Based on a post from the Mises Blog, 5/22/2009 (archived comments below). The original post is somehow mangled and I am unable to edit it. This was based on an email I sent to Tulane law professor Professor A.N. Yiannopoulos,^† a legal giant in Louisiana and civil law scholarship, whose brilliant magnum opus, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Property, has influenced my own work. Below is an edited version of the note. The notes refer to my friend Greg Rome, a fellow libertarian and Louisiana attorney with whom I co-authored Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary (Quid Pro Books, 2011).

Note: See also Inability to Abandon Property in the Civil Law.

Update: finding some sources:

• Richard Cramer, The abandonment of landownership in South African and Swiss law South African Law Journal Vol. 134, No. 4 (2020)
• ——, “The Abandonment of Landownership: A Proposed Model for Regulated Exit” (PhD thesis, University of Cape Town, 2020)
• Konstanze von Schütz, “Keeping It Private: The Impossibility of Abandoning Ownership and the Horror Vacui of the Common Law of Property,” McGill LJ 66:4 (2021): 721–759

Update:

Self-depicted King of Switzerland is steadily growing his own ‘empire’ thanks to a legal loophole.

Jonas Lauwiner has acquired more than 110,000 square meters of land for free.

According to The Times, Lauwiner has acquired 148 bits of land and 83 sections of road in… pic.twitter.com/jHgCVr3fRG

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) May 1, 2026

From Grok:

Swiss Law on Ownerless Land, Abandonment of Ownership, and a Comparison with Other Legal Systems

Swiss law explicitly recognizes the concepts of unowned/ownerless land (herrenlose Grundstücke or res nullius) and allows owners to formally abandon land title via an official declaration. These provisions are found in the Swiss Civil Code (Zivilgesetzbuch / Code civil, SR 210).

1. Recognition of Ownerless Land and Appropriation in Swiss Law

The Civil Code expressly provides for ownerless land and regulates how it can be appropriated. The key articles are:

Art. 658 – Appropriation (Aneignung)

1. Immovable property recorded in the land register may be appropriated only if the register establishes that it has no owner.

2. Appropriation of land not recorded in the land register is subject to the provisions governing ownerless objects.

3. Formation of new land is governed by Art. 659.

Read full Art. 658 on fedlex.admin.ch

Art. 664 – Ownerless and public objects

1. Ownerless and public objects are subject to the sovereignty of the canton on whose territory they are situated.

2. No rights of private ownership apply to public waters or to land not suitable for cultivation, such as rocks and scree, firn and glaciers, or to springs rising therefrom, unless proof to the contrary is produced.

3. The cantons shall enact the provisions required to govern the appropriation of ownerless land, exploitation and common use of public objects such as roads, town and village squares, waterways and riverbeds.

Read full Art. 664 on fedlex.admin.ch

Related: Art. 659 (formation of new land) and, for chattels, Art. 718 (appropriation of ownerless movables).

2. Explicit Right to Abandon Land Ownership (Dereliction) in Swiss Law

Yes, Swiss law allows a registered owner to unilaterally abandon land title by official declaration, rendering it ownerless and open to appropriation by others (subject to cantonal rules).

Key provisions:

• Art. 666 para. 1 ZGB: Land ownership is extinguished on deletion of the land register entry.
• Art. 964 para. 1 ZGB: Governs the dereliction/abandonment process via waiver to the land registry.

Read full Art. 666 on fedlex.admin.ch

Read full Art. 964 on fedlex.admin.ch

Procedure for Abandonment

The registered owner submits a written waiver/declaration of abandonment to the competent land registry office. Upon acceptance and deletion of the entry, the land becomes herrenlos (ownerless). It then falls under the appropriation rules (Art. 658) and cantonal sovereignty (Art. 664). Cantons may have additional procedural rules or claim priority in some cases.

3. Do Other Legal Systems Permit Ownerless Land and Explicit Abandonment of Land Title?

Most modern legal systems — both civil-law and common-law — do not fully recognize unowned land for immovables (real property/land) in the same way as Switzerland, nor do they provide an explicit, straightforward mechanism for an owner to abandon land title by official declaration, making the land immediately res nullius (ownerless) and appropriable. This analysis draws directly from the two articles consulted:

• “Homesteading, Abandonment, and Unowned Land in the Civil Law” (Mises Blog, 2009; republished 2021)
• “Inability to Abandon Property in the Civil Law” (2009)

Key findings from these sources and comparative analysis:

• Roman Law (historical foundation of civil law): Yes to both. Owners could abandon property (including immovables) with intent, rendering it res nullius open to immediate occupatio (first-taking) by another. No formal declaration was required beyond intent plus act; the Sabinian view (ownership lost immediately upon abandonment) prevailed.
• Most modern civil-law systems (e.g., Louisiana, French tradition, Austrian influences): No. These systems generally do not recognize unowned immovables/land. Title is presumed to trace back to the sovereign/state as “owner of last resort.” Abandonment is permitted only for movables/chattels (e.g., Louisiana Civil Code Art. 3418), not land. There is no explicit provision for an owner to abandon land by official declaration; instead, long-term acquisitive prescription (adverse possession) is required. Kinsella notes this creates a “positivistic” bias against true homesteading of unowned land.
• German Civil Code (BGB): Partial/qualified yes. § 928 BGB expressly allows renunciation of land ownership by declaration to the land registry; the land becomes ownerless, though the state (Bundesland) often has a priority right to claim it.
• Greece: Yes (exception noted in the consulted articles). Immovables can be abandoned by “authentic act that must be recorded in the appropriate public records.”
• Common-law systems (e.g., U.S., England): Generally no. True abandonment of real-property title is not permitted; ownership persists until extinguished by adverse possession (after many years) or tax foreclosure. Land cannot simply be made unowned by declaration.
• Other examples: Quebec and France treat abandoned property as automatically vesting in the state/municipality (public ownership of last resort). Scotland and South Africa have debated the issue but lack clear statutory mechanisms for land abandonment.

Conclusion: Switzerland stands out as one of the clearest modern examples that satisfies both criteria — (a) explicit recognition of unowned/herrenlos land that can be appropriated, and (b) a simple official declaration process for owners to abandon title. Roman law historically did as well, and isolated exceptions like Germany and Greece exist, but the majority of civil-law and common-law jurisdictions do not contemplate true ownerless land or easy abandonment of immovables. This reflects a broader legal preference for avoiding “ownerless” gaps in land title.

Practical Example and Context

This framework has gained attention in cases like that of Jonas Lauwiner, who has claimed numerous small ownerless plots and road sections (totaling over 110,000 m²) under Art. 658 by notifying local councils. Such claims rely on the existence of truly ownerless or unregistered land, which can result from formal abandonment or historical gaps.

Official Swiss Source: Full Swiss Civil Code (English version) on fedlex.admin.ch.

Note: For specific applications, consult a notary or land registry office in the relevant jurisdiction, as cantonal or national rules may vary. This is a general overview based on the federal Swiss Civil Code (as of 2026) and the comparative analysis in the referenced articles.

Update: Penner on Intellectual Property, Monopolies, and Property:

Do we have the right to abandon the things we own? Under the civil common law,6 property cannot be abandoned de jure, if that means that an owner may by his act alone destroy his title in a thing. An owner may only relinquish possession of a thing, whereupon any subsequent person’s possession may give him a good root of title. Although the legal view respecting title might suggest otherwise, it is submitted that we do have the right to abandon property.

6. Abandonment is recognized under the criminal law of theft-one cannot steal that which has been abandoned: Hudson 1984 [Hudson, A. H. (1984), ʻIs Divesting Abandonment Possible at Common Law?ʼ (1984) 100 Law Quarterly Review 110.].

❧

Homesteading, Abandonment, and Unowned Land in the Civil Law

Archived comments:

Tim Singleton October 2, 2010 at 9:20 am

❧

I never got a reply from Yippy (as some of his students called him), but later I wrote him about a related topic, which I blogged about here: Inability to Abandon Property in the Civil Law. Here is his reply:

Feb. 20, 2010

Dear Mr. Kinsella:

It seems I have been away from my desk too long.  I apologize! The matters of abandonment of the ownership of things and acquisition of the ownership of such things have a long history in civil law. One of these years I will ask a student in my Civil Law Seminar to investigate the matter and write a paper. In the meanwhile, let me state my view without citations of authority.

1. Following the Romanist tradition, in civil law systems the mode of acquisition of ownership by the mere taking of possession is confined to corporeal movables. Current Article 3412 of the Louisiana Civil Code is in accord. Article 3421 of the Louisiana Civil code of 1870 (controlling French text) must be read together with Article 3421 [?] of the same Code.
2. The mode of acquisition of corporeal movables by the mere taking of possession, called occupatio in Roman law sources, applies to things (read: corporeal movables) that have no owner. Things that are lost do have an owner and the law of occupancy does not apply.
3. In Louisiana and elsewhere immovables are always owned; therefore the law of occupancy does not apply to immovables. This is a matter of principle that recognizes the State as  owner of last resort.
4. Whereas corporeal movables can be readily abandoned and become subjects of occupancy, the question of whether immovables can be abandoned has given rise to discussions in civil law jurisdictions. In Greece for example, immovables can be abandoned by authentic act that must be recorded in the appropriate public records. It has been my view that immovables cannot be abandoned in Louisiana. In the first place, to my knowledge, there is no legal mechanism for the abandonment of the ownership of immovables. Second, it would be absurd to saddle the State with liabilities attached to the ownership of immovable. Think, for example, of pollution and need of remediation.

Regards, to both, Greg Rome and you.  A. N. Yiannopoulos

I was also good friends with the late Professor Robert Pascal, another influential Louisiana law scholar (see Robert Pascal, R.I.P.; various works linked in Reading Suggestions for Prospective/New Law Students (Roman/Civil law focus) and Book Recommendations: Private, International, and Common Law; Legal Theory). I never knew him while in law school (he was already emeritus) but met him after, visiting him at his home, talking on the phone, and exchanging letters for years, from 1993 to his death in 2018, at the age of 102. I spoke with him on the phone in Nov. 2011 (he was 96, and still very lucid). Here are the notes I shared with Greg Rome at the time:

He liked our Dictionary. In our phone talk I discussed with him how I was perplexed how you could not homestead unowned land in the Civil Code. I said it was only for movables. He insisted it was for immovables too. I sent him a print out of the Civil Code articles showing it’s only for movables. In his reply he admits I’m right but says in the previous code before Yiannopoulos had it amended it, it did refer to land owned by no one. Do you happen to have access to that version of the code or that provision? You can tell he is not happy with what Yippy did. Interesting.

See also Pascal’s letter to me about this matter, which states:

As to our controversy on “occupation of land,” you are right that the current legislation limits occupation to movables. But before the articles were amended, the CC 1870 recognized “land owned by no one” and the possibility of it being occupied. Yiannopoulos is responsible for amending the legislation and giving the State ownership of land not owned by persons. Through him we have moved from Roman Law background to a modern Germanic one. We are not now the better—

In response, Rome sent me “a scan of a page out of my compiled code for [previous] article 3421 [“He who finds a thing which is abandoned; that is, which its owner has let with the intention not to keep it any longer, becomes master of it in the same manner as if it had never belonged to any body.”]. [See also current articles 3412 [“Occupancy. Occupancy is the taking of possession of a corporeal movable that does not belong to anyone. The occupant acquires ownership the moment he takes possession.”], 3418 (“Abandoned things. One who takes possession of an abandoned thing with the intent to own it acquires ownership by occupancy. A thing is abandoned when its owner relinquishes possession with the intent to give up ownership.”).] It indicates that the translation from French to English forgot used ‘things’ instead of ‘movable things.’ I have a facsimile copy of an original 1808 digest, and I confirmed that the french version does say ‘chose mobiliére,’ or movable things, while the English translation from the time just says ‘things.'” We looked around the other code articles in that neighborhood and couldn’t find see any other articles about unowned land.

Update: See also Maimonides, “The Book of Acquisition,” Book 12 of the Mishneh Torah, which talks about “ownerless property” but never clearly specifies land or immovables as being unowned and able to be homesteaded. E.g., it says, in Chapter One of the Hilchos Zechiyah uMattanah:

1. Whoever takes hold of ownerless property acquires it. Any objects found naturally in deserts, rivers and streams – e.g., grass, trees, wild fruit and the like – are ownerless. Whoever first takes hold of such an object acquires it.

But these are all movables.

Later sections recognize ownership of land, but doens’t seem to contemplate it ever being unowned:

7. The following laws apply when there are two fields in an estate that belong to a convert, with one boundary marker between them. If a person manifests ownership over one of the fields with the intent of acquiring it, he acquires it. If he manifests ownership over it with the intent of acquiring both it and the other field, he acquires the field over which he manifested ownership, but he does not acquire the other field.

If he manifests ownership over one field with the intent of acquiring only the other field, he does not acquire either of them. He does not acquire the field over which he did not manifest ownership because he did not manifest ownership over it. He does not acquire the field over which he did manifest ownership because he did not manifest ownership with the intent of acquiring it.

If he manifests ownership over one field with the intent of acquiring it, the other field and the boundary marker between them, or if he manifests ownership over the boundary marker with the intent of acquiring both fields, there is an unresolved doubt with regard to the matter. If another person comes and manifests ownership over one of the fields itself with the intent of acquiring it, the latter person becomes the legal owner.

Update: See Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023), which overturned the practice in some states of home equity theft, in which the state would seize and sell a house or piece of land seized for delinquent taxes and then keep the excess equity on the grounds that by failing to pay taxes, the owner had “abandoned” the land. See also the related Rowe v. City of Minneapolis, 49 Minn. 148 (Minn. 1892).

In Tyler, the Court interestingly writes:

The County portrays this as just another example in the long tradition of States taking title to abandoned property. We upheld one such statutory scheme in Texaco. There, Indiana law dictated that a mineral interest automatically reverted to the owner of the land if not used for 20 years. 454 U. S., at 518. Use included excavating minerals, renting out the right to excavate, paying taxes, or simply filing a “statement of claim with the local recorder of deeds.” Id., at 519. Owners who lost their mineral interests challenged the statute as unconstitutional. We held that the statute did not violate the Takings Clause because the State “has the power to condition the permanent retention of [a] property right on the performance of reasonable conditions that indicate a present intention to retain the interest.” Id., at 526 (emphasis added).