According to the Strip and Gore doctrine, what occurs when a strip of land ceases to be useful?

In the context of the Strip and Gore doctrine, when a strip of land ceases to be useful, the principle establishes that the strip can no longer be assumed to be retained by the grantee. This concept reflects a legal determination regarding the ownership and utility of land that is no longer viable for its intended purpose. The Strip and Gore doctrine is rooted in the notion that if a portion of land (the strip) becomes uneconomical or impractical for use, it may be viewed as not fulfilling its intended function as part of the larger parcel owned by the grantee.

As a result, the ownership interest in that strip may no longer be affirmatively retained, which leads to the conclusion that it may not continue to be part of the grantee's estate. This could open the possibilities for the land to revert to its original grantor or be treated differently under property laws. Nevertheless, this does not imply automatic return or loss of rights to the main property, which distinguishes this option from potential misconceptions surrounding property rights under the Strip and Gore doctrine.