Regarding surface vs. subsurface rights, which statement is EXCEPT?

The correct answer revolves around the nuances of property rights, particularly focusing on subsurface rights in real estate. The assertion that subsurface rights always accompany ownership of a parcel of land is not accurate. In reality, property owners may choose to retain or sell subsurface rights separately from the surface rights. This is crucial in real estate because it means one property owner can have control over the land's surface, while another may own the rights to any minerals or resources located beneath the ground.

Surface rights can indeed be divided from subsurface rights, allowing for separate ownership and usage of each. This aspect of property law facilitates transactions such as mining or drilling, where subsurface resources can be extracted without affecting the surface usage. Thus, land ownership can exclude subsurface rights depending on prior agreements or transactions, and subsurface rights can be individually bought or sold.

In summary, identifying that subsurface rights do not always accompany land ownership highlights the complexities of real estate rights and ownership, making it clear that the interpretation of property rights can vary significantly based on agreements made by prior owners.