With the ongoing implementation of China’s rural revitalization strategy, rural land institutions have undergone significant structural transformations—from collective ownership to household contract responsibility systems. These changes, while promoting economic modernization, have also triggered profound conflicts between land tenure reforms and the protection of traditional villages. This study investigates the underlying causes, manifestations, and coordination mechanisms of conflicts between rural land tenure arrangements and traditional village preservation, with the aim of contributing to both theoretical exploration and policy innovation.The paper begins by outlining the historical evolution and current characteristics of China’s rural land tenure system. It emphasizes the legal and institutional roots of “ownership-use separation,” whereby village collectives retain ownership of rural land while individual farmers hold use rights. This dual-rights system, while beneficial for agricultural production, introduces complications in cases where land is earmarked for development or circulation. Problems such as blurred ownership, ambiguous boundaries between rights holders, and inconsistencies in regulatory implementation frequently emerge—issues that are particularly acute in traditional village contexts where land carries both economic and cultural values. Through a systematic review of land tenure conflicts, the study identifies key tension points, including: 1) the ambiguous delineation of rights in the land certification process; 2) deficiencies in land circulation agreements, especially the absence of clauses protecting cultural heritage; 3) weak enforcement capacity at the grassroots level. Case studies—such as those from Fujian’s Yongding Tulou, Anhui’s Yixian ancient dwellings, and Guangdong’s Yongshan Village—demonstrate how failures in land governance directly lead to the degradation or loss of historical structures, village spatial patterns, and intangible heritage assets. In Yongding, for example, market-oriented land circulation after incomplete certification led to inappropriate commercial conversions of protected Tulou buildings. In Yongshan Village, oversight focused only on iconic landmarks, neglecting the interconnectedness of surrounding earthen houses, which ultimately collapsed due to long-term neglect and unregulated demolition.In analyzing these conflicts, the study frames rural land as more than a production factor—it is a carrier of identity, history, and social cohesion. The failure to integrate land tenure policy with cultural preservation imperatives reflects deeper institutional misalignments between economic development goals and heritage conservation ethics. The study explores the institutional fragmentation across government departments—namely culture, natural resources, housing and urban-rural development—and highlights the urgent need for an interdepartmental coordination mechanism to prevent administrative gaps. To reconcile economic development with cultural preservation, the paper proposes a multi-tiered coordination mechanism. First, it suggests enhancing legal protection for cultural properties in land law by classifying heritage land under special-use zones with strict regulations on use changes and development intensity. Drawing on provincial precedents (e. g., Sichuan’s Traditional Village Protection Ordinance), it proposes introducing composite property rights that recognize both land use and heritage protectionrights. Second, the study recommends refining land circulation agreements by embedding enforceable clauses on building integrity, visual coherence, and construction limits within cultural zones. The paper also argues for the institutionalization of cultural oversight in land-use change approvals, supported by realtime digital platforms for monitoring building modifications and land-use conversions. At the governance level, the paper advocates for strengthening the enforcement capacity of grassroots insti慴瑵楴潩湯?s. It identifies personnel shortages, fiscal constraints, and a lack of professional training as the main barriers to effective heritage-land governance. Solutions include dedicated training programs for village-level cadres, earmarked financial transfers for cultural protection, and the formation of interdisciplinary heritage management teams embedded within rural governance structures. Moreover, the study proposes leveraging blockchain and big data to digitize land tenure and conservation records, thus improving transparency, traceability, and accountability in land-based decisionmaking. Beyond governance structures, the study emphasizes the centrality of local residents—especially farmers—as stewards of both land and culture. By establishing benefit-sharing mechanisms that allow villagers to participate in and profit from heritage protection, the study calls for the alignment of individual incentives with collective conservation goals. Models such as village-owned cooperatives, cultural tourism dividends, and performance-based subsidies are explored as potential instruments to motivate resident participation. Furthermore, the study highlights the role of public education in fostering cultural awareness and empowering communities to advocate for their own heritage. In conclusion, the paper argues that conflicts between rural land tenure and traditional village protection stem from institutional fragmentation, legal ambiguities, and incentive misalignments. Addressing these issues requires not only technical legal reforms, but also a systemic rethinking of governance, participation, and interdepartmental coordination. The proposed coordination mechanism —combining legal innovation, grassroots capacity-building, technological support, and participatory governance—offers a roadmap for harmonizing land use and cultural preservation in the era of rural revitalization. By advancing such integrative solutions, this research contributes to the broader discourse on China’s path toward culturally sustainable rural moderniz