Yes. The category of algebraic spaces is the smallest subcategory of the category of sheaves of sets on Aff, the opposite of the category of rings, under the etale topology which (1) contains Aff, (2) is closed under formation of quotients by etale equivalence relations, and (3) is closed under disjoint unions (indexed by arbitrary sets). An abstract context for such things is written down in "Algebraization of complex analytic varieties and derived categories" by Toen and Vaquie, which is available on the archive. Toen also has notes from a "master course" on stacks on his web page with more information. It might be worth pointing out that their construction of this category also goes by a two-step procedure, although in their case it's a single construction performed iteratively (and which stabilizes after two steps). This is unlike the approach using scheme theory in the literal sense, as locally ringed topological spaces, where the two steps are completely different. After the first step in T-V, you get algebraic spaces with affine diagonal. Also worth pointing out is that their approach is completely sheaf theoretic. The only input you need is a category of local models, a Grothendieck topology, and a class of equivalence relations. You then get algebraic spaces from the triple (Aff, etale, etale). But the general machine (which incidentally I believe is not in its final form) has nothing to do with commutative rings. I think it would be interesting to plug opposites of other algebraic categories into it.
I will take the question at face value, but not in the sense of justifying the definition.
A topological space is a convenient way of encoding, or perhaps better, organising, certain types of information. (Vague but true! I will give some instances. the data is sometimes `spatial' but more often than not, is not.)
Perhaps we should not think of spaces as 'god given' merely 'convenient', and there are variants that are more appropriate in various contexts.
A related question, coming from an old Shape Theorist (myself) is : when someone starts a theorem with 'Given a space $X$...', how is the space 'given'? As an algebraic topologist I sometimes need to use CW-complexes, but face the inconvenience that if I could give the CW structure precisely I could probably write down an algebraic model for its homotopy type precisely, and vice versa, so a good model is exactly the same as the one I started with. I hoped for more insight into what the space 'was' from my modelling. Giving the space is the end of the process, not the beginning. Strange. A space is a pseudo-visual way of thinking about 'data', which encodes important features, or at leastsome features that we can analyse, partially.
If someone gives me a compact subspace of $\mathbb{R}^n$, perhaps using some equations and inequalities, can I work out algebraic invariants of its homotopy type, rather than just its weak homotopy type? The answer will usually be no. Yet important properties of $C^*$ algebras on such a space, can sometimes be related to algebraic topological invariants of the homotopy type.
Spaces can arise as ways of encoding actual data as in topological data analysis, where there is a 'cloud' of data points and the practitioner is supposed to say something about the underlying space from which the data comes. There are finitely many data points, but no open sets given, they are for the data analyst to 'divine'.
Not all spatial data is conveniently modelled by spaces as such and directed spaces of various types have been proposed as models for changing data. Models for space-time are like this, but also models for concurrent systems.
Looking at finite topological spaces is again useful for encoding finite data (and I have rarely seen infinite amounts of data). For instance, relations between finite sets of data can be and are modelled in this way. Finite spaces give all homotopy types realisable by finite simplicial complexes. Finite spaces can be given precisely (provided they are not too big!) How do invariants of finite spaces appear in their structure? (Note the problem of infinite intersections does not arise here!!!)
At the other extreme, do we need points? Are locales not cleaner beasties and they can arise in lots of algebraic situations, again encoding algebraic information. Is a locale a space?
I repeat topological spaces are convenient, and in the examples you cite from algebraic geometry they happen to fit for good algebraic reasons. In other contexts they don't. Any Grothendieck topos looks like sheaves on a space, but the space involved will not usually be at all `nice' in the algebraic topological sense, so we use the topos and pretend it is a space, more or less.
Best Answer
Yes, there are plenty of such things.
[In the following, "compact" implies "locally compact" implies "Hausdorff".]
1) To a Boolean algebra, one associates its Stone space, a compact totally disconnected space.
(Via the correspondence between Boolean algebras and Boolean rings, this is a special case of the Zariski topology -- but with a distinctive flavor -- that predates it.)
2) To a non-unital Boolean ring one associates its Stone space, a locally compact totally disconnected space.
3) To a commutative C*-algebra with unit, one associates its Gelfand spectrum, a compact space.
4) To a commutative C*-algebra without unit, one associates its Gelfand spectrum, a locally compact space.
6) To a commutative Banach ring [or a scheme over a non-Archimedean field, or...] one associates its Berkovich spectrum (the bounded multiplicative seminorms).
7) To a commutative ring R, one associates its real spectrum (prime ideals, plus orderings on the residue domain.)
8) To a field extension K/k, one associates its Zariski Riemann surface (equivalence classes of valuations on K which are trivial on k).
This is by no means a complete list...
Addendum: I hadn't addressed the second part of your question, i.e., explaining what these things are used for. Briefly, the analogy to the Zariski spectrum of a commutative ring is tight enough to give the correct impression of the usefulness of these other spectra/spaces: they are topological spaces associated (cofunctorially) to the algebraic (or algebraic-geometric, topological algebraic, etc.) objects in question. They carry enough information to be useful in the study of the algebraic objects themselves (sometimes, e.g. in the case of Stone and Gelfand spaces, they give complete information, i.e., an anti-equivalence of categories, but not always). In some further cases, one can get the anti-equivalence by adding further structure in a very familiar way: one can attach structure sheaves to these guys and thus get a class of "model spaces" for a certain species of locally ringed spaces -- e.g., Berkovich spectra glue together to give Berkovich analytic spaces.