Key Takeaways

Easement by necessity generally does not run against the United States — because the federal government holds the power of eminent domain, courts have held it never "needed" an implied easement across its own land, making the traditional landlocked-owner lawsuit a dead end against the Forest Service or BLM, according to Murphy v. Burch and related case law
Congress built a separate access statute specifically for this problem — ANILCA Section 1323, codified at 16 U.S.C. § 3210, directs the Secretary of Agriculture to provide adequate access to non-federal land inside the National Forest System (subsection a) and the Secretary of the Interior to do the same for land surrounded by BLM public lands (subsection b)
A federal-land inholding still narrows your buyer pool — most lenders will not finance a parcel without insurable legal access, and a title company will typically except access from coverage until it is documented, which pushes these sales toward cash buyers regardless of which access route you pursue

Can I Sell Land Surrounded by National Forest or BLM Land With No Recorded Easement?

Yes — but the legal path to access looks nothing like the landlocked-neighbor situation most owners have read about online. Land completely surrounded by U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management land is called a private inholding, and the common-law doctrine of easement by necessity that lets a landlocked owner sue a private neighbor generally does not apply against the federal government. Access instead runs through a federal statutory and regulatory process — and the parcel can still be sold, financed narrowly or not, and marketed once you understand which track you're actually on.

This guide covers the federal-land inholding situation specifically. If the land surrounding your parcel is privately owned rather than federal, our guide on selling land with no road access or easement covers the state-law easement-by-necessity process that actually applies to you, and our general landlocked land guide is a broader overview. For more situations like this, see the Jerez Land blog.

What Is an "Inholding," and Why Is My Land Surrounded by National Forest or BLM Land?

An inholding is a parcel of privately owned land entirely or almost entirely surrounded by federally managed land — most often U.S. Forest Service or BLM land — that existed on the ground before, or independent of, the federal boundary drawn around it. These parcels are not accidents of federal land-grab; the private title usually predates or survived the surrounding federal reservation.

Most inholdings trace back to one of a handful of federal land-disposal programs that predate the modern national forest and BLM public-land system:

Homestead entries. Settlers proved up a claim and received a federal patent under the Homestead Act or the Stockraising Homestead Act of 1916, and the surrounding land was later designated national forest or reserved as public domain.
Mining claims. Under the Mining Law of 1872, a valid claim gives the holder possessory rights, and a comparatively small share — roughly 3.3 million of the more than 245 million acres patented nationally between 1867 and 2000 — were converted to full private ownership, according to the U.S. Forest Service. Most surface patents nationwide instead trace to homestead entries, statehood grants, and railroad grants.
Railroad land grants. Congress granted alternating sections of land to railroads to finance construction in the 1800s; many were later sold off individually while the surrounding sections were folded into national forests or BLM administration.

Whatever the origin, the result is the same: a recorded private deed sitting inside a federal boundary, with no guarantee a recorded easement across the surrounding federal land ever accompanied it.

Can I Sue the Forest Service or BLM for an Easement by Necessity, the Way I Could Against a Private Neighbor?

Generally, no. Easement by necessity — the common-law doctrine that lets an owner whose land was carved out of a larger tract sue a private neighbor for an implied right of access — was built for disputes between private landowners, and courts have repeatedly declined to apply it against the United States. The reasoning: because the federal government holds the power of eminent domain, it never needed an implied easement to guarantee itself access — it could always simply condemn one — so the legal predicate for finding one never taken by the government largely disappears.

The California Supreme Court laid this out squarely in Murphy v. Burch, holding that when title traces back to a federal land patent, an easement-by-necessity claim requires the claimant to show both that Congress intended to reserve an access right-of-way in the statute authorizing the patent, and that the government lacked the power to condemn an easement if it needed one. Because the federal government's condemnation power is essentially unlimited and patent statutes rarely say anything about reserved access, that combination is close to impossible to satisfy in practice.

This is the single most important thing to understand before you spend money on a landlocked-easement lawsuit: sovereign immunity and the government's eminent domain power mean you generally cannot sue your way to access across federal land the way you could against a private neighbor. If the parcels touching your property line are private landowners rather than the Forest Service or BLM, that changes everything — see our guide on selling land with no road access or easement for the state-law process that applies to you instead.

How Is a Federal-Land Inholding Different From an Ordinary Landlocked Parcel?

A federal-land inholding and a landlocked parcel bordered by private neighbors are legally distinct problems that happen to look identical on a map. The table below lays out how the legal theory, decision-maker, paperwork, and timeline diverge.

	Landlocked, private neighbors	USFS inholding	BLM inholding
Legal theory for access	State common-law easement by necessity, prescriptive easement, or negotiated express grant	Federal statute (ANILCA § 1323(a), 16 U.S.C. § 3210(a)) and Forest Service special-use regulations	Federal statute (ANILCA § 1323(b), 16 U.S.C. § 3210(b)) and FLPMA Title V rights-of-way
Who decides	State court (if litigated) or the neighboring private owner (if negotiated)	The authorized officer of the National Forest / Ranger District administering that land	The BLM Field Office with jurisdiction over that public land
Typical instrument	Recorded deeded easement, or a court judgment establishing one	Special-use authorization / road use permit under 36 CFR Part 251	Right-of-way grant under 43 CFR Part 2800
Runs with the land?	Yes, once a recorded easement exists	Not automatically — many are personal to the holder and can terminate on transfer	Not automatically — a grant is issued to a specific holder for a specific use
Realistic timeline	Weeks (negotiated) to a year-plus (litigated)	Months to well over a year, depending on environmental review	Months to well over a year, depending on environmental review

Litigation is the private-neighbor owner's leverage; it is generally not yours against a federal land manager. That's the trade the rest of this guide walks through.

What Is the Actual Legal Process for Getting Access to My Inholding?

The process runs through the land-managing agency, not a courtroom, and starts with an application for either a Forest Service special-use authorization or a BLM right-of-way grant. Congress addressed exactly this problem in Section 1323 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) — a 1980 statute whose title mentions Alaska but whose access provision, codified generally at 16 U.S.C. § 3210, is not limited to Alaska on its face.

National Forest System land (16 U.S.C. § 3210(a)): The Secretary of Agriculture must provide the owner of non-federal land inside a national forest with access adequate to secure "reasonable use and enjoyment" of that land, subject to terms and conditions the Secretary prescribes. The Forest Service implements this at 36 CFR Part 251, Subpart D — "Access to Non-Federal Lands" — with the operative standard set out at 36 CFR § 251.114: the route must provide reasonable use and enjoyment of the non-federal land while minimizing damage to National Forest System resources, and the applicant generally must show they lack existing legal access across adjacent private land before the Forest Service will authorize a route across its land. The mechanism itself — a special-use authorization or forest road permit — is administered under the general special-uses regulations at 36 CFR Part 251, Subpart B.
BLM-managed public land (16 U.S.C. § 3210(b)): The Secretary of the Interior owes the same "adequate access" obligation to land surrounded by BLM public land managed under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The instrument is a right-of-way grant issued under FLPMA Title V, implemented at 43 CFR Part 2800. BLM charges cost-recovery processing fees for these applications, categorized by the complexity of the request under the agency's fee schedule, according to BLM's rights-of-way program guidance — budget for a fee, but do not expect a specific dollar figure without confirming the current schedule with the Field Office handling your application.

Two narrower, historically important routes exist alongside the statutory process. A quiet title action under the Quiet Title Act (28 U.S.C. § 2409a) lets a claimant ask a federal court to adjudicate a pre-existing right against the United States — but it carries a 12-year statute of limitations running from when the claimant knew or should have known of the government's competing claim, so it confirms a right that may already exist rather than creating a new one. And on some parcels, an R.S. 2477 right-of-way — a public road right granted under an 1866 mining-law provision and repealed by FLPMA in 1976 — may have been established before the surrounding land was reserved; where a road genuinely predates the withdrawal, it can support an access claim, though there is no simple administrative process to confirm one and these routes are often contested.

What If the Previous Owner Already Had a Permit or Road Use Agreement?

An existing Forest Service or BLM authorization on your parcel does not automatically transfer to you — one of the nastier closing surprises in this niche. Under 36 CFR § 251.51, a special-use authorization terminates "by operation of law" on a change in ownership or control of the holder or the authorized improvements, meaning the permit is generally personal to whoever it was issued to, not a right that runs with the land the way a recorded deeded easement does. A standard Forest Service term permit states outright that a transfer of title to the improvements it covers results in termination, and the new owner must apply for and be issued a new authorization before their use is legally covered.

A buyer who assumes "the road permit conveys with the deed" can find out only at closing — or after — that they have no authorized access and have to start the federal application process from scratch. Before you market the property, get it in writing from the Ranger District or BLM Field Office whether any existing authorization on file is assignable, whether it's expiring, and what a new owner would need to do to keep using the same route. Don't rely on a verbal assurance from a prior owner or agent.

How Do I Check My Land's Access Status Before I List the Property?

Start with your own deed and title records, move to the federal land-status records, then contact the agency directly — and get every answer in writing before you market the parcel:

Pull your deed and any recorded easements from the county recorder or register of deeds. Confirm whether any right-of-way, easement, or road agreement was ever recorded against the parcel or the surrounding federal land.
Check BLM's land status records. The General Land Office (GLO) records and Master Title Plats show the chronological history of federal land actions — patents, withdrawals, exchanges, reservations — for your parcel's township, and can reveal whether a right-of-way was ever noted against the surrounding federal land.
Contact the Ranger District or BLM Field Office with jurisdiction over the surrounding land. Ask directly: is there an existing authorization on file serving this parcel, is it assignable to a new owner, and if not, what's the process and rough timeline to get one?
Ask specifically whether any route "runs with the land." Many owners assume a route their family has used for decades is a transferable right. As covered above, that is very often not true for a federal authorization.
Document everything you're told — date, office, and who you spoke with. That paper trail is what a title company or serious cash buyer will want to see.

Will My Inholding Actually Sell, and What Are My Options?

Yes, a federal-land inholding with no confirmed access can still be sold, but be realistic: the buyer pool narrows, financing is harder to obtain, and the sale will likely move slower than an accessible parcel. A title company will typically except access from its policy until a recorded, insurable right is in place — a routine part of how title insurance treats unresolved access, not a sign your land is unsellable, as covered in do I need title insurance to sell land. Most mortgage lenders won't finance a parcel without insurable legal access, for the same reason title companies won't insure it cleanly — the same financing gap that affects other hard-to-place parcels like unbuildable land. That combination pushes federal-land inholdings toward the cash-buyer market.

You have a few realistic paths forward:

Option 1: Pursue the ANILCA/special-use or right-of-way process first, then list. This can widen your eventual buyer pool, but the federal review process can run well over a year depending on environmental review and route complexity, with no guarantee of the outcome you want.

Option 2: Sell to a conservation buyer or through a federal land exchange. Agencies and conservation organizations sometimes acquire inholdings directly, particularly inside a sensitive area the agency wants consolidated into public ownership. Worth asking your Ranger District or Field Office about, but it moves on the agency's timeline and budget cycle, not yours, and isn't available on demand.

Option 3: Sell directly to a cash buyer who understands inholding access. A direct buyer like Jerez Land evaluates the access situation on your specific parcel — documentation, the realistic federal process, whether an old permit is assignable — and factors that into a firm written cash offer, taking on the work of pursuing access after closing rather than requiring you to resolve it first.

Request a no-obligation cash offer and we'll walk through your parcel's access history and federal land status together — no formulas, no percentage of anything, just a parcel-specific number based on your land. For more guides on selling land in situations like this one, visit the Jerez Land blog.

Frequently Asked Questions

I own land that's completely surrounded by national forest with no recorded easement — can I still sell it?

Yes. A federal-land inholding with no recorded, insurable access is harder to sell than an accessible parcel — most lenders won't finance it and title companies typically except access from coverage until it's documented — but it is not unsellable. Cash buyers who understand the federal access process, including ANILCA Section 1323 and the special-use permit system, routinely purchase these parcels as-is and take on the work of pursuing access after closing.

I read that landlocked owners can sue for an easement by necessity — why doesn't that work against the Forest Service or BLM?

Easement by necessity is a state common-law doctrine built for disputes between private landowners, and it generally does not run against the United States. Because the federal government holds the power of eminent domain, courts reason it never needed an implied easement across its own land — it could always condemn one instead — so the legal basis for finding one collapses. The California Supreme Court laid this reasoning out in Murphy v. Burch, requiring claimants to show both that Congress intended to reserve access rights in the patent statute and that the government lacked the power to condemn, a combination that is close to impossible to satisfy.

My neighbor around my parcel is BLM, not a private landowner — does the private-neighbor easement-by-necessity guide apply to me?

No, not the litigation path. If the land bordering your parcel is federally managed — U.S. Forest Service or BLM — the state common-law easement-by-necessity process covered in our guide on selling land with no road access does not apply to you the same way it applies against a private neighbor. Instead, your access runs through ANILCA Section 1323 and the corresponding Forest Service special-use or BLM right-of-way process described in this guide.

What is ANILCA Section 1323, and does it actually apply outside Alaska?

ANILCA Section 1323, codified at 16 U.S.C. § 3210, directs the Secretary of Agriculture to provide adequate access to non-federal land within the National Forest System boundaries and the Secretary of the Interior to do the same for non-federal land surrounded by BLM public lands. Although the statute's title references Alaska, subsection (a) is not written as an Alaska-only provision, is codified in the general National Forest chapter of Title 16 rather than an Alaska-specific title, and is implemented nationally by the Forest Service at 36 CFR Part 251, Subpart D.

We inherited land with an old Forest Service special-use permit from the previous owner — does that permit transfer to us?

Not automatically. Under 36 CFR § 251.51, a special-use authorization generally terminates by operation of law when there's a change in ownership of the holder or the authorized improvements, and standard Forest Service term permits state directly that a transfer of title results in termination. As the new owner, you typically have to apply for and be issued a new authorization before your use of that route is legally covered — get this confirmed in writing from the Ranger District before you rely on the old permit.

My title company says it can't insure access to my inholding — does that mean I can't sell it?

No, it means the sale is more likely to go to a cash buyer than a financed retail buyer. Title companies routinely except unresolved access from coverage until a recorded, insurable right exists, and most mortgage lenders won't fund a purchase without insurable access — but neither of those facts makes the land unsellable. It narrows the realistic buyer pool to cash buyers who evaluate the access situation directly rather than requiring it to be perfected before closing.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or professional advice. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction and change over time. Always consult a licensed real estate attorney before making decisions about easements, access rights, or property transactions. Jerez Land is not responsible for actions taken based on this information.

Can I Sell Land Surrounded by National Forest or BLM Land With No Easement?