Developer Clearcuts Neighbor's Yard, Loses Land to Adverse Possession

Why It Matters

The decision underscores that known boundary encroachments survive title transfers, exposing buyers and developers to liability despite title‑policy exclusions.

Key Takeaways

• Encroachment flagged by surveyor does not disappear at closing
• Adverse‑possession clock continues despite change of ownership
• Title insurers’ exclusions don’t shield buyers from known trespass
• Developers risk costly lawsuits for unannounced land destruction

Pulse Analysis

Washington’s adverse‑possession doctrine allows a person who openly, continuously, and notoriously uses another’s land for ten years to acquire legal title. In the Spokane case, homeowner Robert Sydow maintained the fenced area for more than a dozen years, mowing, installing cameras and posting "no trespassing" signs. The appellate court emphasized that the statutory clock does not restart when the parcel changes hands, meaning each successive owner—Medar, Star Saylor Investments, and Douglass Properties—knew of the encroachment and therefore could not claim ignorance.

For real‑estate professionals, the ruling is a stark reminder that a surveyor’s note of an encroachment and a title insurer’s exclusion are not cure‑alls. Due diligence must go beyond paperwork; physical inspection and verification of boundary markers are essential before closing. Buyers should negotiate indemnities or escrow holdbacks when known discrepancies exist, and developers must obtain clear title or resolve encroachments before commencing construction. Ignoring these steps can trigger costly litigation, as demonstrated by the destruction of a pet cemetery and memorial tree that led to multiple claims and potential attorney‑fee awards.

The broader market impact extends to investors and lenders who rely on clean titles for financing. This decision may prompt tighter underwriting standards and increased reliance on updated surveys, especially in jurisdictions with similar adverse‑possession statutes. It also signals to title insurers that policy exclusions alone may not protect against liability when a known encroachment is evident. As urban development intensifies, parties that overlook boundary issues risk not only financial loss but also reputational damage, making proactive risk management a competitive advantage.