Land and House Surveyor Examination common mistakes
Land and House Surveyor Examination · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In boundary-determination problems, treating the 公図 (old cadastral map) as conclusive proof of the current boundary line and writing the answer as if the map settles the matter, without checking the 地積測量図, the registered area, and the occupation on the ground.
Candidates memorise that the 公図 shows parcel shape and location, then over-extend that to boundary determination. In practice the 公図 is a rough positional sketch with distorted scale, and 境界確定 rests on the parties' agreement plus the 筆界 as it existed at the time of the original parcel division; the map is only one evidentiary element among several.
What to do instead
For every boundary question, build a three-column note: 公図 evidence, 地積測量図/登記記録 evidence, and on-site occupation/現況 evidence. State explicitly that the 公図 is not determinative and that the 筆界 is a legal line predating current occupation. Practise writing the sentence 'the 公図 is a reference material for parcel location, and the boundary is determined by agreement of the interested parties based on the 筆界' until it is automatic.
Confusing 筆界 (parcel boundary) with 所有権の境界 (ownership boundary) and giving a single answer where the question asks about a case in which the two diverge, such as land acquired by 時効 or by 分筆 error.
Both are called '境界' in ordinary speech, and candidates prepare for boundary questions as one topic. The distinction is decisive: 筆界確定 is a matter of the parcel as created by the original division and can be established through 筆界特定, whereas ownership boundaries follow substantive civil law including acquisitive prescription.
What to do instead
Make a two-row comparison table (who can decide it, what procedure, effect on registration) and force yourself to label every boundary scenario as 筆界 or 所有権 before answering. Work through at least three past-style scenarios where occupation has shifted over decades and identify which line each question actually asks about.
In the 記述式 area problem, computing the area of an irregular parcel by summing triangles without closing the traverse, so the coordinate misclosure is absorbed silently into the answer and the final area is wrong by a small but fatal margin.
Candidates focus on the area formula and forget that the coordinates they are given or derive must first be adjusted. Under time pressure they skip the 閉合差 check, and the arithmetic looks clean enough to trust.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed written routine: tabulate coordinates, compute the misclosure and compare with the allowable limit, distribute the correction, then apply the area formula to adjusted coordinates only. Show the misclosure calculation in the answer sheet even when small, because the marker is checking method as well as result. Rehearse this on three synthetic parcels of five to eight vertices.
Applying a correction with the wrong sign or the wrong direction in error adjustment - for example subtracting a compass-rule correction where it should be added, or mixing the sign convention between azimuth and bearing.
The arithmetic of トラバース調整 is mechanical, and candidates learn the formula without a physical check. Under exam pressure the sign is the first thing to slip, and a single flipped sign propagates through every subsequent coordinate.
What to do instead
After adjustment, verify that each corrected angle and distance still satisfies the geometric closure, and check that the corrected coordinates move in the direction that reduces the misclosure. Write the sign convention at the top of your working before starting. Do timed drills where you deliberately compute the misclosure vector and confirm the correction opposes it.
Answering a 表示に関する登記 question by describing what the applicant must prove rather than which register, which application, and which attachment is required - for example omitting that a 地積測量図 must accompany a 分筆登記 application, or confusing 表題登記 with 変更登記.
Candidates study the substantive law of what a register records and then write generally about 'registering the change'. The exam tests procedural specificity: the type of application, the registering authority, the attachments, and who may apply.
What to do instead
Build a one-page matrix of 表示登記 types (新築, 表題, 分筆, 合筆, 地目変更, 地積変更) with columns for applicant, attachments, and whether a 地積測量図 or 建物図面 is needed. Answer procedural questions strictly from that matrix and name the attachment explicitly in every answer.
Treating the 不動産登記法 rules on 職権修正 and 職権登記 as if the registrar may correct any error at will, and writing answers that ignore the notice-and-opportunity procedure owed to the registered holder.
The idea of an official correcting the register feels administrative and unilateral, and the due-process overlay is easy to forget. The exam expects the candidate to know that correction affecting rights requires notice and an opportunity to object.
What to do instead
Memorise the sequence: registrar identifies the error, gives notice to the registered person, provides an opportunity to object, then acts. Practise writing the sequence as a numbered list in under two minutes, and attach it to any question involving 職権登記 or 更正.
In 行政法 and 行政不服審査 questions, asserting that a dissatisfied applicant can simply sue in court, without first identifying the 処分性 of the act, the 審査請求 versus 取消訴訟 relationship, and the 出訴期間.
Candidates carry a general 'go to court' instinct from civil disputes and do not separate the administrative review route from the litigation route. They also miss that some survey-related acts are not 処分 at all.
What to do instead
For each administrative scenario, answer three questions in order: is this act a 処分 (does it affect rights or obligations)? which review body and which period? is 審査請求 mandatory before litigation (審査請求前置) for this statute? Write the three answers before any conclusion.
In civil law questions on easements, answering that a 通行地役権 is established by long use alone, or that a 地役権 can exist without a dominant parcel, instead of distinguishing 地役権 from 時効取得 and from 法定通行権 under the 囲繞地 provisions.
The three concepts all produce a right to cross another's land, and candidates merge them. The exam deliberately sets facts where the route to the right matters, because the requirements and the registration consequences differ.
What to do instead
Write a comparison of 地役権 (contractual, requires 設定行為 and registration for third-party effect), 通行地役権の時効取得 (requires continuous, peaceful, public exercise with intent, and 取得時効の援用), and 囲繞地通行権 (statutory, no registration). For each fact pattern, name which one applies and why the others do not.
In co-ownership questions, allowing one co-owner to unilaterally change the parcel boundary or grant an easement over the shared land, instead of applying the 持分 and 管理行為 rules requiring majority or unanimous consent.
Candidates reason from sole ownership and forget that 共有 introduces a consent threshold. Boundary agreements and easement grants over co-owned land are acts of 管理 or 処分 and cannot be done by one holder alone.
What to do instead
Classify every act as 保存行為 (each co-owner may do), 管理行為 (majority of 持分), or 処分行為/変更 (unanimous). Before answering, state the classification and the required consent level, then apply it to the facts. Drill this on boundary-agreement and easement-grant scenarios.
In the 口述試験, reciting statutory text or a memorised definition when the examiner poses a concrete case, instead of stating a judgment, the reason, and the practical next step in that order.
The oral format rewards structured practical reasoning, but candidates prepare by memorising provisions and then deliver them regardless of the question. Examiners read this as an inability to apply the law to facts.
What to do instead
Practise a fixed oral template: 'My conclusion is X. The reason is Y, because the applicable rule is Z. Practically, I would next do W.' Rehearse aloud with a timer on ten case prompts, and have a partner interrupt with a follow-up question each time to train the transition from conclusion to reason.