I bought some land from a friend and client, and his extended family owns land on either side of us, so we mutually agreed to some restrictions on all three tracts. Basic stuff, how close to property lines for housing, barns, etc., minimum square footage on homes, etc. We are about to buy one of the other tracts.

But seeing some of these restrictions in this thread, like number of cattle. Suppose it was 5 head per acre in the restrictions and the new buyer put 10 per acre. What happens if the seller discovers this. I suppose they could sue, but for what? What are the damages?

Perhaps because the overgrazing could:
1.) Create an eyesore for neighbors…. resulting in lower property values.
2.) Overgrazing can cause soil erosion which can infiltrate springs and creeks with silt on the selling landowner if he lives downstream…..causing aquatic wildlife decline.
3.) Overgrazing can create opportunity for invasive brush and cacti that can then spread to the neighboring properties.
4.) Overgrazing can result in consequences on game species that could have negative affects on neighboring properties.
I am not saying I agree. Just saying I have seen adjacent poorly managed and grossly overgrazed properties affect
neighboring ranches and perhaps those damages can be withstanding?
Perhaps the seller has experienced that and is trying to put some things in place to prevent it with the restrictions?

I'm all for commercial restrictions - especially if I'm selling land right next door. We met someone that retired to a quiet property adjacent to a river. All was great until a neighbor put in a large ATV Park for mudding that is open 6 days a week & 24 hours on the weekends plus several big events during the year. I'm sure the sound carries for miles. Quiet time does not hit until 11:00pm.

That said, I'm not sure where a place like this should go. Sounds like fun if you are into that, but I'd hate to hear that revving constantly.

Gunny456 said:

---

Perhaps because the overgrazing could:
1.) Create an eyesore for neighbors…. resulting in lower property values.
2.) Overgrazing can cause soil erosion which can infiltrate springs and creeks with silt on the selling landowner if he lives downstream…..causing aquatic wildlife decline.
3.) Overgrazing can create opportunity for invasive brush and cacti that can then spread to the neighboring properties.
4.) Overgrazing can result in consequences on game species that could have negative affects on neighboring properties.
I am not saying I agree. Just saying I have seen adjacent poorly managed and grossly overgrazed properties affect
neighboring ranches and perhaps those damages can be withstanding?
Perhaps the seller has experienced that and is trying to put some things in place to prevent it with the restrictions?

---

I understand all those issues. What I am getting at is that unless there are regulatory violations this is a civil matter, and those items take time and money (especially money) to litigate.

Restrictions are only as good as whoever is supposed to enforce them.

Yes sir. Most things written in contracts are civil matters as you say. Guess that's why we have thousands of attorneys.

I think part of my problem with the restrictions is not so much the restrictions themselves. It's the micro-managing nature of having so many and some of them being so pervasive. I could handle a short list. Yes, the owner has a right to do whatever they want. But, it shows sort of what I would be dealing with. I think someone like this would be a perpetual pain in the a$$ to have as a neighbor.

It would be years of this sort of crap, i.e., not good country folks:

"We don't like the color of the barn you put up".

"We aren't going to allow you to bulldoze an existing fence line to build a new barbwire fence because it would take out a tree or two of ours - you need to clear it by hand.

"Your bull got over here and bred our prize heifer and now you owe us these excessive damages".

I have decided to not move forward with the property because of this and the fact that they own 100% of the minerals, but will not convey any. Even though there have been multiple dry hole vertical and horizontal wells drilled on or through the property per the RRC map. It's like someone said above, they want their cake and eat it too.

Man o man. I feel for you guys brother. We had a piece of rural land in another state that was really pretty and serene. We bought it long ago thinking we might someday live there. It was not large (150acres) but was surrounded by some like larger places.
Really a quiet little place…. Lots of springs, creeks and tanks (ponds). A true retreat for the soul.
Neighbor on the east and south side (and bordered a county road) sold his 250 acres to an auction company (none of us had any idea he was selling) who then broke it up into 5 -10 acre tracts.
What transpired was an invasion of rif raff of trashy single wides, meth houses, junk piles, dogs, all kinds of animal pens ( that the animals constantly got out of and grazed all over mine and another neighbors place) old vehicles, criminals, poachers and trespassers.
Each place had a deer blind or tree stand on the fence line and I think each little place allowed 10 hunters at a time to shoot anything that moved!
I ended up spending the money to build a high fence all along our border of my place and that land and cleared a 50' path along the fence pushing all the timber and brush up to the new fence to try and block out the views of all the crap.
My good neighbor that had 700 acres on my west side ended up buying it from me mainly to use it as a buffer between his place and the "dark side", as we all called it, and to protect himself.
First and only time in my life I bought rural real estate and lost money on it…….while the auction company laughed all the way to the bank and could care less of what they destroyed.

Sounds familiar. Our new fence project is on an isolated part of the ranch, hoping to get more animals away from the current problem area. We have more night hunters/ poachers / atv riders than deer.

Gunny456 said:

---

Perhaps because the overgrazing could:
1.) Create an eyesore for neighbors…. resulting in lower property values.
2.) Overgrazing can cause soil erosion which can infiltrate springs and creeks with silt on the selling landowner if he lives downstream…..causing aquatic wildlife decline.
3.) Overgrazing can create opportunity for invasive brush and cacti that can then spread to the neighboring properties.
4.) Overgrazing can result in consequences on game species that could have negative affects on neighboring properties.
I am not saying I agree. Just saying I have seen adjacent poorly managed and grossly overgrazed properties affect
neighboring ranches and perhaps those damages can be withstanding?
Perhaps the seller has experienced that and is trying to put some things in place to prevent it with the restrictions?

---

I agree with most of what you say overgrazing can cause, and I can understand how property purchased from someone who still owns adjacent real estate might want a limitation on the number of cattle per acre as a way to prevent those things. So I do get the why they might be wanted.

But if the restriction calls for 5 head per acre and you put more than that, those things may not necessarily occur if you go over the agreed upon limit. May not be any overgrazing at all. If you put 6, you would be in violation of the agreement but if no issues arise (the types of things you mentioned), what is the recourse? The adjacent owner could sue I suppose, but I am trying to understand what he or she could sue for? Not a lawyer, but I can't see what damages her or she could claim. But then I ain't too smart on legal stuff!

I have differing restrictions on property we own, and if I agree to something I abide by it. I am hoping the seller does not want the same restrictions on the tract we are about to buy as we have on the adjoining tract because of something I'd like to build on it. But if they do, then I will abide by it.

Good discussion.

I get restrictions like those in a development, but 80acre parcels aren't a development. Hard pass on the person I'm supposedly buying from being able to lord over me after the sale is complete.

If I want an HOA, i'd just stay in the development I'm in instead of buying land.

I'd likely have little issue with reciprocal agreements on things like no commercial businesses (i'd have to be pretty specific, because you can run a commercial business out of a house these days easily without anybody really knowing so it would be restricted to actual brick and mortar commercial type enterprises), feed lots, junk yards, etc. But bottom line - if I'm buying land, it's my land to do with what I want and what I would willingly agree to with a neighbor that benefits both of us, but no more than that.

Yes sir. I agree. Like I stated before, I guess the landowner can put all kinds of deed restrictions on the land he is selling as it's his do that.
As a buyer I would just have to make a decision to either try to negotiate a common ground agreement or walk away and look elsewhere.
Kinda like my grandfather told me about horses…..
He said…. " Son, there are too many good horses out there to keep trying to fix a bad one….. sell him and move on till you find you a good one."
I think the same would apply on buying land.
Have had fun discussing all of this as you say.

It is a dilemma for sure. Texas Government Code does not give counties a lot of authority to regulate land use until you start subdividing it into tiny pieces. In contrast, some states give their counties way more power than Texas does. There is a Netflix documentary called Wild, Wild, Country about a 1980s cult in eastern Oregon. There were all sorts of allegations about the cult, but what ultimately got the regulators on the 80,000-acre ranch they owned was land use. Apparently in Oregon counties have the authority to zone property, and they went after they cult for doing things on the property they weren't zoned for. Once they were on the property they found all sorts of other regulatory issues unrelated to the land use.

Texans being supportive of property rights would probably never allow that level of authority given to counties. Unfortunately, that also allows unscrupulous developers to buy up farm land, cut it up into flag lots, and letting the meth heads move in.

I would just move on. My problem with restrictions is that you may be able to live with them NOW, but you don't know the future. The no subdivision is the one that drops the value by the most in my opinion. You may want to sell half to a family member to build a house 10 years from now. Or you could look waaaaay down the road and 30 years from now you are surrounded by neighborhoods, you want out but you have to sell that land as is possibly leaving millions on the table.

Quote:

---

I would just move on. My problem with restrictions is that you may be able to live with them NOW, but you don't know the future. The no subdivision is the one that drops the value by the most in my opinion. You may want to sell half to a family member to build a house 10 years from now. Or you could look waaaaay down the road and 30 years from now you are surrounded by neighborhoods, you want out but you have to sell that land as is possibly leaving millions on the table.

---

Very valid thoughts there.

Gunny456 said:

---

Yes sir. I agree. Like I stated before, I guess the landowner can put all kinds of deed restrictions on the land he is selling as it's his do that.
As a buyer I would just have to make a decision to either try to negotiate a common ground agreement or walk away and look elsewhere.
Kinda like my grandfather told me about horses…..
He said…. " Son, there are too many good horses out there to keep trying to fix a bad one….. sell him and move on till you find you a good one."
I think the same would apply on buying land.
Have had fun discussing all of this as you say.

---

I like your grandfather's way of thinking!

The older I became the smarter he got!

Sounds pretty standard, honestly. Lots of places have limits on animal units per acre to manage land usage and prevent overgrazing or damage. If the seller's asking for a lot of rules, it might feel like a pain, but it could just be to maintain the property's long-term value. Check out the area's zoning laws to see if it's in line with local regulations.

rgentry84 said:

---

Sounds pretty standard, honestly. Lots of places have limits on animal units per acre to manage land usage and prevent overgrazing or damage. If the seller's asking for a lot of rules, it might feel like a pain, but it could just be to maintain the property's long-term value. Check out the area's zoning laws to see if it's in line with local regulations.

---

Overstocking land is usually a self-fulfilling mistake. If you don't run out of forage for your livestock the state comes after you as a CAFO or for pollutant discharge. Placing a covenant on a large tract for that issue is just being a Karen.