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
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
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
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
4
Philips v. Keefe
•
Phillips v. Keefe Supreme Court of British Columbia Judgement of December 14, 2010 declared
•
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.
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.
©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia
5
The Problem
•
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
6
Resolving the Discrepancies
• 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
7
Proposed Options for Resolution
• 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
8
Proposed Options for Resolution
•
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
9
Proposed Options for Resolution
•
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
10
Conclusion
• 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
11
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
Situation in Windermere (East Kootenay)
One of these things is not like the other…
Original Survey
©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia
Subsequent Survey
13
The Situation
 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
14
The Outcome
 Potential purchasers and even some owners are unaware of an issueno 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…
©2014 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia
15
INTERPRETATION of HISTORIC SURVEY PLANS
“Into the Twilight Zone: Subdivision
and the 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.
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.
City mapping department deemed as ‘returned to crown’ at time of
registration. Also labelled as “Parcel that went into the Twilight Zone”.