NZ LCQ common mistakes
NZ LCQ · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the Cadastral Survey Act 2002 and the repealed Survey Act 1976 as interchangeable, citing the 1976 Act for current obligations such as the Surveyor-General's audit and compliance powers or the licensed cadastral surveyor regime.
Study notes and older case law often predate the 2002 Act, and candidates memorise statute names without linking each to the duty it now imposes.
What to do instead
Build a one-page mapping of each core obligation (standards-setting, audit, licensing, CSD lodgement, offence provisions) to its current statutory source, and check the commencement/repeal notes for every section you cite.
Preparing a CSD that omits or misdescribes required elements such as the datum, the survey accuracy class, the basis of boundary definition, or the treatment of an existing boundary, then defending it as 'standard practice'.
Candidates learn CSD layout from a template rather than from the rules, so they reproduce headings without understanding which content is mandatory for the survey type.
What to do instead
Work through the Surveyor-General's CSD requirements clause by clause against three real survey types (new subdivision, redefinition, easement) and annotate what changes and why for each.
Reinstating a boundary by adopting the nearest existing physical mark without first establishing the original survey's evidence hierarchy and the intent of the original grant.
Field pressure and the visible peg create anchoring bias; candidates jump to measurement before reconstructing the original boundary definition.
What to do instead
Practise a written sequence: gather original survey and Crown grant evidence, assess monument reliability, consider occupation and evidence of intent, then decide. Apply the hierarchy explicitly in every worked example before touching measurements.
Assuming the land transfer register guarantees the physical location of a boundary rather than the title interest, and advising a client that a title diagram fixes the boundary on the ground.
The distinction between the guarantee of title and the separate question of boundary location is subtle and rarely tested in candidates' prior study.
What to do instead
Write a short explanation of what the register guarantees, how indefeasibility interacts with boundary position, and where the boundary-reinstatement rules operate independently, then test it against a hypothetical encroachment.
Mixing NZGD2000 and older local datums or projections in a survey without a documented transformation, and reporting coordinates or areas without stating the datum, projection and accuracy.
Legacy plans and coordinates are still in circulation, and software defaults hide the transformation step from the user.
What to do instead
State datum, projection, and accuracy class on every computation sheet, and rehearse a worked transformation between a legacy datum and NZGD2000 including the distortion check on distances and bearings.
Submitting a CSD with unresolved QA issues such as vector misclosures outside tolerance, unmatched boundary references, or unexplained discrepancies between the plan and the field record.
Candidates treat QA as a final formatting check rather than a technical audit, and time pressure encourages submitting before the check is complete.
What to do instead
Adopt a pre-lodgement checklist covering misclosure against the accuracy class, boundary and parcel reconciliation, and a documented explanation for every discrepancy, and run it as a separate pass from drafting.
Accepting instructions that create a conflict of interest, or giving a boundary opinion to one party in a dispute without disclosing the limits of the engagement and the other party's position.
Candidates focus on technical competence and treat ethics as an abstract topic, missing the concrete conflict and disclosure duties that arise in everyday instructions.
What to do instead
For each scenario, write the engagement scope, identify every party affected, and state what must be disclosed and to whom before work begins. Practise identifying when to decline or refer.
Treating Maori land as ordinary freehold for subdivision or boundary purposes, ignoring the role of the Maori Land Court, the status of Maori customary land, and the need for appropriate engagement.
The distinct tenure and jurisdiction are covered briefly in general study material, so candidates default to the standard freehold pathway.
What to do instead
Map the tenure categories (Maori customary land, Maori freehold land, general land) to the court or authority with jurisdiction and the consents required, and prepare a short engagement approach for a survey affecting Maori land.
Advising on subdivision without checking the district plan rules, the resource consent pathway, and the conditions that bind the survey, such as esplanade reserves, vesting, and development contributions.
Candidates separate surveying from planning and assume the planner's instructions fully capture the consent conditions that shape the survey.
What to do instead
For a sample subdivision, trace the district plan rules, the consent type, and each condition that affects boundaries, reserves, or vesting, and record how the survey responds to each condition.
Quoting or contracting for survey work without defining scope, exclusions, deliverables, liability limits, or a fee basis for unforeseen redefinition work, and without professional indemnity cover in mind.
Technical training rarely covers contract terms, and candidates underprice risk to win work.
What to do instead
Draft a model engagement letter covering scope, exclusions, deliverables, fee basis for variations, liability, and dispute resolution, and review it against a scenario where the original boundary evidence proves inadequate.