I've seen this sort of misunderstanding before, so I'm trying to think of the best way to explain the issue. Native Americans did not have the same land use laws as Europeans. That does not mean they had none. The most obvious difference is that Native American land ownership was collective, or 'corporate', rather than individual as in European culture.

Of course it is difficult to generalise, partly because Native American cultures were so diverse, and partly because Europeans have misunderstood these traits to make philosophical arguments. For example, collective land ownership can be construed either as the founding principle of a utopia, or the source of apathy and laziness, depending on the political beliefs of the observer. Of course, such views completely misunderstand how these systems really work. Let me provide you with an example.

In Central Mexico, most Nahua (Aztec) communities held land collectively. However, the community government, known as calpulli, divided up land parcelled it out to families. Those families were allowed to work the land, profit by selling crops, and even renting it out. Furthermore, they could pass it on to decadents. However, the calpulli did not relinquish overall authority. Citizens had to obey community laws, and could have their land confiscated if they abused it. Land could only be rented or exchanged between community members, and land was, barring exceptional circumstances, inalienable from the calpulli.

Although my expertise is in Mesoamerican history, I know that a few other groups had similar laws (though they may have differed in the details). I think Haudenosaunee (Iroqious), Cherokee, and Inca people had similar laws.