Old Schedule Lot Boundary: When the Demarcation District Plan and Occupation Diverge
You are the authorized land surveyor engaged by the owner of Lot 1234 in DD 119, a flat-roofed village house in Sai Kung. The owner has just returned from a trip and found that the neighbour at Lot 1235 has demolished the old rubble boundary wall and rebuilt it approximately 0.9 m inside what the owner believes is his land, taking part of his paved forecourt. The neighbour says the wall follows the original line shown on a 1960s sale plan. The lot is an Old Schedule Lot. The Demarcation District Plan shows the common boundary as a straight line between two boundary stones, one of which is missing; the other is a weathered concrete mark partly buried. The owner wants you to 'certify' that the wall is trespassing and to set out the true line immediately so he can instruct a contractor to rebuild. He also mentions that his family has used the forecourt for parking 'for over forty years' and wants that recorded as proof of ownership.
1. What records and field evidence should you obtain before expressing any view on the boundary line, and how would you use them?
Read the worked answer
I would assemble the documentary and physical evidence before forming any view.
Records
- The Demarcation District Plan for DD 119, the Lot Index Plan and the Government lease/lot particulars, to establish whether the common boundary is defined, undefined or ambiguous.
- Historical survey records held by the Land Survey Authority, including any previous boundary survey, setting-out plan or record of boundary marks.
- Aerial photographs from different decades, to trace the old wall line, the forecourt and any former boundary marks.
- The neighbour's 1960s sale plan, but only as a private document whose provenance and scale must be checked.
Field evidence
- A search for boundary stones, concrete marks, old wall footings and other physical evidence, with measured offsets and photographs.
- A total station traverse from HK1980 Grid control, with GNSS used only to establish or check control, not to fix the boundary itself.
- Occupation evidence: the line of the old wall, paving, drainage and any undisturbed ground.
The key question is whether the DDP defines the boundary. If it does, the defined line controls and the surveyor re-establishes it. If the plan shows the boundary as undefined or the marks cannot be reconciled, occupation evidence may inform the dispute but cannot by itself create a legal boundary.
2. The neighbour's 1960s sale plan shows the wall 0.9 m inside your client's claimed line. How do you weigh that plan against the DDP and the physical evidence?
Read the worked answer
I would not treat the sale plan as authoritative. A private sale plan is not a registered boundary survey and may have been drawn for conveyance illustration, not for boundary definition. I would check its date, scale, survey basis, whether it is attached to a registered instrument, and whether it is consistent with the DDP and the lease.
If the DDP boundary is defined, the DDP line prevails over a later private plan, and the 0.9 m discrepancy is evidence that the wall was built off the true line. If the DDP boundary is undefined or the boundary marks are missing, the sale plan becomes one piece of historical evidence to be weighed with aerial photographs, occupation, old wall footings and any survey records. Even then, the surveyor should not decide title. The correct output is a factual report explaining what is defined, what is uncertain, and what further evidence or legal advice is needed. The client should be told that adverse possession and trespass are legal questions for a solicitor or the court, not matters for a survey certificate.
3. The client asks you to issue a certificate that the neighbour is trespassing and to mark the line with new concrete marks. What professional and ethical issues arise, and what would you do?
Read the worked answer
Several issues arise.
First, trespass is a legal conclusion. A surveyor can report measurements, defined boundaries and evidence of occupation, but should not certify that a neighbour is trespassing. Doing so would exceed competence and could expose the client and the surveyor to a misleading claim.
Second, placing new concrete marks on a disputed line risks creating evidence that prejudges the dispute. I would not set new marks as if they were official boundary marks without authority. I would record the existing marks, photograph them, survey their positions and preserve the evidence.
Third, the client's 40-year use of the forecourt is relevant factual evidence, but adverse possession is a legal doctrine. I would record the occupation history carefully and without exaggeration, then recommend that the client take legal advice before removing or altering the wall.
I would issue a written report separating: (a) records examined; (b) survey methods and accuracy; (c) defined or undefined status; (d) factual observations; (e) limitations. I would decline to certify trespass or ownership, explain why, and suggest a solicitor or a joint boundary survey. If litigation follows, the surveyor's duty as an expert is to the court, not to the client's preferred outcome.