Being Code-aware, I likely would from an installer perspective. From an owner perspective, I may not. On the latter, it would not be like I was trying to steal electricity for the second parcel, and to be otherwise Code compliant, the service would still have to support the load of both parcels.
There are two problems discussing premises as used in Code. First is the singular form of the word has an entirely different meaning. Only the plural form has any bearing on Code issues. Second, the plural sense of a singular-meaning plural word form is not spelled any differently.
Without a Code definition limiting the extent to one parcel, every use of premises can mean one or several parcels.
With the previous post being about art 547, that hits me where I do a lot of work.
There are many farms anymore with multiple buildings (I guess they have always had multiple buildings, but today there is a big difference in amount of load compared to just 30-40 years ago in some of those buildings) - some all fed from one "center yard pole", others may have the "old farm" on center yard pole but that new grain storage facility (on same parcel of land) is on a separate service, and likely different voltage/number of phases.
I have one customer that has three utility feeds to one area of his property that has buildings structures. One service feeds a shop building, one feeds his house and some of the still existing older structures, then there is a 480/277 three phase service supplying the grain bins in the same general area. But if you count all his property there other services feeding irrigation equipment though it is a few thousand feet away on same property.
Now the crop land is likely on separate legal deed for each "quarter section" but the house and other buildings are on one portion of one of those quarter sections. They can separate the improved portion and sell it separately, or even break it into separate sections should they want to sell the house but keep the bins to go with the farming operation, but now it is all under one owner, and distances between some items still makes sense to supply with multiple services if the utility will provide them.
I also have another customer with large swine operation. Two self contained complexes on one property, each fairly identical to the other. Each complex has what you may consider multiple buildings or structures for different portions of operations, but are all connected via enclosed passageways. So once you enter the "front door" you go to/through multiple buildings to get to the far building but never once do you go outdoors.
One utility service to each complex. 600 amp 208/120 to each, with POCO primary extending into property and then branching each way to feed separate padmount transformers near main mechanical room of each complex. Is all under one owner, employees do go back and forth between the two complexes, yet we could completely wipe one complex out and the other could easily continue operation. Should this per NEC have been supplied with only one service?