Making space into property is no small feat. It requires claimants to determine boundaries of the area they intend to control, marking it as territory, and finally excluding others from that domain. The clearest expression of such possession is architecture. On the site of a given property—a lot, an estate, or a colony—a building signifies not just dominion, but also consensus among the society of the prospective builders that they are entitled to do with that territory what they would like. Architecture at once transforms a now-delineated, quantified space into an object of possession, and brings that space into being as a discrete parcel of land that can be possessed at all. What are the specific mechanisms, though, by which architectural design and construction contribute to processes of asserting ownership over space outside of its exterior walls? How have architects historically enabled regimes of enclosure and land expropriation? What are the aesthetics, external and internal, of projecting property claims beyond the bounded space of a given building? This course studies the techniques that architects, surveyors, colonial administrators, and others involved in building have used to express landholding. Historically, this has often meant exporting recognizable forms of hegemonic powers where that architecture has not predominated, as in European colonial construction, or U.S. incursions into places inhabited by Indigenous groups. Transposing the architecture of one place onto another has facilitated imposition of social and legal systems, such as enslavement. In other situations, it has manifested in defensible barriers around plots of land, as in fences or hedgerows. Less tangible modes of demarcating spaces, like financial instruments proffered along racial lines, have also had aesthetic effects on built environments. Sources ranging from classic readings on property to recent architectural theory and from formative buildings of colonialism to contemporary sites of contestation will illuminate how architecture renders abstract spaces into commodified territory. Such cases will provide the backdrop for envisioning alternative models of possession and inhabitation.