Boundaries in Action

Three cases from the last two working years. Each of them began as a routine job and turned into a slower piece of research because the records disagreed in ways that mattered.

Case one — Marigot Bay, half-acre above the road

An owner wanted to subdivide and sell a portion. The cadastral file said the parcel was 0.42 acres. The estate map said it had once been part of a 14-acre holding that included the present road. The walk said the road had moved twice. The result, after a long week of overlays, was a parcel that the registry could accept and a road right-of-way the planning office had not previously had on record.

Case two — Anse La Raye, footpath along the ridge

A development application included a private access road across what neighbours described as a public footpath. The cadastre did not list the footpath. The 1947 estate map did. The walk confirmed it was in daily use. The development was rerouted; the footpath now appears on a community-corrected layer that the planning office accepts as advisory.

Case three — Soufrière, two parcels both labelled lot 7

Two adjoining owners arrived at the office holding registry documents that both referred to their parcel as lot 7. Both documents were correct, having been drawn under different cadastral schemes thirty years apart. The fix was a long letter and a clearer naming convention. The cost of confusion would have been measured in court time, not in survey time.

“Both owners had been told they owned lot 7. Both were telling the truth.”