About Amerisurv| Contact    
Magazine | Newsletter    
Flickr Photos | Advertise    
HomeNewsNewsletterAmerisurv DirectoryJobsStoreAuthorsHistoryArchivesBlogVideosEvents

Sponsored By

Software Reviews
Continuing Series
An RTN expert provides everything you need to know about network-corrected real-time GNSS observations.
Click Here to begin the series,
or view the Article PDF's Here
76-PageFlip Compilation
of the entire series
Test Yourself

Got Answers?
Test your knowledge with NCEES-level questions.
  Start HERE
Meet the Authors
Check out our fine lineup of writers. Each an expert in his or her field.
Wow Factor
Sponsored By

Product Reviews
Partner Sites







Spatial Media LLC properties




Home arrow Archives   The American Surveyor     

Point to Point: Boundaries by Acquiescence Print E-mail
Written by Joel Leininger, LS   
Friday, 26 September 2008

A 91Kb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

We retracement surveyors, for the most part, labor within a stable and consistent part of the law. By this, I mean that from place to place, and over time, there is little variation in the doctrines defining correct practice. Monuments, everywhere, trump courses and distances, in the event of a conflict. Natural monuments, everywhere, trump artificial monuments. Sure the Public Land System approach deviates from that in colonial areas, but despite the impact on the landscape, the actual doctrinal deviation between the two systems is surprisingly small. There are many knobs and wrinkles across the country, but, for the most part, retracement is retracement.

That is, until we broach the subject of boundary establishment by acquiescence. A couple of issues ago, we addressed the dilemma of pincushion corners, and the theories driving our treatment of them. From a couple of different quarters came whiners assuming that because I did not mention acquiescence, I was either ignorant of the doctrine, or remiss in overlooking it. Neither is true. But of all the rules governing property lines, this one is the most dangerous for surveyors; it requires a deeper understanding of the intentions and actions of the parties than any other boundary element. It does not lend itself to independent verification. And, the rules concerning it are a complex jumble of conflicting standards across the country.

The Basics
At its most elementary, boundary by acquiescence is the laying-out (or adoption) of a boundary in a particular location by one person, and its being allowed to remain there undisturbed by the affected neighbor. It is grounded in the desire for stability in the parcel fabric and to discourage litigation. Most jurisdictions agree on those points­and only on those points. The rest of the elements of acquiescence are all over the map, excuse the pun. Some commentators argue that the doctrine does not apply to the Federal government; others extend that non-application to states and municipalities. It clearly applies to disputes between states; there are numerous Supreme Court cases where acquiescence proved controlling.

Generally, courts distinguish practical location from acquiescence by considering whether or not there was a formal agreement between the parties (see "Practical Location," December 2005, in the online archives at www.amerisurv. com). Recall that practical location results when parties put into effect an ambiguous agreement. The subsequent actions of the parties clarify the otherwise unclear pact. Acquiescence requires no formal agreement, but looks to those actions nevertheless. The quiet enjoyment by parties on either side of a demarcation line, over time, ripens into that line becoming the actual boundary between the parties. Sometimes. In some states, the original location of the boundary must be unknown to the parties for the doctrine to kick in; in others, that element is irrelevant. In some states, the line has to be visible; in others, not so much. In some states the occupation must have continued for the prescriptive period, while in others it must have occurred "for a long time." Whatever that means. Standards like that drive technically-oriented people crazy. Because, although the courts are free to interpret fuzzy standards like that, no one else (surveyors, attorneys, title people) will be comfortable forecasting how a court would respond.

Okay, Now What?
Given all that, how should we include potential acquiescence in our analysis? It seems clear to me that our first task is to forget everything we might have read on the subject not written specifically for our state. I can't overstate this point. There seems to be no consensus across the country over what particular factors are necessary for acquiescence to move written boundary locations. Thus, inter-state debates over the subtleties of the doctrine are, at best, a waste of air, and at worst, likely to lead someone astray. Indeed, some states seem to have no appellate decisions on the topic at all. In those jurisdictions, it is possible that acquiescence, as a boundary doctrine, does not exist.

Second, research your state's appellate decisions on acquiescence, specifically focusing on the required elements for it to ripen. (A side note here: if you are one of the many surveyors who believe that expressing our opinions on adverse possession is outside of our bailiwick, put your pencils down now and close your booklets: your acquiescence experience is over. Proceeding further requires opining on unwritten acts and intentions.)

As I have pointed out before, gathering the relevant facts is the problem. Although it may be easy to determine the current limits of occupation (emphasis on may, here), determining the longevity of that occupation might prove more difficult. Factor in requirements as to the intent of both parties, and one should quickly realize opining on acquiescence is no walk in the park.

Opinionated Deficiency
Although I am a strong advocate for our being willing to opine on unwritten transfers of land as surveyors, the courts have several distinct advantages in this area. First, the courts can command participation of the involved parties. In contrast, parties are free to ignore us, and are not penalized for it. We can initiate all the contact we wish, but cannot compel response. Second, the courts can place witnesses under oath. In most jurisdictions, surveyors do not have that power. And, I'm sorry to say, even in those areas where we can elicit sworn testimony, I suspect many people would lie to us or stretch the truth if it suited their purposes. (Outside a court hearing, there is no real penalty for being untruthful. We have a former president to thank for that.) Finally, our results are not binding on either party. Should they be dissatisfied with our work, they are free to hire our competitor. (I point this out not to belittle our efforts, but to underscore the likely notion that people do not consider the analysis of a surveyor to have the same gravitas as a court proceeding. Thus, they can pick and choose what they say to us.)

Thorough records are an indispensable part of an acquiescence opinion. Signed affidavits by owners on either side of the line, stating the nature of their intent and understanding of the boundary line, as well as the age of the occupation, go a long way toward documenting the unwritten transfer. It's not that unwritten transfers are not good for society (they, of course, are), it's that the facts giving rise to their operation can be hard to reestablish as the years roll by. Sometimes the only fact left is the name of the surveyor who opined that the trespass ripened into title.

Tread carefully here. I can't think of a single doctrine laden with more minefields for us.

Joel Leininger is a principal of S.J. Martenet & Co. in Baltimore and Associate Editor of the magazine.

A 91Kb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

< Prev   Next >

 American Surveyor Recent Articles
Marc Cheves, PS 
Editorial: A Great Year to be a Surveyor
Some magazines have what are called "theme" issues. That is, most of the content is focused on one particular subject. In my 22+ years of survey magazine publishing, my philosophy has always been to have a little bit of everything in each issue, thereby eliminating the possibility that ....
Read the Article
Jason E. Foose, PS 
Decided Guidance: Case Examinations: Halverson v. Deerwood Village
Whew! We really beat the snot out of Bryant v. Blevins and practical locations. Well this month we're back on new case that hit the Minnesota Supreme Court's docket in 1982. We've got the familiar gymnastics of jurisprudence featuring an extraordinary array of flying rope stretchers ...
Read the Article
Michel Philips 
Extreme Environment Surveying
A Franco-Chilean team of cave divers used the Nautiz X8 rugged handheld for marine cave surveying, gathering data to classify the inaccessible northern half of Madre de Dios for UNESCO World Heritage. The team of cave divers used the Nautiz X8 ....
Read the Article
Erik Dahlberg 
The Original Green Engineers
Sometimes, it's best just to leave things as you found them. That's the lesson shared by Dr. Richard Miksad and his students at the University of Virginia. As a result of studies covering nearly a decade, Miksad's teams have developed detailed ....
Read the Article
Dave Lindell, PS 
Test Yourself 49: No Dimensions
In square A-C-D-B with side S, C-E is tangent to the semicircle Q1 with diameter B-D. Q2 is the inscribed circle of A-C-E. The tangent to Q1 and Q2 meets the sides of the square at F and H and intersects C-E at t G. Q3 is the inscribed circle of C-G-H. What is the ratio of the radii of circles ....
Read the Article
Jerry Penry, PS 
Discovery on Grizzly Peak
When First Lieutenant Montgomery M. Macomb arrived in Carson City, Nevada, from Washington D.C., on July 28, 1878, his assigned survey crew from the 4th Artillery was waiting and ready for the new field season. At age 25, Macomb was the leader ....
Read the Article
Wendy Lathrop, PS, CFM 
Vantage Point: Fighting City Hall Over Land
Once upon a time (1989 to be exact) in a place not so far away from where I live, a man (Francis Galdo) bought a home across the street from a vacant parcel owned by the City of Philadelphia. That parcel, along with others, had been acquired by condemnation back in 1974 subsequent to a 1956 ....
Read the Article
Patrick C. Garner, PS 
Book Review: Boundary Retracement: Processes and Procedures
When I was in my mid-twenties and learning the honorable profession of land surveying, I was lucky to be guided by a mentor who would grab a book off his office shelf and say, "Every surveyor should have a copy of this!" The first example he waved at me was Davis, Foote and Kelly's Surveying ....
Read the Article


Amerisurv Exclusive Online-only Article ticker
Featured Amerisurv Events
List Your Event Here
contact Amerisurv


Javad Intros
Total Solution

press [at] amerisurv.com
Online Internet Content


News Feeds

Subscribe to Amerisurv news & updates via RSS or get our Feedburn
xml feed

Need Help? See this RSS Tutorial

Historic Maps

post a job
Reach our audience of Professional land surveyors and Geo-Technology professionals with your GeoJobs career ad. Feel free to contact us if you need additional information.


Social Bookmarks

Amerisurv on Facebook 

Amerisurv LinkedIn Group 

Amerisurv Flickr Photos 

Amerisurv videos on YouTube 



The American Surveyor © All rights reserved / Privacy Statement
Spatial Media LLC
7820B Wormans Mill Road, #236
Frederick MD 21701
301-695-1538 - fax