What rights does the adjacent property to a right-of-way have? Does the property owner/ user have more rights to that area of the R/W than anyone else?
Just curious... 😐
I don't believe that you would have any more rights.
I've owned houses at two different intersections and the only advantage was that I appeared to have a bigger lot than the others because of the r/w.
That meant more to mow and take care of. I also had a couple of cars wind up in my yard due to accidents.
> What rights does the adjacent property to a right-of-way have? Does the property owner/ user have more rights to that area of the R/W than anyone else?
The adjoiner presumably has a right of reversion, should the public ever vacate their right. Aside from that, the only other things I can think about are responsibilities, not rights (i.e. shovel the sidewalk, maintain the park strip, etc.).
JBS
All sorts of rights. You can plant a garden on it. You can setup your badminton net on it. You can put your moveable basketball goal on it. You can even but a moveable building on it. It is your land. The public only has a right-of-way. You have everything else, including mineral rights. Basically, anything that does not hinder their usage.
Now, if you are referring to a city street that is actually owned by the city or a state highway that is owned by the state, that is an entirely different matter.
Property owner / adjacent R/W Attn Larry P
This is an interesting question. It has been debated before in Wyoming and at least one case has been brought before the Supreme Court.
This is a link to it:
http://law.justia.com/cases/wyoming/supreme-court/1989/122372.html
Larry P had asked about how this is handled and I couldn't find the case. This case is not the original one I had thought of, but it covers similar issues. What are the rights for property owners along a dedicated street, ect.
As an additional question:
If the local jurisdiction allows signs in their R/W under certain circumstances, can a third party erect a sign on that portion of your property encumbered by the easement?
Don
Attention.... important case referenced here
> This is an interesting question. It has been debated before in Wyoming and at least one case has been brought before the Supreme Court.
>
> This is a link to it:
>
>> http://law.justia.com/cases/wyoming/supreme-court/1989/122372.html
>
> Larry P had asked about how this is handled and I couldn't find the case. This case is not the original one I had thought of, but it covers similar issues. What are the rights for property owners along a dedicated street, ect.
Thank you Mighty Moe. I have not yet read the entire case, but just a glance tells me this is a big deal and worthy of careful study. Thanks for the cite.
Larry P
Attention.... important case referenced here
Sometimes these cases go in directions that I really find boring, but this one is interesting throughout. And the dissenting opinions are also interesting. One of the more important statements in the case is:
We have determined that statutory dedication in Wyoming vests a public authority with a fee simple determinable to only the surface estate and a limited portion below ground sufficient to accommodate the various public utilities.
> As an additional question:
> If the local jurisdiction allows signs in their R/W under certain circumstances, can a third party erect a sign on that portion of your property encumbered by the easement?
>
> Don
If the local jurisdiction has a R/W easement that allows signs, only they can place signs there that is within the confines of their useage. Ie: if it is a roadway, and a road sign is in the right-of-way, I believe that would be okay. I don't think a third-party advertisement would be within the limits of the easement. I guess it depends on the language of the easement.
Many roadways are owned by the public agency in fee. They can allow signs and can allow utilities in their right-of-way fee ownership by permission. They can also require the owner of the sign or the utility to move it if they are in the way of a new design.
> I don't believe that you would have any more rights.
>
> I've owned houses at two different intersections and the only advantage was that I appeared to have a bigger lot than the others because of the r/w.
>
> That meant more to mow and take care of. I also had a couple of cars wind up in my yard due to accidents.
I would argue that the adjacent property owner does indeed have more rights as they have the distinct right to access to their property. The r/w allows them access to their property and if that should ever be blocked (by parked cars, etc) then I would assume the property owner would have the right to have that blockade moved. That's the first thing that comes to my mind.
Corbitt
Holy Cow, that's not right down here.
Houston owns very very little land under the rights-of-way in fee. However, a private land owner can not build ANYTHING out in the right-of-way without acquiring a permit (legally, I mean). For example, we respond to about 20 complaints a year when, in the course of repairing a broken water main out in front of someone's property, the City backhoe destroys an individual's irrigation system. After receiving a complaint from said individual, the City Legal Department send us a request to determine the location of the damaged waterline and answer the question, "While during the course of repairing a damaged water line, did a City of Houston employee damage or cause to be damaged anything that was located outside of the right-of-way?"
99% of the time the damaged planimetric features were inside the right-of-way and the City proceeds to tell the owner in a polite way, "We ain't payin nothin to you, as your irrigation system was located within the right-of-way. You didn't have permission to place it there, so you are outta luck (or words to that effect)."
Sincerely,
Jack
Jack Chiles
"Basically, anything that does not hinder their usage."
That was key to what I was getting at. You CAN put stuff on the right-of-way, but, you will not be compensated for it if it is damaged by the road crew or utility crew.
There are many portable sheds situated on various rights-of-way. Move them before the work crew shows up or you are going to be sorry. Same way with fences, kids play equipment, dog pens, etc., etc.
A separate issue is when the holder of the right-of-way for transportation purposes then allows utilities of some kind to run in their right-of-way. There have been numerous court cases on this issue going both ways. The landowner did not permit the extended use to the utility company. In many cases this is covered by the landowner needing the utility so they will quietly say nothing. The big problem comes when the utility is merely passing by and providing no benefit whatsoever to all landowners. Everyone lawyers up and the fight is on.
I did not clearly state what I meant
What I meant to say is that no one, whether an owner of lands adjoining a public right-of-way or just an citizen, can put ANYTHING into the right-of-way legally. Hindrance is not an issue. Existance is the issue. You could conceivably put sod out on a median and the City might tell you to remove it (or they will remove it and charge you what it cost them to do so). The restrictions for a right-of-way in Houston are Draconic.
Yours respectfully,
Jack Chiles
Jack Chiles
Holy Cow,
You are exactly right. A right-of-way for transportation purposes is just that. Often times a right-of-way is desired to be acquired in fee-simple very possibly for the exact purposes you point out. In at least highway rights-of-way the highway department wants (and probably needs) full control of the corridor. The corridors are handy for many things including a long passage for utilities. With full control and allowing utilities inside the corridor by permit, they also have the control of being able to tell the utility company to move the utility when it is in the way of a new design. It is on the utility company to move the utility and cover the costs of moving it as opposed to if it was in its own easement.