Private restrictions on real estate are restrictions placed by the grantor that limit the way a property owner can use the property they own. Normally people think that if they own the property that they can do whatever they want on it, but this is not the case. Various agencies usually carry out the enforcement of these laws. Some of the most common private restrictions are easements, liens, and CC&Rs.
The following link is to a recent story of an easement dispute between a roofing company and a winery in Bailey, Colorado. Access was given to Aspen Peak Cellars by R&R Roofing to share use of the gated driveway entry that requires a security code. R&R has now decided to deny people access to the winery and have the benefits of the driveway only apply to people associated with R&R. They have threatened to block the access to the property with a 24-foot access easement. The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare an easement for access on the driveway, which would signify that there was not one prior in their arrangment for the driveway use.
http://www.theflume.com/news/first_five/article_35f12ba8-7d3a-11e2-8f47-0019bb30f31a.html
Public restrictions on real estate are restrictions placed by the government that limit the use of real property. These restrictions have to do with real estate that benefits the public in some way. This does not mean that these restrictions have to do only with public property. Some examples of public restrictions are escheats, eminent domain, and property tax.
The following link is to a recent article where an Alabama mayor is on trial for getting financial benefits by having the city purchase land that his family owned. The mayor was the original owner, but he transferred the property to his daughter prior to the sale. It is then alleged that the city paid an inflated price for the property. The focus of the case seems to be a debate on the appraisal by a right-of-way negotiator and how it differs from a real estate appraisal in their calculation methods. The law of eminent domain could have been used, but the argument is that the price paid was reasonable in regards to what it would have cost to sieze it through eminent domain.
http://blog.al.com/live/2013/02/bayou_la_batre_mayor_stan_wrig.html
