In an article we wrote for the Number 1 Shimbun last year we talked about a new government scheme called Sozoku Tochi Kokko Kizoku Seido, a “system for returning inherited land to the state,” which makes it possible someone who has inherited land they don’t want to transfer title to the central government. We expressed doubt as to whether the scheme would at all be effective in resolving the huge unmanaged land issue in Japan because the conditions for the government accepting the land in question seemed onerous. In order for the land to pass approval for acquisition, the nominal owners would be subject to a screening process that most would not be able to pass. 

It’s been more than a year since the plan went into effect, and according to a YouTube interview with the real estate lawyer Tatsuya Arai, who specializes in abandoned properties, the system seems to be working better than expected, even if the number of cases accepted by the government is still pretty small. Arai says that the prognosis for the government scheme “is unexpectedly good,” according to lawyers and notaries he talked to. 

The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) released statistics related to the 1,905 applications it had received for the ssystem as of April of 2024. Land registered for agricultural use accounted for the largest number of applications, 721. After that, 698 applications were for residential land, 280 for “forested” land in mountainous areas, and 206 for “others.” The reason residential land and forested land were not represented more, Arai believes, is because the conditions for application made it difficult. Applications must be accompanied by photographs of the property in question showing border markers (kui), which in the case of forested land in remote mountainous areas is difficult—most owners of such land don’t even live close to it and, in some cases, may not even know exactly where it is. In the case of residential land, the property must be completely cleared, meaning any structures that were built on it must be torn down and the land “cleared.” Moreover, many residential lots developed just after the war were not surveyed properly and/or the lots were built in cities where laws were later passed designating road widths and other infrastructure regulations, so the border markers may not be legal. But farmland is relatively easy because it usually contains no structures and the borders are usually easy to discern because owners needed to distinguish their land from their neighbors’. 

Of the 1,905 applications received, 248 (107 residential, 57 farm, 6 mountain, 78 others) were approved, which may not sound like a lot, but one has to take into consideration that it requires at least 8 months to screen the applications, according to the MOJ. Then, after the screening, there is another process that must be carried out before the government decides to acquire the land. For Arai, the important aspect is not how many applications have so far been approved, but how many have not been approved, and that number is only 18. That means the approval rate for the applications initially submitted is 93 percent, which is much higher than Arai and his colleagues in the legal professsion thought it would be.

Of course, the main obstacle is, as already mentioned, the set of conditions for the application, and Arai is positive that there are many more than 1,905 people—he estimates the number is in the millions—who want to get rid of the land they have inherited or will inherit. In that regard, he thinks more people should make the effort to apply. In addition, the ministry has not promoted the new scheme very much, so many people who could take advantage of it may not even know about it. But that aspect could also be hiding a less convenient truth, which is that the central government is not really enthusiastic about acquiring land it cannot use easily. He has the feeling that once the number of approvals reaches a certain level, the ministry may tack on new conditions that will make it more difficult for approval. Also, it costs money: ¥14,000 for the application itself and then, once the application is approved and the government decides to acquire the land, a much larger fee to actually execute the transfer of title. He mentions that 212 applications were actually withdrawn during the screening process, which could indicate several things: the applicant found a buyer for the land, or the applicant realized how much it would cost them if the application was approved. But even factoring in these withdrawals, the approval rate is still quite good.

Arai recommends that anyone who wishes to take advantage of the system call the Ministry of Justice and explain their situation. The MOJ will tell them outright if their application even has a chance because they don’t want to waste time either. He says that the ministry received more than 10,000 inquiry calls as of April 2024, so since only 1,905 applications were made, it indicates many of the callers had already been discouraged from applying. That said, if the MOJ thinks you have a case for an application, the chances are good it will be successful. He also adds that the MOJ is “the strictest of all the government ministries,” so make sure the applications are properly filled out. Even an incorrectly written kanji might mean a rejection.

On a related note, an article that appeared in the Asahi Shimbun Dec. 29 reported on another scheme related to unwanted inherited properties. In this case, local governments investigate land and/or buildings whose owners cannot be located due to the fact that the title-holder has died and no heir has since come forward to reregister as the title-holder, which is required by law. In order to facilitate this new system, which would effectively transfer title of the property to someone other than the rightful heir, the civil code had to be amended.

Since the system was implemented a year-and-a-half ago, 1,049 cases of land, 164 cases of buildings, and 186 cases of land with buildings that have no known owner have been referred to various district courts, which decide whether to assign a “manager,” usually a lawyer or a notary public, to the designated properties.

The main criteria for deciding on whether to transfer title is the condition of the property and how pressing is the need for management of it. If an owner cannot be located through normal public channels, such as land registration records, and the abandoned property has the potential to “do harm” either physically or financially, or a third party has shown an interest in the property, the court is given the power to transfer the title. 

This is a big deal because private property is sacrosanct in Japan, and under conventional laws and regulations almost nothing can be done to circumvent ownership, even if the title-holder is unknown. As the Asahi points out, the new system is a reinterpretation of an older scheme called the “management system for assets of unknown ownership,” though, in fact, the name of the owner is known to the authorities but the person cannot be located. In such a situation, a family court appoints a manager who takes care of the property “on behalf of the owner.” Under such circumstances, the court could approve sale of the property, but it takes a great deal of time and effort to look into all of the assets of the title-holder. Under the new system, all the owner’s assets don’t need to be checked, only the property or properties in question. 

Third parties who indicate interest in the abandoned properties under the new system tend to be local governments who have some use for the land or buildings, or neighboring landowners who might want to expand their holdings or who wish to remove a structure they consider “harmful.”

In a 2019 survey, the land ministry found that 60 percent of local governments received complaints of abandoned properties during the previous three years. Most complaints stated that the properties were overgrown, infested with pests, or had become the site of illegal waste dumping. Legally, these local authorities cannot do anything if the property is private and the owner cannot be located, because there is no one to cite. The new system was devised to remedy this situation. 

As with the government acquisition system mentioned above, the new unknown manager land transfer system has yet to hit anything approaching its stride. Since its implementation, courts have concluded only 6 land-related cases, 6 building-related cases, and 7 land-with-building cases. Nevertheless, one professor of civil law told the newspaper that these numbers show that the system is useful, mainly because it is local governments themselves who seem to be taking advantage of it in order to “recreate their communities.”