legally extract oil from them, for example. The mineral rights were sold off over a century ago.
viomon2@reddit
It depends on which state you live in. In a lot of states you have to pay property taxes on the land and the home. If you don’t pay them, your house can be sold by the county/city at auction for what you owe. For example 5k square foot home on 5 acres, I’d pay around 2,350 USD.
In rural areas, land that has been in families for generations is frequently lost to tax sales because the descendants either can’t pay what they owe in taxes or they’ve forgotten they have the property.
Random_Reddit99@reddit
Real property is governed by a strictly defined legal arrangement that is explicitly spelled out in advertising and the deed.
A "Fee Simple" property includes both the structure and the land it sits on.
A "Leasehold" property is one in which you own the structure, but not the land. They may or may not collect a rent, or that the original leaseholder simply agreed to a fixed-term lease (such as for 50 years) for a one time fee.
Hong Kong and Kowloon are examples of "leasehold" properties in which the vast majority of land is owned by the Chinese state, and are leased to a developer for a fixed term. It's the reason why Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997. Although Hong Kong island was previously owned by the UK, Kowloon was leased by Great Britain in 1898 on a 99 year lease when they outgrew Hong Kong island and needed the adjacent property on the mainland to expand. China refused to renew the lease in the 1990s as the lease was coming up, and Hong Kong island was by then unsustainable without Kowloon, the UK decided to return both Kowloon and Hong Kong island to China. Much of Australian farmland and in the Australian Capital Territory are technically leasehold properties from the crown. They don't collect any rent, but still withhold the option to recall the lease when the lease is up.
A significant portion of Hawaii is also leasehold held by various entities from descendants of the Kingdom of Hawaii such as Bishop Estate, land formerly owned by Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The Ala Moana Mall, Ward Village, and many properties in Waikiki are held under 99 year leases from the Bishop Estate.
There are also separate agreements for mineral rights and air rights, in which you may own the land on the surface, but not any oil or valuable minerals beneath the topsoil, or sell the air rights to an adjacent property to build an overhang, bridge, or signage over your structure.
LJski@reddit
My property backs up to a golf course, and I “own” about 50 feet into the course. The course has an easement; I theoretically can do anything as long as it doesn’t interfere with the golf course - which means nothing.
The course recently almost shut down; they were going to sell some of the land for houses, but a lot of it could not be developed as it was near wetlands, etc.
Not only would I have got my property back, those across the fairway have a similar situation. This would have left a narrow strip that could not be developed. We could have then, if everyone agreed, split the extra land between everyone on both sides.
ContributionDapper84@reddit
Depends. Generally yes but Hawai'i and other niche cases can be complicated.
richbiatches@reddit
Typically both. But if youre on a Reservation then just the house and you lease the land.
RevolutionaryWeek573@reddit
I have an unusual situation… We bought a new home in December and we mostly own our property. We own the house and the land, but the land between us and the river is owned by three homeowners (including me) along it. There are laws that prevent us from changing anything on it. It’s a “buffer” zone. I think we’re actually legally responsible for keeping it safe.
Our previous home had power lines going over our yard. We owned everything but the power company had an “easement” allowing them to access our property to take care of their property. So we mostly owned that too. Like, we couldn’t have trees above a certain height near the power lines.
PomeloPepper@reddit
I don't have mineral rights, but also, no one is going to stick an oil well on my 0.2 acre lot.
SSweetSauce@reddit
Technically you don’t own anything, if you don’t pay taxes the government will take it all. Also you have to look at your contact very carefully because you my “own” what is on top of the land but someone else my own the mineral rights if you live somewhere that has valuable ground
AwarenessGreat282@reddit
Depends on the state. Here in Pennsylvania, the ground underneath your house rarely transfers with the sale. It's usually owned by a mining company.
Frosty_Employment171@reddit
Generally, the land and structures are owned by the homeowner. There are exceptions and though rare, they exist; coops and some longterm land leases.
Not_an_okama@reddit
If you own a house you almost definitely own the land its sitting on as well, though just to be clear, the US government technically owns all of the land within US borders and you lease it from them by paying property taxes.
GrimSpirit42@reddit
Although there are some variations, you own the land and all structures on it.
One variation not far from where I live is a city that is a Georgist Community. There you cannot own the land. You can only lease it for a maximum of 99 years.
Porcupine-in-a-tree@reddit
You own the land and the home.
ATLien_3000@reddit
Most common in the us is fee simple ownership.
It's yours.
Land leases are much less common but exist.
CountOfSterpeto@reddit
Depends. Rough guidelines are below but there are always exceptions.
Traditional suburbs you would own the land and anything on it.
Most townhouses and some patio homes are subdivided right at the building exterior wall, so you would own the house and technically the land under the house but not the lawn/driveway/etc. There would be a Homeowner's Association or similar legal entity that manages all the shared space (lawn & garden, utilities, etc).
Condos and some Apartments that are sold, not rented: You would own the physical space within the building but not any land. There would also be some sort of Association to deal with shared services.
Trailer Parks: you would own your trailer and rent the land it sits on.
Traditional apartments: you would pay rent and own nothing.
Tron_35@reddit
You own the land and anything on it, including the house.
RockShowSparky@reddit
Usually both. Owning a home on leased government land does also happen in some places.
TeacherOfFew@reddit
You own the structures and land within a legally designated area.
LaLechuzaVerde@reddit
It varies, but MOST of the time when you purchase, you’re buying both the land and the structure.
Land leases are much more common in Hawaii. They also exist in some national parks where the government owns the land but some areas are opened up for privately owned structures on that land. Then there are trailer parks and mobile home parks where portable or semi-permanent structures are placed on rented land. Condos, it depends on how it’s written. Then a sprinkling of other exceptions to the rule.
But definitely the usual system is you buy the land and the structure together.
Dpg2304@reddit
In the suburbs, the vast majority of the time, you own the structure and the land.
Ok_Sentence_5767@reddit
You also own the airspace immediately above as well
hemibearcuda@reddit
As owners , we pay taxes on the structure and the lot, both of which we own.
No-Lunch4249@reddit
In some very rare cases you may only own the structure. But 98+% of the time you own both the house and the land
spandexcatsuit@reddit
Both
CtForrestEye@reddit
Owning it all is the reason why people buy a little cottage near the beach, knock it down and build tall beach houses. The land is worth much more than the dwelling.
4Q69freak@reddit
In McLean County, IL if you live on Lake Bloomington, you own the house but not the property, that is owned by the City of Bloomington. I’m not sure if they pay a fee to the city or what but it’s pretty weird that the house and any outbuildings are yours but the ground they are built on is the city’s.
SpiceEarl@reddit
In most states, you buy both the house and the land. The one exception, that I know of, was Hawaii. In Hawaii, you had both: properties where you bought the land, which were called fee simple, and properties where you had a long term lease, called leasehold. The lease would typically run for up to 99 years. My understanding is, for single-family homes at least, the state has encouraged moving away from this, and making new developments fee simple. For existing leaseholds, I know the state provided incentives for landlords to sell the land to the homeowners.
I don’t know about condominiums, but I think those have been converted to fee simple as well, with owners paying an assessment to buy the property.
brizia@reddit
In most places you do. There’s a town in NJ, Ocean Grove, where all the land is owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. You own the houses and structures, but you lease the land for 99 years and pay a ground rent fee.
LastOfTheAsparagus@reddit
In Hawaii it depends.
tcspears@reddit
If it’s a standalone house, then typically you are buying the land and anything on it.
TieOk9081@reddit
You don't always own the land when you buy a house. I know of places in Florida like that.
OkayDay21@reddit
Sometimes you do get quirky little rules. I own my house and the lot my house sits on, which includes a portion of an ally that I have to maintain and keep open for the use of my neighbors. It’s all on the deed.
BedInternational5157@reddit
you own it considered if the land has solar also
HaphazardFlitBipper@reddit
You own whatever the deed says you own. Usually that's the house and land. You may or may not own the minerals under the land. Sometimes there are what's call 'easements' which give someone else permission to use some of the land, even though you own it, example might be an easement for a power company which has poles on or lines over your land. Another exception is mobile homes, where someone can own the house and rent the land that it's on. Seems like a bad idea to me, but people do it.
Bottom line, you really have to read the deed and associated papers to know exactly what you're buying.
chevy42083@reddit
Both.
It would be a pretty interesting, but not impossible, deal to only buy one of them.
lexicon951@reddit
We own both. Property taxes are taxes you pay yearly for the land, and they are typically over $10K a year. Most people in my generation rent homes, apartments, or duplexes because buying a home doesn’t just require a down payment at the beginning and the monthly mortgage payment, but also the property tax. That’s not something most millennials and Gen Z can afford in the current US economy
North-Finding-3542@reddit
Neither. You still have to pay taxes for ever
Drslappybags@reddit
You better or the property tax isn't matching up. Why would property taxes be high on a low value house?
Taxes are on the land. That's what is valued.
No-Fix-614@reddit
Usually both, you own the house and the land it sits on, unless it’s something specific like a condo or leasehold where land ownership is shared or separate.
N47881@reddit
You own the house and have essentially a perpetual lease (tax) from the local/state government for the property.
ExcitementMurky2156@reddit
Generally, both, but property lawyers refer to US property rights as a “bundle of sticks,” so there are almost always some exceptions. For example, a municipality often holds an easement over the first few feet of property off the right-of-way, allowing road, sidewalk, and utility work. There are also lots of other examples, but, basically, suburban yards usually belong to property owners.
SeekingAnswersaaa@reddit
Generally speaking, real property is governed by state (provincial) law. Federal lands are governed by federal law. In the USA, when one buys a house, in most cases one is also purchasing the land on which it sits. There are exceptions: mineral rights may or may not transfer, and in Hawaii, you have to make sure that you are buying "fee simple absolute" which includes the land. "Fee simple" would only give you a long term lease.
eightfingeredtypist@reddit
In the US you can open land, but what you can do with varies widely. For example, I own 80 acres, mostly forested, with lakefront and. Theres probably ten acres of wetlands that are protected by state law. There's five acres of rare plant habitat, protected by different state laws. The lake front and stream channels are protected by another state law. I also have 60 acres in a conservation tradition that prevents development. Town zoning laws regulate building buildings, operating businesses, storing junk cars, and some other stuff.
We own the land outright, no loans, but we don't have the right to destroy it in a lot of different ways.
zoppaTheDim@reddit
It is rare to buy a house without the land in America.
It isn’t unheard of though. Far more common is buying land without mineral rights or water rights.
CraftFamiliar5243@reddit
It's rare to buy a house on leased land. Usually you own both.
WickedRavyn94@reddit
Generally the land and the structure. There are exceptions like condos, trailer parks, etc. But if you are buying a house it is both land and structure
sneezhousing@reddit
Both
Tinkerfan57912@reddit
Both most of the time. My parents live in a patio home. They own the house, but not the land. The just means they don’t have to do any outside maintenance.
CaptainAwesome06@reddit
Around me, patio home property - often in retirement communities - is still owned by the resident. It's just that their HOA dues also go to yard maintenance.
AnybodySeeMyKeys@reddit
With very few exceptions you own the house and the land beneath.
One of those exceptions? What's known as a single-tax colony, where you own the building but lease the land. One of those very rare instances is Fairhope, Alabama. Which, by the way, is a very pleasant place to live on the eastern shore of Mobile Bay: https://www.wkrg.com/baldwin-county/your-hometown-a-little-fairhope-history/
must-stash-mustard@reddit
Palm Springs is checkerboarded with land leased from the local tribal entity. That's why prices for "homes" In Coachella valley are sometimes deceivingly low. If the land lease is coming up for renewal soon, you really don't know what the future cost will really be.
https://www.reddit.com/r/palmsprings/comments/1etexeq/land_lease_negotiations/
AnybodySeeMyKeys@reddit
Good to know. Thanks!
gleaming-the-cubicle@reddit
I live in Baltimore and we have a thing called Ground Rent that's left over from the 1700s gentry
On some properties, the land and the house are separate and you'd have to pay the land owner every year. It's pretty rare, most people have bought out the land owner. When we were looking for a house, one still had ground rent and they weren't willing to sell the land with it so that was off the table
This is weird and I'd never heard of such a thing before moving here
ChronicLegHole@reddit
You own it all until you dont pay your property taxes long enough, and then you realize you really dont own anything because some guys from your state government will eventually show up in an armored vehicle to evict you from the land you already supposedly own.
Cheap_Coffee@reddit
You own both the land and the house.
daKile57@reddit
You owned the house and you have limited civilian ownership over the land. You are not, for example, the undisputed sovereign ruler of the land you own. You have to pay taxes to the sovereign nation your land is a part of, so in some sense you're kind of renting it from your nation. But insofar as other civilians go, you own the land.
alaskawolfjoe@reddit
I was close to purchasing a condo last year until I found out that the property was not owned by the condo. They paid rent every year.
My realtor had never seen anything like this before in residential real estate, so it was not until we were ready to put in an offer that we learned this little detail.
CaptainAwesome06@reddit
Generally, yes. But it's pretty nuanced. For 99.99% of people, when you buy a house, you buy the land.
If you have a mortgage - like most people - the bank holds your house as collateral. As you pay it off, you own more and more of the property. However, you are free to modify the house as you'd like. If you sell the house, you still need to pay off your mortgage.
Easements exist. If you have an easement on your property, you own that property but people have the right to use that property, depending on the type of easement. For example, I have a storm drain easement going through my back yard. The water company has a right to come on my property and do work on that storm drain. Usually, any utilities will come with an easement if they run through your property. Sometimes an easement is just a point of access. Like workers may need to go through your property to get to a utility station. So they won't dig up your yard (like mine) but they may drive a truck through it.
You can sever the mineral rights when you sell property. So even though the new owner owns the house and the land, the mineral rights are retained by the previous owner. And often, the mineral owner has the right to use the surface for extraction. This is more common in energy-producing states, like Texas, Oklahoma, etc.
There are other rights that you can sever, as well. Water, wind, solar, air, timber, etc. Property ownership is sometimes referred to as a "bundle of sticks" with each right being a stick. When you buy a property, you should make sure you are getting as many sticks as you can.
But, in general, when people say they bought a house, it means they also bought the land on which the house sits.
No-Heat-436@reddit
We technically don’t own any of it because we have to pay property tax.
GrandmasHere@reddit
Generally you "own" both. However, homeowners everywhere are restrained to a very narrow range of behavior by zoning and an abundance of laws regulating health, safety, agriculture, building codes, fire safety, plumbing codes, electrical codes, building codes, right-of-ways, water-rights legislation, set-back requirements, plus historic designations, plus the rights of corporations owning overhead wires, utility poles and underground utilities of several sorts, on, under or above the "private property." You don't "own" land, you own a bundle of rights associated with it, and it is a rather small bundle.
sparklyspooky@reddit
Yes.
It depends on if there is an HOA and the specific rules of the HOA. Used to live near an HOA where legally you owned the house and the land and the everything except the sidewalk and strip of grass between the road and the sidewalk - but you were legally obligated to maintain both the sidewalk and the strip of grass.
However, if you made any alterations or repairs to the lawn or outside of your house the HOA would fine the living shit out of you, and sue you in small claims court if you refused to pay the fines. I'm mentioning repairs specifically because the wooden siding on some of them was rotting off and the HOA "was getting around to it". So technically they owned their house interior but not the outside.
Once the lady across the street realized she couldn't get me to sign up, she spilled all the gossip. I get it, because theoretically her monthly...dues, fees, stupidity tax would go down or at least not go up for a while. But toxic bitch move trying to drag the dumb newlyweds into that shit.
_Smedette_@reddit
Both would be the standard, with very few exceptions.
Thelonius16@reddit
Baltimore has some kind of weird ground rent rule.
Effective_Coach7334@reddit
You are purchasing both the house and the property. However, there are limitations to owning the property. You don't own the airspace above the property and you don't own deep underground. The government and utilities can drill and tunnel deep under your property without your consent. As well, the government can seize your property when necessary and you have to pay yearly property taxes to own it. So essentially you are only leasing the property unless you also purchase the mineral, oil and gas rights (meaning owning the land for the depth of the lithosphere), and that is generally not available.
Fire_Mission@reddit
You own both the land and the structure.
LikelyNotSober@reddit
There are a few states that have leasehold properties, but they are relatively rare.
Striking_Elk_6136@reddit
We may own the house and land, but we are effectively paying rent on it in the form of property taxes, which tend to be higher than those in Europe. These taxes tend to support the public schools system and other local government functions. If you don’t pay or can’t pay, your land and house will be auctioned off to the highest bidder.
MergedBog@reddit
We own house and land. Some people own house and land but not mineral rights.
R1R1FyaNeg@reddit
Usually both. When buying a house, the buyer will get a survey that is a legal outline of the land they are purchasing which will contain the house. The deed will use the information from the survey to say what land the new buyer is paying for.
Maleficent-Hawk-318@reddit
Generally both, although mineral and water rights can be wonky (basically there are situations where someone else might own the right to drill on your property; that area of law can be complex though, and typically even if they own the mineral rights, they don't have the right to surface access).
I live in a city where mineral rights aren't a big deal, though, so I'm not 100% sure who owns the mineral rights to my land, but for all intents and purposes, I just own everything.
arah91@reddit
Depends on local laws, but you own the structure, the land the structure is sitting on.
Now if you go to and down it becomes a bit different. Usually you only own enough down to build the house and a basement, for instance you don't usually own the land deep enough to mine for gold on that land.
You also don't own the airspace above the land.
Those are usually both owned by the government.
personal-coalmine@reddit
Both, with some exceptions for stuff like easements and mining rights.
Fit_Log_9677@reddit
The normal purchase in the suburbs is on the house and the land.
But it can come with all types of string attached.
For example, you may not own the minerals under the surface.
You may also have to pay dues to an Home Owners Association that can dictate how you use your property, and fine you (or in some cases even force you to sell) if you don’t comply.
Terradactyl87@reddit
Usually you own both the land and the house. There are a few exceptions, like if the house is built on forest service lands. In that case you own the house and pay an annual fee for the land and there's certain restrictions for land use. There's also mobile home parks that charge space rent but you usually own the house. Most of the time though, you own both the house and the land.
MostAsk855@reddit
You own it all unless it is a condo, trailer, etc. Some neighborhoods also have HOAs so even though you do indeed own the property, you can’t do what you want with the property outside of normal things that you already have permission for.
daybits@reddit
Land and structure are the norm. Trailer parks are the exception, since you own only the house and pay rent for the land.
Imaginary_Ladder_917@reddit
If you are actually buying the house, you own the land as well, generally a yard and driveway as well.
choppaclappedhisahh@reddit
You are purchasing both building and property.