Great question!
Unless one owned the freehold, then most people didn’t own the land that their buildings were on top of. Instead, what tended to happen was that people would take out very long leases on property. For example, even when Thomas Cromwell hit the big time, becoming Master of the Jewels and Clerk of the Hanaper in 1532, in order to expand his main London residence, he had to take out a ninety-nine year lease from the Augustinian Friars who had been his landlords for several decades. Moreover, there could be very complex chains of sub-tenancies, where people would take out a lease from the freeholder and then rent out properties to people who might then rent out spare rooms, etc.
To answer your question about taxes, if someone was living in a city in the legal sense, i.e a geographic corporation that held a municipal charter, then they were usually not controlled by a lord and would owe taxes only to the monarch, although often the “borough rights” that came with a municipal charter often involved freedom from some forms of taxes and feudal incidences.
Worth noting: despite not “owning” the land in the sense that those of us in the modern west would recognize, people in cities were incredibly protective of their use-rights to said land.
When London burned down in 1666, almost before the ashes were cool people were moving back into the city and marking “their” plots of land off with rope and whatever other instruments of demarcation they could find. They fought back hard against attempts to dispossess or re-locate them; they didn’t OWN the land but they still conceived of it as theirs, and demanded their rights to it.
Yes, although to be precise, they still owned the leases to the burned-down buildings, which proved to be a tricky legal obstacle for Charles II and his buddies.
RFTIT Tumblr Backup 