A property owner in OR once told me that he knew of several private property owners whose property abutted or came very close to the RR ROW going through their respective districts, and he said that, if any individual homeowner or property owner is going to enhance their property with, say, a new building or a shed (or conceivably a house), they must notify the RR co in question. Has anyone heard of anything like this? Do (or can) RR’s have veto authority over such property enhancements? This particular individual went on to say that this authority extended to some miles on either side of the affected line. What is the legal rationale, if any?
I have no specific knowledge of the OR situation but in many states it is common for public utilities to have access easements over privately owned property. Since utility easements were modeled after railroad ROW rules and laws, then RRs may also have access easements. In an easement, the utility (or RR) has a legal right to cross the property, for example, power lines or telephone cables. The property owner must not inhibit that access by constructing an obstructing building for example.
Could be a situation similar to my in-laws. The backyard of their former residence abutted CSX’s former Seaboard line from Jacksonville to Chattahoochee, FL. The railroad ran in a deep cut with steep banks; at the top the cut was maybe 30 feet wide. The railroad actually owned a 100- or 150-foot wide right of way, but allowed the adjoining landowners to use it as they wished so long as no major permanent improvements (buildings, retaining walls etc.) were placed on RR property. Fences were allowed. End result was, the in-laws couldn’t put a building on the back 35 or 60 feet of their backyard because it belonged to the railroad. At least, that’s how I understand the situation.
It’s OK to build or otherwise encroach on the railroad, but not on your neighbor’s lot?
Who, What, Heh???[%-)][%-)][%-)]
I guess I don’t need to worry about job security in this profession. The general public has gone totally stupid. Common sense was last seen on the side of a milk carton.
So what’s the point? The back 35 or 60 feet of their backyard really isn’t their backyard if it belonged to the railroad, right?
We have a similar problem in subdivisions around here. People have “extended” their small backyards into mowed-grass floodwater retention areas (usually dry) by planting trees, landscaping, fences and even permanent (brick) BBQ grills. The retention areas are owned by the city. Not usually a problem until the two homeowners at a 90-degree corner have a range war over who can “claim” the area behind their houses, which overlaps at the corners. One guy actually sued another who removed a picnic bench, cupola and wooden fence he had set up in the retention area, right behind both houses. The judge tossed it, and told both homeowners not to put anything on city land or they’d be cited for littering and trespassing.
That “miles” thing sounds like a throwback to the old land grants.
A house we lived in (a subdivision) in Michigan had a utility easement through the back yard, since the power poles ran along the back lot lines, as opposed to along the street. I never heard of any problems with it, but it would mean that we couldn’t stop the utility from coming in. The property was still ours, but with that easement. All of the property lines pretty much had fences built along them.
I’ve seen it with highways, too. Farmers pulling the ROW markers (NY puts a triangular concrete post wherever the ROW boundry bends) out because they are in “their” field…
An Easement and a Right of Way are two different legal animals. Although railroad rights of way may revert if abandoned, while they are in common carrier service the railroad’s rights to use and maintain them are quite absolute. I wasn’t kidding about the bulldozer. An encroachment on a railroad ROW is just like having your neighbor build a garage on your property. Bulldozer bait.
My bad - I do know the difference, just failed to separate the two. Regardless, some people seem to lose track of what they really own/can do something with.
And, despite the difference, it would seem that you might have problems building that garage in an easement, even if it is your property.
So, to get back to one of my questions at hand, it sounds like, conditionally, the RR’s had some “land grant” privileges which possibly superceded local ordinances. Let me narrow it down even more: According to the “land grant” rubric, if I owned a piece of property that was, let’s say, w/in 7 mi. of a Class I RR but not adjoining it (and for the sake of argument, we’ll stipulate that the land itself was quite bucolic when the RR came through, but now it’s become (or is on the virge of becoming) a bustling suburban or exurban area, and many times more valuable than originally settled), does the Class I RR in question have the right to veto my property improvement, whether or not it’s residential or commercial? Or, is it far more likely that, in the case of NYC for example, such large commercial improvements only take place after the RR in question has vacated the premises? Obvioiusly, the answer will most likely vary depending on the locality or state in question, but I just wondered if it were still possible anywhere…
Your property 7 miles from the railroad would not be subject to railroad control, unless that land had been granted to the railroad in fee simple. This was done in western states for the building of the transcontinental railroad. A grant in fee would not revert to the adjoining landowners. (See general rule below). If it was granted to the railroad and you claim it, I hope you have a good title insurance policy.
The general rule is that if a particular railroad ROW was obtained by a land grant or other government exercise of the eminent domain grants the railroad an easement over the property that remains inviolate so long as the property is used for “railroad purposes”. Once a railroad abandons the rail line in question, the ROW reverts to the adjoining landowners under these circumstances. This is not the case if the railroad purchases the property or obtains it by a fee grant.
Yes, many thanks, LC!! I have a separate but related question on rails-to-trails-to-rails, but I’ll save it for next week. Keep on Truckin’ by Train!![:D]
LC: When we introduce him to NITU, be sure to hammer him with the NARPO nuts response. (and how "blind to the law " the trails people stupidly can be, as in a little knowledge is a dangerous thing)[sigh][sigh][sigh]
During the winter of 1971 I was employed in the Engineering Department of The A.T.& S.F. Ry. Co. at the Colorado Division headquarters in La Junta, Colo. (“Mudchicken”, take note!). Among my duties was the drawing of individual maps that attached to right-of-way encroachment contracts. The maps were essentially blueprints of a small portion of the Railway’s property and a series of colored lines applied by me showed, to scale, where the encroachment was authorized to occur.
The nature of the encroachments included both private and public roadway crossings at grade, above grade, and below grade; pipelines; overhead utility, electrical, telephone, and telegraph lines; grain elevators; and even plots of flat, unused ground for the temporary storage of surplus grain, construction machinery, or building supplies. As I recall, each of these encroachments usually involved an annual fee payable to the Railway.
The whole idea behind these encroachment contracts was to protect the Railway’s ownership rights to its right-of-way. I forget what it’s called, but there’s a legal principle which holds that the frequent and repetitive public use of a person’s land will, in time, create a permanent easement for that use. For example, a vacant lot may be owned by a private individual; but, if the public trespasses diagonally across that lot frequently, and the property owner does not object, it could, through time, create a permanent public easement. The lot owner at a later date may want to build something on that lot, but he may face an unwinable lawsuit if he does not protect what had become the usual and customary way of public trespass. If I’m wrong in my understanding of this issue, please, you legal eagles out there, don’t hesitate to comment.
I’ll be out on the property until the 25th so I’m not sure I’ll be here to reply. Have notebook (computer) will travel so I guess if there’s WIFI available I’ll peek in.
During the winter of 1971 I was employed in the Engineering Department of The A.T.& S.F. Ry. Co. at the Colorado Division headquarters in La Junta, Colo. (“Mudchicken”, take note!). Among my duties was the drawing of individual maps that attached to right-of-way encroachment contracts. The maps were essentially blueprints of a small portion of the Railway’s property and a series of colored lines applied by me showed, to scale, where the encroachment was authorized to occur.
The nature of the encroachments included both private and public roadway crossings at grade, above grade, and below grade; pipelines; overhead utility, electrical, telephone, and telegraph lines; grain elevators; and even plots of flat, unused ground for the temporary storage of surplus grain, construction machinery, or building supplies. As I recall, each of these encroachments usually involved an annual fee payable to the Railway.
The whole idea behind these encroachment contracts was to protect the Railway’s ownership rights to its right-of-way. I forget what it’s called, but there’s a legal principle which holds that the frequent and repetitive public use of a person’s land will, in time, create a permanent easement for that use. For example, a vacant lot may be owned by a private individual; but, if the public trespasses diagonally across that lot frequently, and the property owner does not object, it could, through time, create a permanent public easement. The lot owner at a later date may want to build something on that lot, but he may face an unwinable lawsuit if he does not protect what had become the usual and customary way of public trespass. If I’m wrong in my understanding of this issue, please, you legal eagles out there, don’t hesitate to comment.&nbs