clearcut, post: 356544, member: 297 wrote: Common ownership does not merge lots where this case took place.
In New Jersey The lots may or may not have merged from a zoning standpoint (https://surveyorconnect.com/threads/nj-tract-consolidation-description.243421/#post-243596&apos ;">see this post).
But the ownership will have merged, such that the next sale out will create a new line. See https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1925085/stransky-v-monmouth-council-of-girl-scouts-inc/&apos ;">Stransky v. Monmouth Girl Scouts 393 N.J. Super 599
Common Law doctrines operate outside of the zoning code and the Subdivision Map Act. It's never been discussed that I have seen but I assume the reasoning is the same as the exception from the Statute of Frauds; that is, the Courts view this as not moving the boundary, it is only being located where it always was. It is a legal fiction; the boundary has not moved, only defined. This is true in California just like most of the other States. The difference in California relates mostly to when the Courts will enforce an agreed boundary, different fact patterns have different requirements of proof. I am still investigating Boundary by Estoppel, the most recent case I have seen so far was in 1952.
A Deed description serves the same function as the GLO Instructions to Deputy Surveyors; it is the Grantor's instructions of how to lay out the new boundary to the Surveyor. Once the boundary is laid out and accepted by the Grantor and Grantee it is fixed although it is not precisely where we expected to find out. I have seen it described as "the grantor put the grantee into possession of the premises between the [occupation lines]" (where the Grantor owned the land, there was no conflict with an adjoiner as here). In this case the grantor owned all of the ground under the house and he put the grantee in possession of the house as it existed in 1989. Obviously if the boundary is not correctly laid out by the Surveyor then the property owners can object but they should do this in a timely manner especially when valuable improvements are built in reliance on it.
If the retracing Surveyor sees a building in his scope, he should at least investigate further. It may be a real encroachment but at least investigate. It may not be an encroachment as I believe the 117 year old building in this case is not an encroachment.