Christchurch's Legal Boundaries in Chaos

[Alex Liggett]

The following is a Press Release from A.J. Cowie. For those of you unfamiliar with A.J.'s work he has been a champion for those who have been disadvantaged by EQC and other insurer's substandard measurement regimes. For his work in promoting the surveying profession he was awarded the NZIS Canterbury Branch's Canterbury Peg award for Professional Excellence. He is also a member of ICS.

Christchurch’s Legal Boundaries in Chaos
Adrian Cowie, Registered Professional Surveyor, Topografo Ltd
Monday 8 December 2014
It appears that speed, rather than accuracy is becoming the new norm in defining legal boundaries in Christchurch. Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) appear to be approving surveys that are clearly placing property boundaries in their incorrect location. The Landonline system managed by LINZ may not be providingthe tight management of survey standards that it claims to provide.

Many areas of Christchurch have been affected by shallow ground movement, where buildings, fences, and land have moved horizontally due to lateral spreading and lateral stretching. In many of these areas where the land, fences, and buildings have moved, the legal boundary probably remains where it was before the earthquakes. That is, the legal boundary does not necessarily move during sudden land movements such as landslides and earthquakes.

Licensed Cadastral Surveyors who are surveying boundaries for rebuilds of new homes are increasingly placing the new boundary marks in the incorrect location. In one recent case, Land Information New Zealand has approved a survey where the surveyor has not apparently taken into account the over 600mm of lateral spreading.

The consequences of this are catastrophic. Four issues are of immediate concern:
Firstly, in many cases, the insurer is relying on newly placed boundary marks to build replacement homes for customers. The insurer may be forced to have to demolish the new house and erect it in the correct position; Secondly, the homeowner becomes a victim for a second time, and has to again wait until the house is rebuilt in the correct position. What homeowner in their right mind wants their house, garage or fences built into the neighbour’s property? Thirdly, the homeowners EQC Land Claim becomes a real issue when their actual land has moved (along with their fences, driveway, house and garage) so that it is partly into the neighbours. How will EQC remedy shifting the land back into its original location? And fourthly, neighbours are in the very real position of losing land that is rightfully theirs.

Land Information New Zealand, it appears, in their desire to aid the speed of the rebuild, has allowed accuracy to be overlooked. Their allowing of surveys titled “Boundary Marking with Conflict” have allowed surveyors to mark boundaries without properly dealing with the underlying problems. The ‘Conflict’ is allowed to remain on the property for someone else to deal with in future. It is clear who benefits from this avoidance of the problem.

There are indications that some Surveyors are using pre‐earthquake survey methods in a postearthquake environment where the playing field has dramatically changed. They may also be forgetting that they are liable for the rest of their lives for the accuracy of each boundary mark they have placed into the ground.

For Insurers, it is critical that accuracy is placed before speed and cost. Re‐building the house for a second time to get it in its correct location is not cost‐effective. For homeowners receiving a new home from an Insurer, it is critical that they know that their home is being rebuilt in the correct location. For neighbours, if approached by a Surveyor wanting them to sign a document agreeing to their survey and boundary location: do not sign it. It is not the job of a neighbour to agree to where the boundaries
are placed. For anyone having their property re‐surveyed, insist on a full “Definition Survey” where a new certificate of title is issued. The “Boundary Marking with Conflict” surveys are akin to parallel imports. They look good at the start, but they are not the real thing. You are left with a survey and a title that
possibly don’t match.

Interestingly, many people (including Land Information New Zealand) are aware of this massive issue.The only ones that don’t seem to be aware are (again) the landowner.The longer this continues unchecked, the worse it will be for the landowners in Christchurch. Land Information New Zealand, the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, and the Government need to take immediate and drastic steps to remedy what is quickly becoming a complete, and utter shambles. The Cadastral Survey Act 2002 is part of the CERA legislation. An opportunity exists to get this problem sorted through the provisions that exist in the CERA Act.

Let’s only hope it is not too late already.

Adrian Cowie
Licensed Cadastral Surveyor
Registered Professional Surveyor
Topografo Limited
0274‐553‐132
03‐325‐3202

Disclaimer: Always consult your experts and solicitor for advice. Each property and situation is
unique and the facts of each case need to be determined on their own merits. The above advice is not
necessarily applicable to all sites.

[Brent George]

I have deliberately refrained from promptly adding a comment or post following the above press release from Mr AJ Cowie.

I wanted to see if that generated a raft of responses; a flurry of alternate views; or even a quick riposte.  But alas there has been nothing.

Perhaps the audience in this forum is not wide enough to engender any response, or indeed, the effect of the issues raised within the release is thought to be a Canterbury problem only.  If this is the case, then in my opinion that may be a blinkered and dangerous view.  Rest assured that the surveying lessons (that should be being) learned since these series of Canterbury Earthquakes will be wheeled out when the next big-one strikes - be it across the wider South Island when the main divide fault goes; or in Wellington when the big one hits there; of in the Waikato/Auckland area when the Taupo Fault Belt is triggered.

The lessons could be listed as:

i) the importance of having a series of vertical control or benchmarks across a city both before and after an earthquake event;

ii) the importance of having a reliable system of prompt geodetic re-survey to provide accurate post-quake survey control;

iii) the value in having a robust set of rules to govern post-earthquake boundary definition, with these rules being unambiguous and based on practical evidence;

iv) the imperative to have consistent quality control "plan checking" process incorporating 'knowledge people' to ensure the integrity of the survey data being submitted;

v) the significance of ensuring only accurate metadata is used in the key decision making processes that create red-zone/green-zone boundaries as well as repair/rebuild decisions;

vi) the opportunities thus created to enable an old and under-valued profession to promote itself; trumpet its capabilities and offer its expert members to assist the decision makers and wider public.  Or the opportunities lost if little is done.

...the list could go on...

This whole thing reminds me of Zymurgy's First Law of Evolving Systems Dynamics which is:

"Once you open a can of worms, the only way to recan them is to use a larger can"

[Mark Geddes]

Points very well made Brent. While I have not experienced cadastral surveying in the Christchuch area following the earthquakes, I believe points i) - v) above are essential for NZ which will inevitably have another such event or series of events. So yes, we need a 'can' ready and waiting for when one strikes, not necessarily shiny with the label on - that can come later, just a capable one that does the job when required, the detail/infill will always be site specific and happen after. Clear and unambiguous rules are a wider issue too, the next set of rules must read more coherently with less need for interpretation and less references making sub-sections dependent on other sections and sub-sections that looses the flow of document and creates general confusion.