defined by reference to the deed used to convey the land to the owner. Thus, if a given area of land is used to facilitate the commission of a drug crime, forfeiture should be granted as to all of the land included in the deed conveying that area of land. Howerin contends that “property” should be defined by reference to descriptions in local land records. Thus, if a given area of land is used to facilitate the commission of a drug crime, forfeiture should be granted as to all of the land included in the descriptive unit (for example, a lot in a subdivision) containing that area of land. Each side has cases from other circuits that support its position. The Government’s position is supported by the Fourth and Eighth Circuits. See United States v. Bieri, 21 F.3d 819, 824 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Reynolds, 856 F.2d 675, 677
holding that a cause of action for damages to property resulting from a permanent nuisance accrues to the owner of the land at the time the injury begins to affect the land and mere transfer of the land by deed does not transfer the claim for damages holding that for purposes of initial seizure warrant in forfeiture action the government may seize land according to the description contained in the deed holding where exempt organization was in possession of real property under land contract obligating organization to pay the purchase price and use land for exempt purpose the association was the owner of the land within the meaning of the statute holding that the deed and not the historical description of the land determines what land constitutes the forfeitable property holding that land sales contracts were not securities because they involved no investment in an enterprise even if land was bought on expectation that development of the area would increase the value of the land