What Happened to British-Owned Land After American Independence?
By Trey Wilson, San Antonio Real Estate Attorney and Texas Water Lawyer
Fourth of July Special Edition:
One of the more fascinating—and often overlooked—chapters in American legal history is the disposition of land owned by the British Crown and its loyalist allies after the American Revolutionary War. When the colonies declared independence in 1776 and secured it in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris, it wasn’t just a political transformation. It was a massive legal reset, particularly when it came to land ownership.
From Crown Land to State Property
Before independence, much of the land in the colonies was technically held by the British Crown, either directly or by grant. When sovereignty shifted, so did legal title. The prevailing view was that public lands held by the King reverted to the new state governments. Under common law, sovereign power was tied to the control of land, and once the King’s sovereignty ended, so did his title.
States moved quickly to codify this. Virginia, for example, enacted a law in 1779 that declared all lands formerly belonging to the Crown were now owned by the Commonwealth. Other states followed suit. The result was a massive transfer of land ownership by operation of law—without compensation.
Loyalist Properties: Confiscation and Redistribution
Not all British land was held by the Crown. Thousands of acres were privately owned by American colonists who remained loyal to the Crown. These loyalists, many of whom had inherited or received royal land grants, found themselves on the wrong side of a new legal order. One by one, state legislatures passed Confiscation Acts authorizing the seizure of loyalist land. The acts didn’t just target symbolic enemies—they were enforceable tools used to fund state governments and the war effort.
Take the Philipse family in New York. They held tens of thousands of acres along the Hudson River. Their entire estate was confiscated by the state and sold off to private buyers. The story played out similarly across the colonies, with millions of acres changing hands in one of the most radical redistributions of property in U.S. history.
The Treaty of Paris: A Suggestion, Not a Command
When the war ended in 1783, Article 5 of the Treaty of Paris “recommended” that Congress urge states to return confiscated lands to loyalists. But it was toothless. The federal government lacked the authority to enforce that recommendation, and state legislatures weren’t about to reverse their takings or evict new owners—many of whom were patriotic veterans or well-connected land speculators. In practice, the treaty’s land-related provisions were ignored.
The Western Territories and Federal Control
What about the western lands—those beyond the Appalachian Mountains that had also been claimed by Britain? These territories, ceded by Britain in the Treaty of Paris, became federal property. Congress passed the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which established the framework for surveying, selling, and settling land west of the original 13 states. These laws laid the foundation for what we now know as the Public Land Survey System (PLSS).
This is where things diverged from state-level confiscation. The federal government surveyed land before sale, making orderly titles possible. Much of this land was sold to raise revenue for the cash-strapped federal government, and the PLSS remains the backbone of land title in much of the western U.S. today.
Major Legal Legacy: From Fairfax to Federal Supremacy
These takings gave rise to important early constitutional litigation. The most famous example came in Fairfax’s Devisee v. Hunter’s Lessee (1813) and its sequel, Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816). At issue was whether Virginia’s confiscation of loyalist Lord Fairfax’s estate violated the Treaty of Paris. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision by Justice Joseph Story, asserted federal judicial supremacy over state courts in matters of treaty enforcement. It was a landmark moment, reinforcing the supremacy of federal treaties under the Supremacy Clause.
Why It Still Matters
This post-Revolutionary legal land grab has ongoing relevance. It shaped state land ownership policies, created complex title issues, and laid the groundwork for American property law. In many ways, it also set the tone for how the U.S. would handle property rights in future conflicts—whether with Native American tribes, Mexico, or foreign investors. It also foreshadowed the power struggle between state and federal authority that continues to echo in water law, mineral rights, and condemnation proceedings.
A Texas Parallel: Land Grants and Legal Turmoil
Here in Texas, we experienced a parallel dynamic when sovereignty changed hands from Spain to Mexico to the Republic of Texas and ultimately to the United States. Spanish and Mexican land grants were the tools of sovereign control, just like British patents in the colonies. When Texas declared independence from Mexico in 1836, the new Republic faced the same question: who owns the land? And just like the newly formed American states, Texas had to untangle and validate previous sovereign land grants, some of which were vague, duplicative, or overlapping.
After annexation in 1845, Texas retained ownership of its public lands, unlike other states. That’s why we don’t follow the Public Land Survey System here. Instead, our patchwork of Spanish, Mexican, and early Texas land grants—layered with centuries of litigation—continues to define the legal landscape for Texas real estate law to this day.
The way American courts handled the disposition of British Crown land helped lay the groundwork for how similar issues were handled here in Texas. From condemnation proceedings to disputes over patent validity, echoes of that early legal revolution can still be heard in modern Texas title disputes.
Final Thoughts
At the end of the day, the Revolution was both a fight for liberty. and a high-stakes land dispute. Crown lands became state property. Loyalist lands were confiscated, often without due process as we understand it today. The Treaty of Paris offered nominal protections but no teeth. In the west, federal surveying and sales shaped a new legal regime. If you’re tracing title on old land grants—or litigating the boundaries of government power—these early decisions still cast a long shadow.
Here in Texas, where sovereignty changed hands multiple times and land grants were often instruments of politics, diplomacy, and reward, we still feel the legal tremors of those transitions. Whether it’s a dispute over an old Spanish grant or a battle over water rights tied to a colonial title, history is never far away from the courthouse.
—Trey Wilson, Real Estate and Water Lawyer, San Antonio, Texas
