How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Dwayne B. Your Own Question
Dwayne B.
Dwayne B., Attorney
Category: Real Estate Law
Satisfied Customers: 32154
Experience:  Began practicing law in 1992
Type Your Real Estate Law Question Here...
Dwayne B. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

In Dallas TX, does an adjacent property's owner need to

Customer Question

In Dallas TX, does an adjacent property's owner need to obtain the "Air rights" to swing a construction tower crane over an existing condo's air space?? The condo owners' are represented by an HOA. Thank you
***** *****
Submitted: 29 days ago.
Category: Real Estate Law
Expert:  Dwayne B. replied 29 days ago.

Hello and thank you for contacting us. This is Dwayne B. and I’m an expert here and looking forward to assisting you today.

Customer: replied 29 days ago.
Where is your answer to my question??
Expert:  Dwayne B. replied 29 days ago.

This is one of those areas of the law that have almost no cases on it. In Texas, it is generally accepted that the owner of land owns the air rights above that land but if someone wants to use it in a situation like you describe it would only be a "trespass" if the landowner owns a structure or is making use of the air rights at the level where the crane will pass.

In other words, if the land only has a one story structure on it that is twenty feet high (total) and the crane will pass at a height of 100 feet, they would be allowed to do so without getting permission. Of course, if they do some kind of harm then the crane operator would be liable.

Expert:  Dwayne B. replied 29 days ago.

There was a case filed in Houston a year or so ago dealing with this, 1885 St. James Place Partners LP, vs. Finger-FSC Yorktown.

Expert:  Dwayne B. replied 29 days ago.

In that case, St. James Place cited law that stood for the proposition "aerial rights in property extend only to the altitude of the property owner's existing and effective reasonable use of the land."

Expert:  Dwayne B. replied 29 days ago.

I haven't see that case go up on appeal yet and it hasn't been filed long enough to have reached an "ultimate resolution" through all the courts.

Expert:  Dwayne B. replied 29 days ago.

That case was dealing with aerial rights and "trespass". There could also be an issue, with the right facts, where the use of a crane could cause a "nuisance" in extending over the property.

Related Real Estate Law Questions