Please rotate my house 1 degree to the left

[RumpledElf]

So yesterday I went into the backyard before breakfast and there was a pack of surveyors setting up shop out there, yellow tripods and all.

Turns out the house is on the boundary at the front, but at the back it is 20cm over the boundary onto the neighbour's block. The house is a 1900's worker's cottage, as is the one next door. Surveyor was a little confused, he said the original layout for the street had all the blocks the same size and now we have the situation where my house is on a 29m wide block and the neighbour's is on an 11m wide one. Go figure.

Not sure what they'll do at the end of this, surveyor said he was trying to work out how to put it on the plan (sounds like he's fudging fencelines). I guess I might end up with a bill for a square metre of the neighbour's yard, or however big a 12m long wedge of land with a 20cm short end works out to be. I already have council approval for the subdivision, which was non-complying because the house is on (well, over) the boundary where it needs a 1m gap down the side normally. It is impractical to buy a 1m strip of the neighbour's land as his is too narrow for a driveway for a car bigger than a mini already, it would kill his offstreet parking options. Both houses are 8m wide, he has 3m for a driveway, I have over 20m.

They don't build houses like they used to!

*goes outside to look happily at the nice pink survey pegs*

 

[craigb]

Thats very interisting please follow up on the outcome, you might have to chase that builder up, he'd be about" 135 years old now?

 

[McBrain]

Surely this would be covered by 'adverse possession' and the land is now yours?

 

[Perp]

Surely this would be covered by 'adverse possession' and the land is now yours?

I'm with McBrain. This article may help.

 

[battler]

We had a situation like this on a property we were interested in, but after months of investigation it seemed that WE would have to be in possession for the required time in order to make the claim.

 

[Perp]

We had a situation like this on a property we were interested in, but after months of investigation it seemed that WE would have to be in possession for the required time in order to make the claim.

That doesn't sound right, battler. The few articles that I've read - including the one I linked to below - talk about possession by a chain of owners, not the individual owner.

 

[battler]

That doesn't sound right, battler. The few articles that I've read - including the one I linked to below - talk about possession by a chain of owners, not the individual owner.

The interpretation that we were given in VIC, was that the claimant had to be in possession for (I think) 15 years, meaning that if we purchased now we couldn't actually get title in order to build on it for 15 years. It was a very unclear situation because the owner had passed away in 1949 and in order to complete the chain it was reliant on local residents witnessing that it had been that way for however long. In our case it just got too hard so we let it go.

Sorry if I confused things.

 

[Perp]

It was a very unclear situation ... In our case it just got too hard so we let it go.

Sorry if I confused things.

Fair enough, I understand what you're saying.

In RE's situation, though, where a house has demonstrably been occupying that sliver for >> 30 years, I would think the aspect relating to continuous and exclusive occupation would be pretty easy to establish.

My impression is that the paperwork and claim process can still be very complex, even if this element is straightforward, so if you have to make a claim (rather than just "leave sleeping dogs lie"), you should definitely get expert legal advice, Rumpled Elf.

 

[keithj]

Surely this would be covered by 'adverse possession' and the land is now yours?

A little anecdote....

A friend of a friend tethered his horses on a few acres of paddock next to the village..... no-one took any notice. A couple of years later he fenced it off.... and everyone assumed it was his land. After 20 yrs the land was rezoned, the original land bankers appeared & tried to kick him & his horses out so they could develop. Went to court..... he won.... became a millionaire after stealing their grass for 20 years...... doesn't seem right....

 

[wylie]

I also remember a story a few years ago in the Brisbane papers about a whole street in an old suburb (Rosalie or somewhere similar) where somebody had a survey done and it was found out that every house down the street was partly sitting in the neighbour's block.

It was a bit of a bun fight and I don't remember the outcome (if indeed there is YET an outcome). In reality, everybody would probably best be served to accept the long ago mistake, except for the poor bunny at the end who thinks he has a 24 perch block but has to accept he only has a 16 perch block .

 

[battler]

In RE's situation, though, where a house has demonstrably been occupying that sliver for >> 30 years, I would think the aspect relating to continuous and exclusive occupation would be pretty easy to establish.

Yes I agree, basic measurements and the very existence of the building for that length of time would be hard to dispute.

 

[RumpledElf]

I also remember a story a few years ago in the Brisbane papers about a whole street in an old suburb (Rosalie or somewhere similar) where somebody had a survey done and it was found out that every house down the street was partly sitting in the neighbour's block.

Actually that's pretty much the reason, if I understood correctly. He said the whole street was out by 20cm and he was trying to wangle it to fit right, putting all the error on the old block not the new one, which has to be minimum 15m frontage. This is an old street, the bulk of the houses are those 1900s cottages, almost clones of each other.

The funny thing about this is if I painted or rendered the left side of the house I'd encroach on the neighbour's yard by a mm or several. Mine isn't the only house on the boundary on the street either, there's at least 3 others, and they probably all have the same problem.