A number of issues get all rolled together and it is political (political as in politics is what happens when 3 or more people share a common objective).
One issue is ownership of the land and a choice gets made from essentially 3 possibilities (A) each participant buys part of the community land area and the parcel is surveyed, and land title held by each of the participating individuals (B) central purchase of a parcel, and sell of portions of the parcel to individuals (C) corporate ownership of the parcel.
(A) requires that each participant have sufficient capital at the same time to purchase , a method of allocating lots in the larger parcel to individuals [in any given tract of land, some places are more desirable than others], and a seller who will sell the exact amount of acreage needed. The community can only grow if adjacent land is available, or existing community members subdivide their allocations. Any individual can sell owned land at any time to anyone else - just like any area now - only the initial buy creates the community.
(B) requires additional capital to set up the "land bank" for future sale of land as the community grows, or individuals want to buy more land. If you had access to that additional capital for the land bank, you are already a developer and you control the community by your willingness to sell.
(C) Allows for capital to be leveraged by forming an entity thet make the purchase and allow for economy of scale. Critical issue here is protecting the rights of the individuals, in this case by owning stock in the entity that owns the land and is liable for the taxes and again leverages capital for common infrastructure. This structure can allow for subsequent growth by additional share sales to pay off the loan on the land, pay taxes, and provide capital for expansion. A less well managed version (Granny Warriors) has individuals renting land they do not own in a community in which the renter has no influence in governance (like being a renter in a condo run by a condo association).
After SHTF, stuff like taxing entities and government regulation play a minor if any role at all in the way the community runs, but until SHTF, there will be taxes to pay, and the possibility of some regulatory environment on things like water, electrical, and construction - thus location chosen plays a role in community development. Some states are more free than others at the stae and county regulatory level. I covered Texas in the other thread in more detail, but summary is that Texas runs its own electric grid, so lower probability of something happening elsewhere cutting electric until self sufficient, has very low land tax on "agricultural use" land - parcels owned by individuals that don't keep the agricultural tax rate are taxed at market use value, which will be much more that the usual $5 per acre per year for agricultural (There is a better change of keeping a large corporate owned parcel agricultural use even with a bunch of structures on it (being "hunting lodges") than a number of 1 to 5 acre parcels each individually owned with a house. As sufficient capital is raised to pay off the land loan, the corporation could trade stock for land for those who want individual ownership.
In model (C) the corporate charter and bylaws are key to the protection of individual rights. Shareholders have the right to use the corporate land, and for every X number of shares owned, may have exclusive use of an amount of corporately owned land. For those who want to sell out, the corporation has right of first refusal on share sales, and existing shareholders have the next option. The intention is to keep the community able to prevent "hostile takeover" by persons unknown to existing community members.
There are some other considerations - creating a town with a charter would be a defensive measure to prevent annexation or fight off water and electric districts from incorporating the community as a service area.