I'm not sure I follow the question but generally, in real estate law, any structure which is built on a piece of property becomes part of the property.
Thus the issue becomes should a governmental agency have allowed such a structure to be built on public lands and there was a recent Supreme Court ruling on such a case.
http://wwrn.org/articles/37551/
BTW, this fucking thing is ugly as hell.
![[Image: 220px-Mount_Soledad_Cross_WF.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=upload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F8%2F84%2FMount_Soledad_Cross_WF.jpg%2F220px-Mount_Soledad_Cross_WF.jpg)
It should be torn down as a eyesore.
Thus the issue becomes should a governmental agency have allowed such a structure to be built on public lands and there was a recent Supreme Court ruling on such a case.
http://wwrn.org/articles/37551/
Quote:Washington, USA - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling that a large Christian cross as part of a war memorial in California violated the constitutional ban on government endorsement of religion.
The justices rejected an appeal by the Obama administration and by an association that erected the cross arguing the government should not be forced to take down the memorial cross that stood atop Mount Soledad in San Diego since 1954 to honor veterans.
BTW, this fucking thing is ugly as hell.
It should be torn down as a eyesore.
