Sort of. In a lot of areas, the cost of the house has skyrocketed in the last few decades. One factor is that you can’t buy an empty lot and then build a 20 year old $250k house on it in most markets. If you want to build a house, that house will be new (obviously — relocating an old house is a real pain), and the costs of construction are silly. This effect inflates the value of old houses in a lot of markets.

Of course, in markets that don’t have plenty of inventory of both empty lots and lots with old houses, it can be hard to value the house by itself.

It's not even really the land, it's the cuts + certificate of occupancy which have both been made artificially harder to get for a number of reasons.

While I agree with your point about land, Im not so sure it is true about the house, given changing costs of labor, code compliance, and materials.

Is there really a meaningful difference when you’re not able to buy one without buying the other?