What is the law concerning living on your own land ?
920284
me: land owner ( currently 200 acres ) and been through this many times with people, developments etc.\n\nYou'll need to talk to the council first. That is talk, don't send them a letter.\n\nMake an appointment with the forward planning officer to see if this parcel has any chance of being in the local development framework. Expressions of interest for LDF's closed in April this year, until 2018 so its going to have to be  apretty special case to get a permanent residence on it.\n\nThe facts that you choose a lob cabin, are down on your luck, want to live in harmony etc...bare no weight with planning, and neither should they.\n\nKennels can count as agricultural use ( sometimes ) , so you might try to go for an agricultrural accupancy condition, or a no-freehold transfer covernent.. These might help the council believe you are not going to move on and make moeny from it.\n\nEnvironment agency would have something to say as well, you'll need to be able to proove you have waste disposal. A septic tank, cesstank etc are the last resort and if possible they will amke you connect to mains drainage, even if its 100's metres away. They normally accept its not preactical if its going to cost more than £40K, but you might still have to spend £15K on a biodisc and reed bed. they would also have concerns about waste from the kennels if you are not on mains disposal.\n\nTalk to forward planning first. If they say its got a chance, you then need to go for change of use to residential and then outline planning. Once you've got that there is then the building regs.\n\nThe statement below...".....you can pretty much do as you please" is complete nonsense. The fine for illegal construction on agricultural land can be up to £50K for a single dwelling,in addition to being told to remove it.
589340
needs to be primary residence
601833
They're all over the place. You can live there either temporarily or permanently-you can even start your own and make the rules.
944958
It says that people who own private homes have a say in who resides with them within their own home.\n\nThe Federal Fair Housing Act applies to rental of residential real estate, but you would be hard pressed to find any state that would interfere with the right of an owner to decide on who they do or do not want living in their own private dwelling with them.\n\n"They could get into BIG trouble for doing that"\n\nNo they can't.  Almost every place in the country has state laws or local ordinances that exempt owner-occupied buildings and many times in buildings that have 2 to 5 units.  Why do you think newly constructed private residences aren't all handicapped accessible?  Because they are governed by the same basic principal ... that people have a right to do as they wish with and within their own home.
971527
Hope this helps\n\n1. Preliminary\n\n(1) The rules enacted by the two next following sections shall have effect, in place of the rules of the common law, to regulate the duty which an occupier of premises owes to his visitors in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on them.\n\n(2) The rules so enacted shall regulate the nature of the duty imposed by law in consequence of a person's occupation or control of premises and of any invitation or permission he gives (or is to be treated as giving) to another to enter or use the premises, but they shall not alter the rules of the common law as to the persons on whom a duty is so imposed or to whom it is owed; and accordingly for the purpose of the rules so enacted the persons who are to be treated as an occupier and as his visitors are the same (subject to subsection (4) of this section) as the persons who would at common law be treated as an occupier and as his invitees or licensees.\n\n(3) The rules so enacted in relation to an occupier of premises and his visitors shall also apply, in like manner and to the like extent as the principles applicable at common law to an occupier of premises and his invitees or licensees would apply, to regulate-\n(a) the obligations of a person occupying or having control over any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft; and\n(b) the obligations of a person occupying or having control over any premises or structure in respect of damage to property, including the property of persons who are not themselves his visitors.\n\n(4) A person entering any premises in exercise of rights conferred by virtue of an access agreement or order under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, is not, for the purposes of this Act, a visitor of the occupier of those premises.\n\n2. Extent of occupier's ordinary duty\n\n(1) An occupier of premises owes the same duty, the "common duty of care", to all his visitors, except in so far as he is free to and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitor or visitors by agreement or otherwise.\n\n(2) The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.\n\n(3) The circumstances relevant for the present purposes include the degree of care, and of want of care, which would ordinarily be looked for in such a visitor, so that (for example) in proper cases-\n(a) an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults; and\n(b) an occupier may expect that a person, in the exercise of his calling, will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as the occupier leaves him free to do so.\n\n(4) In determining whether the occupier of premises has discharged the common duty of care to a visitor, regard is to be had to all the circumstances, so that (for example)-\n(a) where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger of which he had been warned by the occupier, the warning is not to be treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe; and\n(b) where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger due to the faulty execution of any work of construction, maintenance or repair by an independent contractor employed by the occupier, the occupier is not to be treated without more as answerable for the danger if in all the circumstances he had acted reasonably in entrusting the work to an independent contractor and had taken such steps (if any) as he reasonably ought in order to satisfy himself that the contractor was competent and that the work had been properly done.\n\n(5) The common duty of care does not impose on an occupier any obligation to a visitor in
974434
In my country you can live on your own when you are 16 although it is not that common, there is no problems that arise from it here and i think it is good as if you are old enough to get married and work why should you not be allowed to live on your own.
545018
This is called adverse possession.  \nThe rules vary from state to state.\nThe time varies from state to state.\nIn most states the person claiming as an adverse possessor must also show that he/she had something that made him/her think he/she had a right to that property, e.g. an unclear boundary line.  If this rule is in your state, someone who knew the land was not his/hers would not get possession.\nSome states require that the adverse possessor also pay the property taxes on the disputed land.\n\nBest advice, check with an attorney in your state and take action sooner rather than later.
637618
You are referring to adverse possession. In West Virginia, to sue for a title to land, you must commence the action in 10 years. So, if you use the property as your own for 10 years, there's nothing the owner can do.
66483
A necessary evil that affects your property rights.  Sometimes it is necessary to build roads for the rest of the community over your house.  It is ideally for the good of the community.  But it would not be fun if your house had to go.
227242
You can get a residence visa without investing in a company.  You have to live for 3 years without legal problems, then take tests, etc. to be accepted.  To own land I believe you have to invest in a business of about $1M US.
840497
The law varies from state to state. Contact your local Dept. of Natural Resources.
103730
depends on the laws of the country that you are in
290509
Can you be more specific in what you are looking for?\n\nFor example are you looking for laws that are pertinent only to England?
203807
Needs more context.  Government laws regulating real estate?
714629
Two issues. One is what the deeds say. The other is a concept called adverse possession.\n\nAdverse possession says that if you claim land for a long period of time (10-20 years), and actually use, then you get to keep it. It's more complicated than that in practice, but that's the idea.\n\nThe issue will get decided by a court. If you care about the seven feet, then you should consult with an attorney. She'll probably recommend filing what is called a "Quiet Title" action. That asks the court to settle any issues regarding property ownership.
351977
laws are different everywhere\nbut here what he is doing is legal\n(but you must get 90 days notice to move, even from the new owners)
266942
I believe that you are asking from the UK.  I am almost positive that your 'parkhold' is dealt with under the same rules as Landlord/Tenant disputes for ordinary dwellings. See the Citizen's Advice Bureau or a Solicitor.  However, have you spoken to your 'landlord'.  There may well be a good and proper reason for making the move, ie., your safety, the safety of others, the provision of better amenities etc.