Despite the imposing and ultimate title of dominium, there were several restrictions on Roman ownership. Most of these were prompted by the Twelve Tables. In both the classical and Justinian period, laws were promulgated that were State-sanctioned that prescribed restrictions for what one may do with one’s own property. The restrictions placed on landowners will now be considered, followed by the restrictions prompted by the owners of the property themselves. The aforementioned restrictions were all sanctioned by law, but the third category of restrictions that will also be discussed was implemented by the Roman society.
5 1 Restrictions placed by law on ownership of land “Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos” meaning …show more content…
Legal action could be taken to minimise the threat of damage from rainwater on neighbouring land or from the defective state of the neighbour’s property. The offending neighbour could be required by the Praetor, on application by the other party, to provide security in the event of damage, otherwise, the offending neighbour would be allowed to enter the property in order to safeguard it and not cause further damage to their own property. If the owner of a piece of land suffered damage, as a result of their neighbour’s construction on an adjacent piece of land, the Praetor could prevent the construction from continuing with an operis novi nuntiatio. One may not have interrupted the natural flow of water from one’s neighbour’s property to one's own. The owner of an urban tenement could not, even in the time of Gaius, raise the height of their house or shop, thus blocking their neighbour’s access to light or obstructing their view. They required a specific servitude from the surrounding property owners in order to deviate from a reasonable height. In a block of flats the inhabitants of the upper stories could not be the owner’s, they were simply tenants with contractual rights, even though they were part-owners of the land itself. From the above, it is clear that restrictions imposed on Roman landowners by law did profoundly limit the owner’s basic right to enjoy, use, and alienate their property and, thus, also controlling their dominium and confining its absoluteness
5 1 Restrictions placed by law on ownership of land “Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos” meaning …show more content…
Legal action could be taken to minimise the threat of damage from rainwater on neighbouring land or from the defective state of the neighbour’s property. The offending neighbour could be required by the Praetor, on application by the other party, to provide security in the event of damage, otherwise, the offending neighbour would be allowed to enter the property in order to safeguard it and not cause further damage to their own property. If the owner of a piece of land suffered damage, as a result of their neighbour’s construction on an adjacent piece of land, the Praetor could prevent the construction from continuing with an operis novi nuntiatio. One may not have interrupted the natural flow of water from one’s neighbour’s property to one's own. The owner of an urban tenement could not, even in the time of Gaius, raise the height of their house or shop, thus blocking their neighbour’s access to light or obstructing their view. They required a specific servitude from the surrounding property owners in order to deviate from a reasonable height. In a block of flats the inhabitants of the upper stories could not be the owner’s, they were simply tenants with contractual rights, even though they were part-owners of the land itself. From the above, it is clear that restrictions imposed on Roman landowners by law did profoundly limit the owner’s basic right to enjoy, use, and alienate their property and, thus, also controlling their dominium and confining its absoluteness