solutions to address survey discrepancies in a broad area...

©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia

Solutions to Address Survey Discrepancies in a Broad Area

Replotting Scheme vs Special Survey

Jeff Beddoes, BCLS, CLS

Senior Deputy Surveyor General

June 2015

Survey Mysteries

• Replotting Scheme vs Special Survey

• The Case of the Missing Laneway

• Interpretation of Historic Survey Plans

Jeff Beddoes, Deputy Surveyor General, LTSA

David Block, Director of Development Services,

City of Terrace

©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia

Solutions to Address Survey Discrepancies in a Broad Area

Replotting Scheme vs Special Survey

Jeff Beddoes, BCLS, CLS

Senior Deputy Surveyor General

June 2015

©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 4

The Situation in Delta

Boundary based on historical fences

Boundary according to Mr. Barnard

• In 1989 and 1990, Mr. Barnard surveyed certain lots in Block C, DL 30, G2, NWD, Plan 712. He resolved property boundaries based on a mathematical solution which showed that in his opinion the existing rear fences, which at the time were all aligned, were not on the rear property boundaries. The difference was approximately 12’.

• Following Mr. Barnard’s surveys, some of the 28 property owners within Block C moved their rear fences and others did not. The owners of Lots 4 and 25 disagreed as to the true location of the property boundary and took their dispute to court.

©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia

Philips v. Keefe

5

• Phillips v. Keefe Supreme Court of British Columbia Judgement of December 14, 2010 declared the location of the rear boundary of Lots 4 and 25 within Block C, Plan 712 to be the location of the historical fence and not the location surveyed by Mr. Barnard.

• This Judgement declared the location of the rear boundary of these two parcels, but it did not address the issues with the underlying plans nor did it resolve the locations of the front boundaries of the parcels. Although the courts only declared the location of the rear property line, it is apparent that there is also a 12’ shift relating to the true location of the front property lines and the boundaries shown on registered plans.

• Prior to Mr. Barnard’s initial surveys in 1989 there are plans of parts of Block C registered in the Land Title Office which contain errors. Mr. Barnard then filed several plans, including a subdivision plan and several posting plans, which further propagated these errors.

• Some property owners have constructed improvements based on Mr. Barnard’s plans.

• No survey plans have been registered in the Land Title Office since the Judgement in 2010.

©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia

The Problem

6

• When survey discrepancies cause uncertainty throughout a broad area, such as the entire block of a subdivision, it can be difficult to find a practical solution to resolve the ambiguities.

• The problem: Without a practical solution the situation can result in a stalemate in terms of remedies. This causes uncertainties which may affect the property owners, utility companies and the municipality or Province if roads are involved.

• This uncertainty can: Restrict the use and marketability of real property assets for the owners, Result in expensive court proceedings, and Impact liability and management of road and rights/locations for utilities.

• Procedures for resolving boundary disputes: Unlike some other jurisdictions, BC does not have a boundary tribunal for settlement of

private survey uncertainty. Typically, private boundary uncertainty is resolved through legislated procedures set out in

the Land Title Act. We will discuss three alternatives:- Individual Surveys- Special Survey- Replotting Scheme

©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia

Resolving the Discrepancies

7

• What a resolution intends to accomplish:

A plan (or plans) deposited in the Land Title Register which fully addresses the discrepancies.

Certainty for land owners as to where there property boundaries are.

©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia

Proposed Options for Resolution

8

• Individual Surveys

LTO will require consent (signatures) of adjacent affected property owners.

Would result in multiple plans, possibly involving different land surveyors.

Some property owners may not be able to obtain consent of neighbours, resulting in the inability to rectify their problem without involving the courts.

Majority of survey costs borne by the first property owners to undertake surveys. Overall cost of individual surveys would be higher than one single survey of the entire affected area.

©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia

Proposed Options for Resolution

9

• Special Survey (Land Title Act – Part 23)

The decision to order a special survey is by the Minister

The technical aspect would be managed by the Surveyor General

The Land Title Act requires the special survey to be paid for by the municipality. The municipality would then charge the costs to the property owners.

The surveyor must re-establish as nearly as possible the existing survey although the surveyor may depart from existing boundaries in order to establish boundaries in agreement with occupation and improvements. (s.335 Land Title Act)

Survey could not take into consideration the location of municipal improvements, private improvements or agreements made between neighbours. The municipality may have to resort to expropriation to ensure municipal improvements are not contained within private properties.

©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia

Proposed Options for Resolution

10

• Replotting Scheme (Local Government Act - Part 28)

Managed by municipality. Costs are charged to property owners against the tax roll.

The municipality may be the common affected property owner to all parties due to their ownership of roads.

The municipality can proceed with a replotting scheme if property owners of at least 70% of the total assessed value of the affected lands have consented to the scheme.

All property boundaries of the affected area can be resolved on 1 plan.

The 1st priority in a replotting scheme is to ensure that adequate lands are allocated for highways and 2nd to divide the remaining land for allotment to the owners in a fair and equitable manner so that as far as possible the value of the new parcels is equal to the value of the former parcels.

The municipality can ensure the road boundaries are located such that their municipal improvements are contained.

©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia

Conclusion

11

• Summary for consideration:

The private property owners deserve a resolution when the use and marketability of their real property assets is restricted, and

When uncertainty exists to the property lines between the private lands and roads (and hence the location of utilities) the municipality has a stake in the outcome.

BC does not have a boundary tribunal for settlement of private survey uncertainty.

Three alternatives exist:

- Individual Surveys

- Special Survey

- Replotting Scheme

©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia

The Case of the Missing Laneways

Jeff Beddoes, BCLS, CLS

Senior Deputy Surveyor General

June 2015

©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia

Situation in Windermere (East Kootenay)

13

One of these things is not like the other…

Original Survey Subsequent Survey

©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia

The Situation

14

Original survey showed a 20’ lane in block 17 and 18, and a full 66’ width for Galena Road

On the ground, there was a shortage in these blocks

A subsequent survey from 1965 attempted to “solve” the problem by:

- reducing the width of Galena Road

- eliminating the laneways from block 17 and 18

- Shortening half of the each block by 5 feet

But the plan didn’t have proper effect to alter the titles of these properties

©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia

The Outcome

15

Potential purchasers and even some owners are unaware of an issue-no notice on title. Uncertainty is abundant.

Setbacks and lot coverage affected, hold ups with building permits because of uncertainty in preparing site plans.

Surveys continued in the area, relying on the 1965 resolution contributing to additional confusion.

Potential solutions are the same as the Delta example:

- Individual Surveys

- Special Survey

- Replotting Scheme

But nothing has moved forward at this time…

“Into the Twilight Zone: Subdivision

and the Interpretation of Historic

Survey Plans”

INTERPRETATION of HISTORIC SURVEY PLANS

David Block, RPP, MCIP

Director of Development

Services/AO

City of Terrace

Terrace: Rivers and Natural Boundaries

Infill Subdivision proposal of Lot 5, Plan 1075 with southern boundary on back channel of Skeena River

BCLS Plan of Subdivision as approved by AO showing Remainder Lot 5 with natural boundary as per Plan 1075 on Skeena River Slough

BCLS Plan of Subdivision as revised at direction of Deputy Registrar following interpretation of historic survey plans.

South boundary determined to be straight line as shown on Plan 1075 rather than natural boundary.

Plan significantly revised and registered without referral to AO for review.

Historic Plan 970 for original Block survey of Terrace circa 1911-12.

Shows southern boundaries of Blocks as natural slough with “Traverse Line” established by Surveyor and offset property pins.

Plan 1075 registered at Land Title Office in 1914. Bold outline appears in red and shows southern parcel boundary of Lot 5 at the natural boundary of slough on Skeena River. Surveyor’s “Traverse Line” is clearly visible.

City mapping department deemed as ‘returned to crown’ at time of registration. Also labelled as “Parcel that went into the Twilight Zone”.

Registered subdivision has created reduced parcel size for Remainder of Lot 5, Plan 1075.

Narrow irregular “parcel” along natural boundary is undefined and has no title or formal designation.

“Traverse Line” interpreted as southern lot boundary.