Q&As on Boundaries & the Rules for Cadastral Survey 2010

These questions and answers relate to survey boundaries and the new Rules for Cadastral Survey 2010. They were formed during a series of education seminars on the new Rules held around the country in September 2009.

Other questions and answers on the new Rules are also available.

If you have a question, please email newcadastralrules@linz.govt.nz.

Boundaries defined by survey

Where two existing parcels under 0.4ha with Class A boundaries are being amalgamated into one title, do the existing internal boundaries (ie common to both lots) need to be defined by survey where the combined title is (a) less than 0.4ha, and (b) more than 0.4ha? * NEW

The answer to this question depends on a number of factors.

The Rules apply to boundaries and parcels rather than titles, therefore the issue about whether the combined title is less than or more than 0.4ha is not relevant.

The Rules also focus on the size of the new parcel rather than the size of any existing parcel, hence the requirement to define by survey (rule 6.2(a)(iv)) relates to an existing Class A boundary parcel on a new primary parcel that is less than 0.4ha.

Note also the impact of SG ruling LINZR65306 ruling providing exemption for certain parcels from the requirement to define by survey. This ruling allows for certain boundaries of parcels under 0.4ha to be defined by adoption.

In light of the above, where two parcels are being amalgamated into one title then each parcel will need to be considered separately. Where all of the boundaries of a parcel meet the criteria in the ruling then those boundaries can be defined by adoption. Should there be a reason that requires any one of those boundaries to be defined by survey (eg a conflict) then all the boundaries of that particular parcel are to be defined by survey.

Are Class A parcels under 0.4ha required to have all existing boundary points ground marked (either old mark found or placement of new mark)? Figure 47 Pg 110 of the Interpretation Guide appears to show the four peripheral corners coloured red can be adopted as long as they are "defined by survey" under rule 6.1 and comply with 7.3.1 witnessing standards. Please advise whether these types of boundary points could be adopted. * NEW

For a Class A parcel under 0.4ha, all primary parcel boundary points are required to be defined by survey (rule 6.2(a)(iv)). See note below for exemptions.

This does not necessarily mean that these existing boundary points are required to be marked. Only those points that fit the criteria in rule 7.1(b) and (c) are required to be marked.

In defining a boundary point by survey, in some cases the most appropriate evidence of that boundary position will be the adopted information from a prior survey. In this case, the boundary point may be adopted. Note that adopting the position can only occur after all relevance evidence has been considered (rule 6.1).

In all cases irrespective of whether the existing boundary position has been adopted or marked, the witness mark to boundary position accuracy tolerance specified in rule 3.6 must be met.

Note: SG Ruling LINZR65306 Exemption of definition by survey for certain parcels provides an exemption for some parcels. One of the criteria in the ruling is that all the boundary lines of the new parcel are to be existing primary parcel boundaries that are defined in an approved CSD. Examples of this occur where two or more existing parcels are amalgamated into a single new parcel or where the existing parcel and the new parcel have the same boundaries

Does "define by survey" mean that a surveyor always needs to search for an old peg at a boundary angle?

The surveyor must consider the best evidence when they "define by survey". In the majority of cases this would be the old boundary mark if it was originally marked and that mark remains undisturbed. However in some case this may be the witness mark or some other mark if it is known that the original mark has been lost or the boundary point has been reinstated (rule 6.1).

Are all class A boundary points required to be "defined by survey" also required to be marked?

Not necessarily. Only those boundary points identified in rule 7.1 are required to be marked.

For a class A boundary on a parcel less than 0.4ha, if existing boundary points are from recently approved CSDs, are they still required to be fully "defined by survey"?

Yes. Every boundary that falls within the criteria of rule 6.2(a)(iv) must be defined by survey. However the recent survey is likely to provide good evidence.

In the case of class A and where there is an existing approved CSD that is not for deposit, can a new CSD of compiled data be created or are the primary parcel boundary points still required to be "defined by survey"?

Every boundary that falls within the criteria of rule 6.2(a)(iv) must be "defined by survey" and in this case, a CSD of compiled data would not be appropriate.

Permanent structure boundaries

Is a permanent structure on a primary parcel boundary a permanent structure boundary?

A permanent structure boundary cannot be used for a primary parcel. Where a permanent structure coincides with a primary parcel boundary, the structure is considered to be occupation and may therefore be exempt from marking under rule 7.1(a)(vi).

Can a reduced level be used for defining a permanent structure boundary?

No. A permanent structure boundary must be related to a permanent structure (refer to the definition of a permanent structure boundary). Note, however, that a permanent structure boundary may be defined by vertical offsets above or below a permanent structure (rule 6.9(b)).

A boundary defined by reduced levels would normally be a stratum boundary (rule 6.8).

Irregular boundaries

Do all existing irregular road boundaries of a new primary parcel less than 20ha need to right lined? 

Yes (rule 6.6(b)). Existing irregular road boundaries must be right-lined unless they are:

(a) part of a new parcel over 20ha that comprises 80% or more of the existing parcel being extinguished or
(b) over 100ha (rules 3.2.3(a) & 6.3(a)). Note there is an exception for residue and balance parcel (rule 6.3(b)).

The boundary will require marking if it is a class A boundary (rule 7.1(c)).

Easements

Do we have to define the whole underlying parcel when we are completing an easement plan? Or just define where the easement intersects the boundaries of the underlying parcels? An example would be a walkway easement over a very large parcel (farm). * NEW

In much the same manner as under the current rules, there is a requirement that the spatial relationship between the non-primary parcel boundaries (the easement boundaries) and the primary parcel boundaries meet the accuracy standards set out in new rule 3.3.1. Where a non-primary parcel boundary coincides (intersects) or is in close proximity to the primary parcel, the location of that underlying primary boundary will be need to accurately known (refer also to page 66 Interpretation guide for Cadastral Survey Rules 2010).