ESSE 4670 Survey Law II: Lot 22, Waterfront Land Ownership Analysis

This report, prepared for a Survey Law II assignment, examines the complexities of waterfront land ownership, specifically focusing on Lot 22 and its shifting water's edge. The analysis considers the legal ramifications of reliction, erosion, and accretion, emphasizing the distinction between use rights and ownership rights. The report highlights that the client's land boundary ends at the high water mark, with the additional beach area created by the shift in the water's edge considered public property. The report references the Crown patent for an adjacent lot, which reserves navigable waterways for public use. It concludes that the client can use the extra beach area like the general public but cannot claim ownership or use it for private development. The report recommends that the client can seek legal determination if interested in the extra beach area. The original boundary lines of Lot 22 remain unchanged, and the client does not have ownership rights over the extra beach area. The report cites various legal resources, including case studies and articles, to support its findings and recommendations regarding the client's land ownership and public access rights.

Running head: SURVEY LAW II
SURVEY LAW II
Name
Course
Professor
University
City/state
Date

SURVEY LAW II 2
Survey Law II
Introduction
Ownership of waterfront land or riparian land is a complex and tricky issue that must be handled
diligently. From the survey conducted on Lot 22, the water’s edge has noticeably moved from
where it was when the plot was surveyed last in 1948 and the distance between the water’s age
and the high water mark has significantly increased. The dry land that has been exposed or
created by reliction process is definitely of great interest to the waterfront land owner, the
government and the general public. This report presents a summary of findings from the survey
carried out on Lot 22 on Registered Plan 6354. The information will help the client (waterfront
land owner) to understand the extent of his land ownership considering that the water’s edge has
shifted and created more land neighboring his boundary. There are also some recommendation
on the actions the client can take regarding this issue.
Key findings of the survey
The survey carried out on Lot 22 has clearly shown a shift in the water’s edge into the End Point
Lake. This shift has created additional beach area.
End Point Lake is a public lake and a navigable waterway. The crown patent of adjacent lot (Lot
21) states that all navigable waterways should be saved, reserved and are open for public use,
passage and enjoyment. It is assumed that the patent is applicable to Lot 22 meaning that the
navigable water and bottom land are public properties.
Even though the public has not been regularly using the beach between the water’s edge and high
water mark, which borders the waterfront property owned by the client, for being in a relatively
secluded area, the fact that this is a public beach still remains.

SURVEY LAW II 3
Conclusion and Recommendations
There are significant legal ramifications associated with the changing shoreline processes such as
reliction, erosion, avulsion and accretion (Salyer, 2016). However, when land is created as a
result of shifting of the water’s edge, the waterfront land owner does not have any right to claim
ownership of the extra beach area (Armentano, 2012). This means that the boundary or size of
land owned by the client has not changed or affected by the shifting of the water’s edge.
The boundary of the land owned by the client ends at the high water mark. The beach and any
additional beach area created by the shifting of the water’s edge are public properties that are
under the ownership of the government. This means that the waterfront land owned by the client
ends at the high water mark.
The client has the right to use the additional beach area created but does not have the right to
own it (Jimerson, 2015). It is important to note the difference between use right an ownership
right. This means that the client can use the lake dry land just like other people (the general
public) but has no right to own the land. However, the use rights are also limited because client is
not allowed or cannot use the land for private development such as constructing a home or
business premise on it. The extra beach area can only be used by the public (including the
waterfront landowner) for enjoyment or recreational activities and passage or navigation.
As stated before the government owns the navigable waterway (End Point Lake). This includes
the water in the lake and the bottomland. Therefore even if the water recedes, the land created as
a result of this process remains the property of the government and is subject to public access
and use (Jonsson, 2018). This is just to emphasize that the extra beach area created is not a
property of the client.

SURVEY LAW II 4
The existence of the extra beach area created does not or should not limit the waterfront land
owner from accessing the water in the lake. Additionally, the waterfront landowner should not
limit or deny the public from accessing the beach (both the original beach and extra beach area)
(Associated Press, 2014).
If the client is still interest in the extra beach area created, he can take the issue to the court of
law for a legal determination. There are similar cases where judges have ruled that the extra
beach area should be divided between the government and the waterfront landowner. Therefore
seeking legal ruing on the issue in the court of law is also an option.
Last but not least, the original boundary lines of Lot 22 as provided on the Registered Plan 6354
still remains and the client does not have ownership rights over the extra beach area created. This
extra beach area is not subject to private ownership hence the client can only use it just like the
other people (the general public).

SURVEY LAW II 5
Works Cited
Armentano, J. C. (2012, June 21). Accretion, Erosion and Avulsion. Retrieved from
https://www.lilanduseandzoning.com/2012/06/21/down-by-the-boardwalk-the-ambling-
property-boundary/
Associated Press. (2014, May 14). Vinod Khosla beach trial: Property manager says he blocked access .
Retrieved from https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0514/Vinod-Khosla-
beach-trial-Property-manager-says-he-blocked-access
Jimerson, C. B. (2015, May 19). Determination ownership within boundary disputes part III: How to
determine whether you own the water you live on. Retrieved from
https://www.jimersonfirm.com/blog/2015/05/boundary-disputes-part-iii/
Jonsson, P. (2018, April 20). As its beaches recede, Florida shores up private ownership. Retrieved from
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2018/0420/As-its-beaches-recede-Florida-shores-up-
private-ownership
Salyer, C. T. (2016, November 28). Nature's Changes in Land: Who Owns It Now? Retrieved from
https://hutchenslawfirm.com/blog/real-estate/my-dirt-riparian-rights-erosion-avulsion-and-
owning-land-rivers-and-streams