Neighbor owns underwater 3-ft strip of land along our waterfront!!!

[lake995]

What is the name of your state? CA

Many years ago this property was purchased out of a very large block of land to build a water front home on small acreage. The owner retained a 3ft x 180ft strip of underwater “land” that stretched the entire length of this property's waterfront at a depth of 6 foot.

Due to continued county maintenance and silting over the last 40 years, this “underwater” land is now above water 50% of the time.

We have maintained the water front (above and below water) as well as walked across this “property line” to access the water for decades.

Is there any way to encourage this land owner to sell this strip to us or get a formal easement so we can continue to cross the property line and access the water?
What way can we protect our property value for the future so people do not think we are blocked one foot away from the edge of the water when they review county records?

 

[lcannister]

Is there any way to encourage this land owner to sell this strip to us or get a formal easement so we can continue to cross the property line and access the water?

Dumb question but have you ask him to sell the land to you?

You can protect your self by seeking legal help in presenting this offer and having it properly recorded in the deed/title to the property.

Why was this strip retained or do you know?

 

[nextwife]

HOW could he have been granted a strip of land underwater? WHO granted this? The legal descriptions normally run to the high water mark, the land the title insurer actually insures is ONLY to the high water mark.

Is this a navigable waterway? I am highly doubtful that he has GOOD title.

 

[justalayman]

Not neccessarily true Nextwife. Depending upon what type of lake it is, it is typical the adjacent landowners own under the water. I was just reading a situation where an HOA actually platted and reserved the land only under the water.

Something I just learned myself as well. in Indiana, apparently an owner of the land beneath the water also controls the water as well. Quite contrary to what is typically accepted as correct.

Now if you are speaking of navigable waters such as the great lakes, then there, the landowners own to the "high water mark" . When the water is at low tide, the public actually has rights to use that strip of land bordered by the high and low water marks.

In the OPs situation, I would suppose a claim of prescriptive easement may be possible if the timeline is correct. It would take a suit to quiet title to have an enforcable easeent though.

 

[nextwife]

Not neccessarily true Nextwife. Depending upon what type of lake it is, it is typical the adjacent landowners own under the water. I was just reading a situation where an HOA actually platted and reserved the land only under the water.

WE had one here in WI - which is still in the courts. The state DNR and Army Corps challenged the plat extending onto the water. This was a typical WI inland lake - theres zillions of them.



The poster needs to research Riparian rights. The land under the water BELONGS only to the adjacent owner it cannot be SEPERATELY conveyed..

 

[lake995]

Thanks folks, here are a few answers to your questions.

Navigable waters? Yes, it is a fresh water flowing river affected by high and low tides.

HOW could he have been granted a strip of land underwater?
Property lines in this area go into the water about 3 foot past the vertical retaining wall that holds up the shore adjacent to the property. The original property boundary was 1000 feet of water. 180 feet was parceled out to create several acres but the owner (of the 1000 feet) retained rights to this 3 foot x 180 feet of waterline. Since the owner's original 1000 foot property line included this I assume they found some precedent to retain or it slipped through the title process, anyway he kept it and had the new boundary drawn. I can only assume it was to prevent commercialization, building structures or boat houses that might obstruct the view, etc. The problem is, now the 3 foot stip is becoming dry land, we would hate to have problems in the future. Also, what about liability? Suggestions?

 

[nextwife]

A. Contact YOUR state DNR and inquire about who has legal control of navigable waterways and whether underwater land CAN even be LEGALLY and enforceably conveyed, seperately from the contiquous owner.

B. Pull out and review YOUR title insurance policy from when you bought the place. Exactly where does your insurer state your land runs to along the water? Do they insure YOUR ownership to the water?

 

[tranquility]

The problem is, now the 3 foot stip is becoming dry land, we would hate to have problems in the future. Also, what about liability? Suggestions?

What possible problems do you envision? Is the person going to start building? I'd just ignore the problem and continue to run you life as you have. If you are really concerned, you could look to see if you and prior owners have any rights due to adverse possession or other mechanism (some type of easement) by seeing an attorney. If you really have a bug to "solve" this you could sue to quiet title on any number of theories, including the water/land issues of accreation and the specific navigable waters rules.

 

[justalayman]

from the California Civil Code

(830.) Section Eight Hundred and Thirty. Except where the grant
under which the land is held indicates a different intent, the owner
of the upland, when it borders on tide water, takes to ordinary
high-water mark; when it borders upon a navigable lake or stream,
where there is no tide, the owner takes to the edge of the lake or
stream, at low-water mark; when it borders upon any other water, the
owner takes to the middle of the lake or stream.

without any other direction to the contrary, this section of California Code apparently accepts that there are other possibilites by grant deed than simply owning to the middle of a non-navigable body of water.

By that acceptance, it seems that a deed providing ownership to other than the littoral owner could hold title to an area under the water.

If the water is considered navigable, then only the littoral area and above is even able to be owned. Without researching, I can't really tell you what California defines as "navigable waters".

I don;t believe title can be held by anybody other than the state for land under navigable water.

as an addition, if a navigable water is concerned, it typically states that property is owned to either the high water mark or low water mark, whichever is applicable. . If this is navigable water, the other owner could not have reserved the property under the lake but it would seem that if it is not considered navigable, it appears he very well could have done just that.

 

[Caveman]

Dudes My mouse went crazy ( okay its an excuse)

I responded first with this:

I some underwater land around Alcatraz, I wish I COULD claims some of the treasure around there.Well that makes no sense, I sound like the caveman I AM.Oh well at least there is that underground water under the tarpits, you know the ones. In La Brea, It was there before my fathers Great-ape's time, Git me a lawyer seniorjudge, you do property. All the spoils are mine!

to the WRONG POST, om mY mAMMOTH SO EMBARRASSED.

he pretty much said: " Um, excuse me, what the he- doubles are you tallking about and I said this:
I am talking about maybe the prison guards didn't do no good searchs and some of those lamebrains that tried to escape brought something with them (enroute) when they drowned!

I was talking Booty of the Booty kind.


( but don't pay any attention, Happy hour sorrry, so very sorry. )


The Tar pits are still mine, I was there before anyone.

******i?


I still think I should stay at the bar, but maybe stay away from the forum?

I am so so sorry, I just miss my Mammoth.

BARKEEP!!!!!!!!

 

[nextwife]

I responded first with this:

I some underwater land around Alcatraz, I wish I COULD claims some of the treasure around there.Well that makes no sense, I sound like the caveman I AM.Oh well at least there is that underground water under the tarpits, you know the ones. In La Brea, It was there before my fathers Great-ape's time, Git me a lawyer seniorjudge, you do property. All the spoils are mine!

to the WRONG POST, om mY mAMMOTH SO EMBARRASSED.

he pretty much said: " Um, excuse me, what the he- doubles are you tallking about and I said this:
I am talking about maybe the prison guards didn't do no good searchs and some of those lamebrains that tried to escape brought something with them (enroute) when they drowned!

I was talking Booty of the Booty kind.


( but don't pay any attention, Happy hour sorrry, so very sorry. )


The Tar pits are still mine, I was there before anyone.

******i?


I still think I should stay at the bar, but maybe stay away from the forum?

I am so so sorry, I just miss my Mammoth.

BARKEEP!!!!!!!!

??????????????????????????

 

[Caveman]

om mammoth

if you read it it makes sense ??? misssy