Naturist Land Trusts - Is There A Lawyer in the house?

[Bare_Truth]

I happened to be browsing the web abouit land trusts (Just wanted to know what they are). From what I understand such trusts are used to transfer some of the rights to the land to a trustee.

For instance some land trusts may restrict the land to agricultural uses so as to prevent development of the land for housing projects, or may reserve the land for ecological habitat for wild animals, etc..

It would appear that such trusts can be used to maintain the land in perpetuity for certain uses. Or, at least require that land be kept in a condition that are supportive of such uses.

The pending sale of MoNatureMan's 100+ acres as a clothing optional tract would appear to be a plausible sort of trust specifying that the tract must be preserved as a habitat for naturists. It would appear that such a land trust would confer the right to practice a naturst life style to any and all future owners of the land tracts derived therefrom, and that in spite of any objecting textile owners of other tracts of the same land. This would be in the same vein of preserving forests, or wetlands, or farming use, etc. This would apply to all of the land as a single entity, or parts thereof in perpetuity. It would not enforce nudity but it would make it allowed.

Exactly how this compares to restrictive covenants etc. I do not know. As a trustee, some organization such as AANR might be plausible as a choice to serve as "Trustee". However, I am an Engineer and not a Lawyer; but it would seem tha if such a trust can provide a safe haven for wildlife, deer, bunnies, nesting bird species etc., it would seem to be able to provide safe havens for Naked Living / Lifestyle.

For those of us who have considerable land holdings to pass along when we deparft this life, it seems to have a potential for preserving spaces where Naturist Life might be preserved just as Natural Life is preserved.

After all if there is such an agency as the Nature Conservancy, see at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_Conservancy, Why not the "NATURIST Conservancy" ???

[MoNatureMan]

This idea could work very well in an estate situation. After all, in a case like that you are not really conserned about land value, but perpetuating a lifestyle.

In a regular sale it could be bad. It would lessen the field of buyers and therefor lower the value. Also any restrictions tend to move people away from purchase.

There was a movie about 2 sisters that inherited a naturist resort. Not having seen the movie, I see 3 possible outcomes.
1 - sisters shut down the resort.
2 - sisters become naturists and keep resort open
3 - sisters do not like the naturist lifestyle but are unable to shut down resort due to deed restrictions. Due to deed restrictions they either operate the resort, or sell it.

[Ramblinman]

The pending sale of MoNatureMan's 100+ acres as a clothing optional tract would appear to be a plausible sort of trust specifying that the tract must be preserved as a habitat for naturists. It would appear that such a land trust would confer the right to practice a naturst life style to any and all future owners of the land tracts derived therefrom, and that in spite of any objecting textile owners of other tracts of the same land. This would be in the same vein of preserving forests, or wetlands, or farming use, etc. This would apply to all of the land as a single entity, or parts thereof in perpetuity. It would not enforce nudity but it would make it allowed.

I love this idea, but with the exception of Arkansas, a property owner does not need state or local government permission to allow nudity on his land, provided that neighbors cannot see nudity from their land. So why do we need a land trust clause that permits what is already every man's right?

[JimShedd112]

I believe the land trust just ensures the one(s) creating the trust’s wishes are carried on into perpetuity, by law. I’m not familiar with land trusts but upon advice of our financial advisor, my wife and I placed our assets into a family trust to ensure they’ll be passed on to the survivor (her or me) upon the death of the other and then to our designated heir(s) once we both are gone without probate, saving the estate unnecessary costs in which distribution of assets would be decided in court by a judge who would likely not know us nor our wishes except as laid out in writing and subject to challenge by any person(s) not named in our wills.

I guess it’s a matter of personal choice but I believe the decision as to inheritance should be up to the owner(s) versus an uninterested party guided by property laws.

Jim

[Ramblinman]

Jim,
One thing I did not consider (and should have) was the possibility that the land could become a big industrial park or a Walmart and render nudity impossible due to that sort of land use.
Perhaps some protections against that bleak future could be taken.

If the land remains in residential or agricultural use, nudity would always be a possibility (except in Arkansas).

Could the property be deeded ONLY to nudists and naturists?
I am not trained in law.

[Bare_Truth]

This idea could work very well in an estate situation. After all, in a case like that you are not really conserned about land value, but perpetuating a lifestyle.

In a regular sale it could be bad. It would lessen the field of buyers and therefor lower the value. Also any restrictions tend to move people away from purchase.

While it is true that restrictions on a deed can move people away from making a purchase, They exist because there are people who want those restrictions. If the restrictions happen to be written so as to remove the ability of your neighbors to object to your practice of simple nudity, for folks like us it could be a blessing. Consider how nice it would be to not have to put up privacy fences and hedges to simply live in the neighborhood and be nude. And the practice of naturism in the neighborhood would be preserved in perpetuity. Ibviously the trust would have to be properly worded so that people's actions would have to be restrained from lewdness and confined to simple nudity, but you could then tend your garden in the nude without fear of the police being called and you charged with indecent exposure.

I love this idea, but with the exception of Arkansas, a property owner does not need state or local government permission to allow nudity on his land, provided that neighbors cannot see nudity from their land. So why do we need a land trust clause that permits what is already every man's right?

What such an arrangement could potentially do is leave intact all the usual restrictions and obligations that simple ownership provides while preserving the ability to engage in the naturist lifestyle without interference of neighbors saying that you cannot do that or obligating you to expend sums of money to add visual barriers that may not totally provide the privacy that your neighbors demand. If there are public spaces such as the sidewalks or parks or swimming pools tennis courts etc, within the area of the land trust, they would automatically be clothing optional by prior agreement of all the land owners covered by the trust. That way folks moving into the area would not be able to take the rights to use your property clothing free would not be impaired.

Of course the points I have made about the protections gained would be subject to law, which is why I added "Is There A Lawyer in the House" to the title.
Unlike the usual neighborhood associationsm, such rules would not be subject to modification by some neighborhood association board. And in that respect the rules would apply in perpetuity. So then the rights to nudity and naturist living could not go away. Even stores operating within the area of the trust would be bound to comply. People wouild not have to participate but neither would they be in a position to harass and interfer with their neighbors who did. Likewise the people in the Trusteeship would not be in a position to alter the Clothing Optional Status. Such a trust would probably withstand any such attacks short of State or Federal legislative interference and would be just like any other simple land ownership.

So far as I know there is no such trust in existance anywhere, hence, setting it up would likely take careful lawyering. Ownership would remain in the hands of those within the land trust areas the only requirement is that owners yield rights to object to Simple, chaste nudity.

This seems to me to be a possibility worth exploring. And if a retirement home was established in the bounds of the trust it would have to comply within reason with the nudity rights of the residents, that is something that some of us older folk would appreciate.

[MoNatureMan]

Thinking about this. I don't see any real advantage unless we are talking of a nudist resourt. A deed restriction could limit use of property to that purpose, forever. Even then a new owner could do whatever they wanted with the property, except some type of developement.

Now if there is enough money in a trust to care for that property as a perpetual nudist location, that could be a workable deal. But you would be looking at a lot of cash. You would also need someone(s) to manage the trust and property.

Does anybody know some rrreeeaaalllyyy rich naturists?

[Ramblinman]

We do need to clarify whether we are talking about the acreage on one hand: remaining single occupant residential or zoned agricultural and being a family farm or ranch;
or on the other hand, being developed as a multi-resident nudist community.

In the former situation, if one man wanders unseen out his back door nude for a swim in his pool or to pick tomatoes, the law is generally silent on such matters.
Neighbors could not possibly be affected by the state of attire of an unseen man, nor any of his equally unseen friends for that matter.

In the latter case, however, residents living in reasonable proximity to a proposed massive multi-resident nudist development (whether merely residential, campground or resort) do indeed deserve some say-so in a development that could affect property values, flood local schools with new kids, jam roads on holidays, etc.

My biggest concern is not a few prudes trying to make nudity on private land illegal.
Rather, it is more likely that swingers, drunks and advocates of a sexually-charged form of nude recreation would take over a resort at some point.
This is not mere conjecture. I have seen family naturist venues decimated by a determined, crude minority of guests until the park doesn't resemble the wholesome community that its founder intended.

Some venues become so dominated by men that women stop attending. In an ideal world, this sort of thing would not happen, but...

[Bare_Truth]

In the latter case, however, residents living in reasonable proximity to a proposed massive multi-resident nudist development (whether merely residential, campground or resort) do indeed deserve some say-so in a development that could affect property values, flood local schools with new kids, jam roads on holidays, etc.

My biggest concern is not a few prudes trying to make nudity on private land illegal.
Rather, it is more likely that swingers, drunks and advocates of a sexually-charged form of nude recreation would take over a resort at some point.
This is not mere conjecture. I have seen family naturist venues decimated by a determined, crude minority of guests until the park doesn't resemble the wholesome community that its founder intended.

Some venues become so dominated by men that women stop attending. In an ideal world, this sort of thing would not happen, but...

You make good points but note that there would be no requirement that neighbors would have to interact with each other only that the terms of the trust not be vioated, Such terms could include subdivision tract size and land uses, and might specify fence sizes or no fences at all that would interfere with movement of wildlife, but once set those restrictions would prevail immutably If more control was deemed necessary then perhaps a combined land trust Plus a neighborhood association layered atop that might be a consideration but also county law would prevail to block antisocial behaviors. The near immutability of the land trust is of course the feature to preserve the basic nature and likely more resistant to change and preservation of original purpose. My understanding (limited as it is) is that land trusts focus on what land use is allowed and protected against diversions to other uses or diversion to uses that interfere with what use the trust is to protect. So for instance the trust might prevent establishment of retail outlets owned by entities with larger than total floor space exceeding (PICK A NUMBER). Maintenance of a limit of what percentage of a tract could be occupied by buildings, etc. etc. The object of the land trust is to maintain the character of the designated tract and its uses. to a limited and unchanging specification of function. There appear to be similarities but differences.

I received a response about such trusts to a query I addressed to the Land Trust Alliance aftter being directed to their website at. [url]Lta.org[/url]. That site is too extensive for me to try to explain and requires a good deal of exploring. And I have not yet gotten into it that deep. The gist of Land Trusts it that they tend toward larger tracts of land as opposed to lots so your neighbor is not "elbow to elbow" with you so we are probably talking about tracts of 10 acres or more per landholder, and much less micro management of landholders usage of their property so long as the objectives set for the land use are met.

The possibilities are variable depending on what the trust is set up to do, which again harks back to my point in the title about a lawyer. It is another mode of land managment that might suit indepemdent naturists better. It seems to be less about what one does on the land and more about how the land functions over the long term.

[MoNatureMan]

I have a question. This would not need anything so formal as a trust, but.

Say there is a developer in FL or CA, being the most open states for 'open nudity'.
He/she decides to make one of their sub-divisions clothing optional.
They would probably need to get approval from local government.
Anybody moving into that sub-division would know it is CO.
Of course anybody leaving the sub-division would need to get clothed.
This idea would be easy if we got a developer and local government on our side.

[Bare_Truth]

MoNatureMan,
You pose an interesting question. In the Mjajority of cases I am aware of. Land is passed into a land trust in a situation in which the land is already in the use that the trust seeks to preserve. So permission to use it as such is not needed at that time, The land trust is merely seeking to perpetuate that. Hence if your land were to be put into a Naturist Trust it would be like that already. (Of course there can be arguments about whether is is widely known that it is used that way, so that you are not sneaking that use past anyone. but your sinage at the gate might establish that to a legal certainty).

As I understand it trusts operate withing a state where their existence is established, so it is a good bit more than just saying that you are creating a trust for that purpose.

This idea would be easy if we got a developer and local government on our side.

I am not up on all the details but I think it is a matter of getting the State government on your side by getting the trust established in the State's Jurisdiction. Indeed some Trusts are international in scope and they have to have recognition in all the countries where they operate. The in's and out's of all this are unfamiliar to most folks (me included). I was hoping for someone here to be more familiar with the matters, hence my plea for "Is there a Lawyer in the House"

My first encounter with the concept pertained to the prairie states where land trusts were developing to keep farm families on the land in which the land was deeded to the Trust in return for which the trust extended certain rites to farm the land to the donor. I do not recall the details but it kept the farmers from falling on hard times and losing the land, and I think the trust also had a tax advantage as a non-profit. You could not kick the farmer off the land because it was not his to be kicked off of. But the trust was obligated to let him farm there as a privelage he had been granted by the trust so long as he farmed it and did not try to build a factory or something like that there. If the farmer died without heirs the trust had to keep it as farm land and could just move another farmer in. As to the matter of heirs...... I don't remember how they dealt with that issue. It was all worked out so that farm families could get out from under a crushing debt load, the bans got paid off, the farm family got to stay and got a cash infusion they needed. It is a bit convoluted by comparison to how it used to be, but it was working and the trust was not ripping the farmers off as far as I could see. It is a very different Land Stewardship arrangement from what we are used to.

[New_Adventurer]

Maybe the answer could be derived from real estate agent Jackie Youngblood of LAND O’ LAKES in Florida. Could someone ask her for ideas?