Which statement about surface rights and sub-surface rights is true?

The statement that surface rights and sub-surface rights can be sold separately is accurate and reflects an important principle in real estate. Surface rights refer to the ownership of the land itself and everything on it, while sub-surface rights pertain to the ownership of resources located below the surface, such as minerals, oil, and gas.

This separation of rights is significant in many real estate transactions, allowing landowners to retain ownership of the land while selling or leasing the mineral rights to another party. This practice is quite common, especially in areas rich in natural resources. The ability to negotiate these rights separately can lead to different economic opportunities for the landowner and can influence land value and usage.

In contrast, the other statements suggest limitations or generalizations that aren't accurate. For instance, while it may be true that certain properties are valued differently depending on resources, it is not universally correct that sub-surface rights are inherently more valuable than surface rights. Additionally, the idea that they can only be sold together overlooks the flexible nature of property rights in real estate. Lastly, stating they are governed by the same regulations does not take into account that different laws and regulations may apply to surface and sub-surface rights, particularly concerning development and resource extraction.