Landlocked tiny parcel

[Y-TOWN]

40 foot by 50 foot landlocked parcel completely surrounded by property acquired over the years as assemblage into major education complex

Just some thoughts ----

All sides of the 2,000 S/F parcel are owned by one fee owner - can ownership of the small parcel reasonable file an action for some sort of easement of necessity to get access to this site?

can a landlocked parcel be legally transferred in your state - if not in this case the pool of potential buyers is shortened to one.

It seems to me trying to get "market value" for this 40 X 50 parcel is akin to getting blood from a rock. It appears you've got no competitive and open market.

As far as the comment about the parcel being offered as parking to an alum. Say that were to happen and say the assembler got angry and were to build a 6' high fence (on the educational complex property) around the 40 X 50 lot - what would its value to the alum be?

Is eminent domain an option for the educational complex. If so a value would still have to be concluded but I'd bet it would be the proportionate value of the land involved in the assemblage.

After reading this post I guess the only supportable way to value the property is the assemblage before the addition of the 40' X 50' parcel and the assemblage after the addition of the 40' X 50' assemblage - the difference being the value of the 40' X 50'
parcel.

 

[Thomas N. Morgan]

I don't believe you can arrive at really meaningful value in these circumstances. An MAI poster correctly said what you are looking at is Investment Value to the owner of the surrounding lands. They should be able to dedide that for themselves.

I think they should send an emissary to the owner(s) of the small parcel and talk the situation over with them. The way out could become very clear.

 

[leasedfee]

Ron,
I wanted to make sure my memory isn't failing me:

Section 14. Taking private property for private use.

Private property shall not be taken for private use unless by consent of the owner, except for private ways of necessity, and except for reservoirs, drains, flumes or ditches on or across the lands of others, for agricultural, mining, milling, domestic or sanitary purposes.
. . .
Annotations
. . .
Adjacent landowner has no standing to challenge a contract involving a "landlocked" parcel of land on the theory that once the agreement is final, the new owner might seek to condemn a way of necessity across the adjacent owner's land. Brotman v. E. Lake Creek Ranch L.L.P., 31 P.3d 886 (Colo. 2001).

Colorado Constitution.
http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp= Section 14.

My emphasis added.

My guess would be that by 1876 the writers of the CO constitution had seen enough coy games played and they wanted to prevent buccaneering. Though landlocked parcels may be accidentally created from time-to-time, particularly in the remote mountain areas. I've seen one, before I was an appraiser, and that's how I came to research this. It is extremely rare here, so almost nobody knows about this constitutional language.

My guess would be that the court would require the "landlockee" to prove their case and seek reasonable and prudent (but not necessarily optimal) access. Without researching it, the court might grant only a non-exclusive easement to keep the taking to a minimum property right? I'd guess "just compensation" would be required?

On a side-bar, I did know one CO guy who obtained a narrow, front commercial strip through a Treasurer's Deed (forfeited by not paying property taxes). Unless the businesses behind this frontage strip paid an extortionary price, he threatened to put up a fence. He says they were livid! They paid. I don't know any more than this; perhaps the lack of the front strip didn't deny them legal access; perhaps they didn't know about Section 14. Too wild.

 

[CBBoston]

There is an AJ article thats about 15 or 20 years old regarding landlocked parcels. I believe one of the authors was Rabianski. As some others have pointed out the most logical buyers are the abutters. Unfortunately in your case there's just one abutter. While there might be someone else who wants a 2000 sf landlocked site in the middle of a university, its unlikely. As such the university can set almost any price they want and the property owner can choose to sell or not. But something is better than nothing on which you must pay taxes. I have seen sales of landlock parcels in MA to nonabutters. Mostly they were purchased by conservation groups who were afraid an abutter would buy the parcel and develope it. If you find some sales you need to find out what was the purchaser's motivation. Good luck.