Removal of Limitations as to Parcels

[Ian Gillespie]

It occurred to me that there doesn't appear to be any legislative requirement for removal of limitations.



Land under the Unit Titles act needs limitations removed and it once was considered not possible to re-define the boundaries of limited parcels (but is allowed under the current rules)



But there doesn't appear to be a requirement under the LT Act to remove limitations.

The SG guidelines only address removal of limitations - not when this is required.



The Rules for Cadastral Survey specify when a point must be ground marked and how it must be defined but it seems to me that a boundary point may be defined by survey or not regardless of weather it is limited and if limitations are not being removed then rule 6.2(a)(viii) isn't applicable.



Does it just come down to weather or not the surveyor and the land owner think removal of limitations is a good idea?



Or is it a matter for consideration under what is good practice?



Or is there something I have missed. Any advice would be appreciated.
 

[Pat Sole]

It appears to be controlled by "Class of Survey" in the Rules. Rule 3.2.3 means any parcel under 20ha would need to have limitations uplifted, unless dispensation is provided by the S-G.

[Ian Gillespie]

Yes I agree that you need dispensation for some land to be shown as class C or D if it is under 20ha. But not if you propose to use class B accuracy and even Class A as long as you abide by the other requirements.
But where does it say if the land you are surveying is under 20ha (for example) and using class B or Class A accuracy that you must also remove limitations. - Its not classified as a conflict after all.

[Pat Sole]

But, in using Class A or B you would presumably be changing the existing documentary title boundary dimensions (if they existed), so I believe you would be required to uplift as these would also impact adjoining properties?

[Ian Gillespie]

Not necessarily, It may be possible to adopt the boundaries and still comply with the accuracy and defined by survey requirements. And then show "limited as to parcels" on the face of the survey plan.

What I mean to say is that the rules allow us to leave land as limited and this is mentioned in 3.3 and 6.3. They also require points to be defined by survey if limitations are to be removed (6.2viii) which sort of implies that they don't have to be uplifted.

It's always been expected that in the past that limitations will be uplifted except in exceptional circumstances but now with the rules being very precise and prescriptive it just appears to me that there is no actual requirement to uplift limitations.

[Pat Sole]

I agree that the current directives being given by LINZ in determining boundaries for uplifting limitations, are very precise and prescriptive. It is therefore unsurprising that surveyors would try other alternatives which best suit their clients needs. However, my concern would be for the cadastre when alternatives are employed eg It is now possible to redefine parcels which have changed shape as a result of land movement, or even Ltd titles. Should we really be encouraging this?

[Ian Gillespie]

I watched the webinar on the 2021 Survey Rules yesterday.
One thing that concerned me was that I believe I heard it said that the alternative process for removing limitations using adopted boundaries, ties to occupation, and the neighbours consent was to be discontinued. I don't think this is a good idea. I also don't think it was made clear during the consultation process.