01
Status drifts
Parcel status, owner contacts, offers, and next actions sit in four systems that disagree. The weekly report is stale before it is sent.
Right-of-way acquisition software
Miss one statutory deadline and the parcel starts over.
LandGrantIQ is right-of-way acquisition software that tracks every parcel, offer, notice, and approval against the statute itself, with the citation attached. Built for utilities, pipeline operators, and transmission developers acquiring right-of-way in Texas and Indiana.
- Texas & Indiana rule packs, citation-linked
- Every derived date shows its statute
- Counsel approval gates
- Tamper-evident audit history
Illustrative pilot workspace
West Segment · Project control
432
Parcels
17
Due in 14 days
6
Counsel reviews
98%
Binder ready
Route exception view
Prioritized by next action
Offer ready · 81Negotiating · 44Exceptions · 9
Counsel gate
6 pendingTX-1842
Initial offer
Due today
TX-1907
Final notice
Source checked
TX-2014
Filing packet
Binder 100%
Illustrative interface. Values shown are not customer results.
Who uses it
- Utilities & transmission
- Pipeline & midstream
- Water districts & municipal utilities
- Condemnation counsel
The problem
The deadline is in a statute. The tracking is in a spreadsheet.
In Texas, a final offer cannot come until the 30th day after the written initial offer. It has to meet or beat the written appraisal. The owner gets at least 14 days to respond. Get any of that wrong and a court can abate your case, order you to redo the offer, and make you pay the landowner’s attorney’s fees. That is not a hypothetical. It is Tex. Prop. Code § 21.047(d), and the word the statute uses is “shall.”
Now run that across 400 parcels, six agents, two engineering firms, and outside counsel who sees the file three weeks late.
02
Rules become tribal knowledge
One agent knows the Texas offer sequence cold. They are the bottleneck, and when they are out the clock keeps running.
03
The record is rebuilt too late
Documentation assembled after the fact, for litigation, costs a fortune and has holes in it. The holes are always in the parts you needed.
What it does
One system from route plan to closing file.
Most right-of-way software knows where the parcel is and what stage it is in. None of it knows that a Texas final offer cannot come until the 30th day after the written initial offer, or that the objection deadline runs from the day the commissioners file rather than the day the clerk gives notice. That is the part we built.
Portfolio control
01See what is moving, what is blocked, and what needs attention.
Projects, tracts, owners, negotiations, budgets, deadlines, and risk live in one operating view, from the route level down to the parcel record.
- Project and parcel status
- Route and map context
- Negotiation and budget visibility
Rules into work
02Turn jurisdiction requirements into accountable next steps.
Enter the date you made the initial offer. LandGrantIQ works out the earliest lawful final-offer date, the owner's response window, and every downstream date the statute controls. Each one shows its citation and the rule-pack version it came from.
- Statutory deadline engine
- Citation and rule-version traceability
- Texas and Indiana rule packs
Controlled handoffs
03Keep delivery teams moving while counsel stays in control.
Role-scoped work queues and approval gates connect agents, project leaders, landowners, and counsel without blurring who may review or authorize legal work.
- Counsel approval gates
- Landowner intake and e-sign
- Role-based access
Evidence by default
04Build the defensible record while the work happens.
Documents, actions, approvals, and rule context attach to the parcel while the work happens. Every entry writes to a tamper-evident audit history, a sequential record where any alteration to a past entry shows up on verification. When you need the closing binder or the litigation file, it is already there.
- Managed document templates
- Tamper-evident audit history
- Binder completeness tracking
Enterprise control
The questions your IT and legal teams will ask.
A serious pilot has to satisfy operations, legal, IT, and procurement. The experience makes authority, sources, access, and evidence visible instead of asking buyers to trust a black box.
Counsel remains the decision-maker
AI and workflow automation prepare work. Offers, notices, and filings remain subject to attorney review and approval.
Every requirement keeps its source
Derived deadlines and recommendations retain statutory citations and the rule-pack version used at the time.
Access follows the work
Every user has a role that determines what they can see and do, and data is scoped to the organization that owns it. We are completing an audit of role enforcement across all application routes ahead of general availability, and will publish the results.
The audit trail is designed to be checked
Actions and approvals create a tamper-evident history that can be verified and carried into the parcel binder.
Built around the program
One project record. Different responsibilities.
The platform connects organizations without pretending every participant should see, decide, or approve the same things.
Utilities & transmission
Electric utilities and transmission developers running high-volume, schedule-sensitive route acquisition where a delayed docket costs more than the land.
Know which parcels are close to falling out of their statutory window.
Engineering & ROW services firms
You already have a system for tracking parcels. We are the layer that proves the statute was followed on top of it.
Give your client a record that survives scrutiny.
Water districts & municipal utilities
Water and wastewater utilities extending mains and transmission lines, where the notice requirements are changing and the schedule is not.
Track the notice clock as a gate on everything downstream.
Condemnation counsel
In-house and outside counsel who know the law and need to prove, parcel by parcel, that the sequence was followed.
Review decisions with the statute, the version, and the evidence attached.
Measured pilot
Prove the operating model on a real project.
Start with defined scope, governance, and a baseline. Finish with evidence and a decision, not a vague promise to “drive adoption.”
- Written baseline, agreed before we start
- We document how your comparable projects perform today, in writing, signed by both sides. Nobody moves the denominator later.
- Traceable every date we derive
- Each derived deadline shows the statute it came from and the rule-pack version in force when it was computed, so you can check our work rather than take our word for it.
- Your counsel grades the result
- At the end we produce complete files for a sample of parcels and your attorneys tell us whether they are usable. Their answer is the metric.
These are commitments we make at the start of a pilot, not results already achieved. Pilot partners are named only with permission.
- 1
Scope the project
Choose a live 200–500 parcel project, the states in scope, the participating teams, and the baseline we will measure against.
- 2
Configure the controls
Map roles, approval gates, rule packs, templates, and reporting expectations before project work moves into the platform.
- 3
Run with governance
Use recurring operating reviews to resolve exceptions, monitor adoption, and keep the pilot inside its agreed legal and data boundaries.
- 4
Read out the value
Review the agreed targets, workflow evidence, implementation lessons, and a clear expand, adjust, or stop decision.
Jurisdiction coverage
Two states, encoded properly.
Every requirement carries its statutory citation and every pack is versioned, so you can prove which version a parcel was worked under. When a state is not covered, the platform says so and stops. Two states we can defend beats fifty we would have to caveat.
TX rule pack
Texas
Texas runs a precise sequence: Landowner's Bill of Rights, written initial offer, a 30-day wait, a written appraisal, a final offer that meets or beats it, and at least 14 days for the owner to respond. Chapter 21 also uses four different time units in one procedure: business days, calendar days, working days, and plain days. A tracker that counts them the same way will be wrong on some of them.
Review coverage and citations →IN rule pack
Indiana
Indiana runs on a prescribed form and a hard waiting period. The offer must be in the form set out at IC 32-24-1-5(c), served personally or by certified mail, at least 30 days before a complaint is filed. Indiana does not strictly require a pre-offer appraisal: IC 32-24-1-3(c)(2) allows an appraisal or other evidence used to establish the proposed purchase price.
Review coverage and citations →Evaluation questions
What buying teams ask before a pilot.
Bring the hard questions to the first working session. We would rather define the boundary than hide it behind a demo.
Which states does LandGrantIQ support?
Texas and Indiana. Each state ships as a versioned rule pack with statutory citations so every requirement stays traceable. When a parcel falls in a state we have not encoded, the platform says it does not have the rules and refuses to derive a date. A generic deadline you cannot trace is worse than none, because it looks authoritative and is not.
Does LandGrantIQ replace our attorneys or make legal decisions?
No. LandGrantIQ is built around counsel-in-the-loop review. AI and workflow automation prepare and organize the work; attorneys review and approve offers, notices, and filings before they go out.
What does implementation require from our team?
Budget about 20 hours from one project lead across the first four weeks, plus a data export from whatever you run today. That covers a half-day scoping session to define the project, users, roles, approval gates and templates, a review of the configuration we build from it, and the working sessions where your team starts using it on live parcels. Counsel needs about two of those hours, to set the approval gates. We have not run enough pilots to publish an average, so treat that as the number we plan around and hold ourselves to rather than a measurement. If it runs over, it goes in the readout with everything else.
How is project data handled?
Project data is covered by the platform's security and data-processing terms. Every user has a role that determines what they can see and do, data is scoped to the organization that owns it, and actions against a parcel are recorded in its audit history. The security page states plainly where enforcement work is still outstanding; it and the DPA are linked below.
What does a pilot look like?
Pilots are scoped around a live project, typically 200–500 parcels, and run for roughly three months. The teams agree the workflow, governance, baseline, and success targets before work begins, then finish with an executive readout and an explicit expand, adjust, or stop decision.
How is it priced?
A three-month pilot on a live project runs $35,000 to $75,000. What moves it inside that band: parcel count, whether one state is in scope or both, how many outside organisations need access, and whether historical records get migrated or you start from the current state of the route. Above roughly 500 parcels, or both states at once, expect the top of it. We publish the range because your champion needs a budget number before they can justify a demo, and every other vendor in this category makes them book a call to get one.
Who writes and reviews the rule packs?
Each pack is written against the primary statutory sources and reviewed by a named maintainer before release. Every pack carries a version, and every requirement links to the statute it came from, so you can check our work rather than take our word for it. When we find an error we correct the pack, publish what changed, and say which version a parcel was worked under.
Start with the project
Bring us the route.
Tell us the project, the states, and the constraint you are actually up against. The first conversation is about fit, including whether there is any. We would both rather find that out in thirty minutes than three months.