The fence 0.8 m inside the 1892 boundary
An 1892 Crown grant subdivided a 64 ha Hawke's Bay farm into three allotments. You are reinstating the eastern boundary of Lot 2 for a boundary adjustment. The adjoining owner's wire fence lies 0.8 m inside the line shown on the 1892 plan. At the northern corner you find an original iron peg with a legible '1892' stamp, but it is loose and has been re-driven; its position differs by 0.12 m from the bearing and distance in the original survey. A scribed pine stump is reported by the neighbour but cannot be located. The client says the fence has been there for 40 years and wants the new boundary surveyed to the fence so the existing woolshed complies. The neighbouring title is registered under the Land Transfer Act 2017 and has a mortgage. You have a 0.15 m misclose in your check traverse.
1. Evaluate the boundary evidence and decide where the legal boundary should be reinstated.
Read the worked answer
Start from the legal principle: the boundary is the line fixed by the original Crown grant survey, not the fence. The hierarchy of evidence is original undisturbed marks, then original plan and field-book measurements, then reliable witness marks and old occupation, then later surveys. The loose, re-driven peg is disturbed and cannot be treated as undisturbed original evidence. Check whether the peg is in its original hole, whether there are witness marks, whether the 1892 field book records offsets to the fence or a tree, and whether the 0.12 m difference is consistent with the peg being re-driven or with a plan measurement issue. The missing scribed stump may still be findable with a metal detector or probing. The 0.15 m traverse misclose must be investigated before any coordinate is adopted. If the peg is accepted as the original corner, reinstate from it and record the occupation discrepancy; if not, use the best available evidence and say so in the survey report. Do not move the boundary to the fence merely because the fence is old or convenient.
2. What must you record in the CSD and survey report, and how should the boundary marks be treated?
Read the worked answer
The CSD should show the boundary as reinstated from the best evidence, not as the fence line. Record the original peg, its condition and the fact that it was disturbed; record the search for the scribed stump; record the occupation discrepancy of 0.8 m; and explain the 0.12 m difference and the traverse misclose. If a boundary mark is placed, it must be connected to the reinstated corner by reliable measurement and described in the survey report. If the original peg is unreliable, place new marks and explain why the original was not adopted. The survey report should set out the evidence hierarchy, the checks made, and the residual uncertainty. Any occupation discrepancy should be shown so that the client and the adjoining owner can see it. Do not suppress the discrepancy or certify a boundary that you cannot defend.
3. The client insists on the fence line and says 40 years of occupation must count. How do you advise the client and manage the instruction?
Read the worked answer
Explain that long occupation does not itself move a Land Transfer Act 2017 title boundary. A fence can be evidence of where people thought the boundary was, but it is not conclusive against the original survey. Adverse possession against general land is limited and is a legal question, not something a cadastral surveyor can assume; the client should take legal advice if they want to claim the land. The woolshed compliance issue is a planning or building matter and may be resolved by an encroachment licence, easement, or resource consent rather than by shifting the title boundary. Confirm the advice in writing, record the client's instruction, and decline to certify a CSD that shows the fence as the legal boundary without proper evidence. If the client continues to press, explain the professional and title risks and consider whether you must withdraw from the certification.