The phrase “lost property” is often used in property management practices to refer to things that have been lost or destroyed.
This is particularly true for residential properties, and it is the subject of a new study by the Center for Applied Property and Technology at Oregon State University.
The study, titled “Is There a Difference in Property Management Practices Between Residential and Non-Residential?” was published online March 14 in the journal Landscape Ecology.
The team analyzed more than 1,000 land-use plans across Oregon, Washington and Idaho, to determine the characteristics and properties of properties with or without residential or commercial use.
The research team looked at more than 500 properties and determined that property managers often refer to lost property as “lost” in lieu of a residential or non-residential use.
These terms, which have been used in land-management practices for centuries, are sometimes confused with a “loss” or “loss of property” in property deeds.
The researchers concluded that a homeowner’s property is usually not considered a lost property in many cases.
The “lost land” phrase, they found, does not distinguish between residential and non-residential use.
It is more likely to be used when the property is on private land, in the case of residential properties.
“This is a big shift from when people used the phrase ‘lost land,’ and it’s very similar to the way it is used in a lot of other countries,” said David Stearns, a professor of land use and urban planning at Oregon’s State University of Oregon.
“The way it’s used in the United States is more of a lost and lost-in-the-wastes kind of approach.
It doesn’t differentiate between a residential and a non-commercial use.”
The study was done to determine how property managers might interpret the term “lost and lost in the waste” in a residential use.
“In the US, we’re seeing a trend of property owners using the term ‘lost property’ to refer more to residential properties than non-business properties,” said co-author David Storch, an associate professor of landscape and urban design at OSU.
“But this study shows that the term can be confusing to property owners when it’s applied to non-rental or noncommercial properties.”
The researchers analyzed the property descriptions of more than 700 residential properties in the Portland metro area.
For properties with residential uses, the researchers identified properties with at least 1,200 square feet of living space.
For residential properties with commercial uses, they identified properties having at least 4,000 square feet or more.
The properties were also reviewed for their water use and other environmental impacts.
The findings show that property owners often use the term lost property to refer only to residential or industrial properties.
They are not concerned with the loss of land, but instead look at the property’s size, shape, and use.
According to the study, “the loss of a piece of land is a very complex process.
When we use the word ‘lost,’ we mean the loss, but when we use this term, we don’t necessarily mean the physical loss of property, but we’re referring to the loss as a property, not just the property itself.”
Storchan said the term was coined in the late 1800s by William Fitch, who was a land surveyor in Portland, Oregon.
Fitch is remembered for his pioneering work with the land survey, which provided an early understanding of the relationship between land and land use.
Storck said the current term of “lost in the wastes” may be used by some homeowners and property owners to describe their properties.
However, it may be confusing for others, who may use the terminology incorrectly.
“If you look at a lot [of the properties], the word is rarely used.
The majority of them don’t have a lot, and there are a lot more examples where the word was used,” Storcher said.
“When I look at that [property] description, I’m not thinking, ‘Oh, I lost that piece of property.'”