Boundary and Renovation Disputes in the Eastern Suburbs: What High-Value Owners Get Wrong

In Sydney's Eastern Suburbs, a boundary dispute is rarely just a fence. On a tightly held block in Bondi, Woollahra or Vaucluse, a few centimetres of encroaching wall, an underestimated excavation, or a renovation that assumes an old arrangement with a neighbour still holds can affect a meaningful share of a property's value — and the neighbourly relationship that has to survive the outcome. Archer Lawyers advises property owners, homeowners and owners corporations across the Eastern Suburbs on the boundary, easement and renovation disputes that come with the area's mix of heritage terraces, established apartment blocks and ambitious rebuilds on small blocks. The mistakes we see are consistent enough to be worth setting out plainly.

Why these disputes look different here

High property values change the calculus of almost every dispute in the Eastern Suburbs. A boundary encroachment or an easement disagreement that might be a minor irritation on a large regional block can represent a significant share of a property's value on a tightly held inner-Sydney site. The area's built form adds to it: heritage terraces packed close together, established strata blocks now undergoing upgrade works, and increasingly ambitious renovations and rebuilds squeezed onto blocks that were never large to begin with. That combination — high stakes, close quarters, old title arrangements meeting new building work — is where we see the same mistakes recur across our property and development practice.

Mistake 1: Assuming the fence is the boundary

Fences move, are replaced, and are often built to a convenient line rather than the surveyed one — particularly on Eastern Suburbs blocks where terraces and semis have shared walls and tight side setbacks going back a century or more. The boundary that matters legally is the one on the title plan, not the one marked by whatever fence, wall or hedge has stood there for years. Before any renovation, extension or dispute escalates, a registered surveyor's identification survey is the most reliable way to confirm where a title boundary actually sits. Relying on an old fence line, a neighbour's assurance, or what a previous owner believed is a common and expensive mistake — one that resurfaces the moment a renovation, sale or subdivision requires the boundary to be exact.

Long-standing discrepancies between a fence line and the title boundary can also raise adverse possession questions. Under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), an action to recover land is generally barred after twelve years, which cuts both ways — it can extinguish a paper-title owner's right to reclaim land a neighbour has occupied for long enough, or protect an owner who has occupied land beyond their own boundary. That twelve-year rule applies straightforwardly to old system (general law) title. Almost all Eastern Suburbs land is Torrens title, however, where adverse possession works differently — a claimant must bring a possessory title application under Part 6A of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), and simply occupying a neighbour's land for twelve years does not, on its own, transfer title.

Mistake 2: Building or replacing a fence without giving proper notice

Under the Dividing Fences Act 1991 (NSW), a neighbour who wants to build or replace a dividing fence and recover part of the cost from the other owner must first serve a notice specifying the boundary line, the type of fencing work proposed, and its estimated cost — and can propose a contribution split other than equal shares if the notice says so. A neighbour isn't liable to contribute to work carried out before a notice is served, or within a month of it being served, unless both owners have agreed or the Local Court or NCAT has made an order. On Eastern Suburbs properties where a fence also does duty as a retaining structure or forms part of a party wall, skipping this step is one of the more common — and most easily avoided — disputes we see.

Mistake 3: Renovating without checking for easements

A right of way, a drainage easement or a support easement that hasn't been actively used in years doesn't disappear just because nobody remembers it. Before finalising renovation plans — particularly anything involving a rear lane, a shared driveway or a party wall — check the title for registered easements, and don't assume an informal arrangement with a neighbour has any legal force. Where a genuinely necessary easement doesn't exist and a neighbour won't agree to grant one, section 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) allows a court to impose one — but only if the easement is reasonably necessary for the effective use of the applicant's land, granting it won't be contrary to the public interest, the burdened owner can be adequately compensated, and the applicant has already made genuine attempts to reach agreement. Even where a court is satisfied on all four counts, it will almost always order the applicant to pay compensation to the burdened owner, and the applicant typically bears the costs of the proceedings as well. It's a real option, but not a quick, certain or free one, which is exactly why sorting out easement rights before renovation plans are locked in is worth the effort.

Mistake 4: Underestimating the legal risk of excavation near a boundary

Basements, pools and lower-ground extensions are common on the Eastern Suburbs' tightly built streets, and excavation close to a boundary carries real legal risk if it isn't properly engineered and managed. Section 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) imposes a statutory duty of care not to remove the support that one property's land provides to a neighbour's — covering the natural surface, subsoil and groundwater, though not support provided by a building or structure unless that structure has replaced support the land itself used to provide. Since 2000, this duty has replaced the old common law right to sue in nuisance for loss of support, so a genuine loss-of-support claim today is a negligence claim. Cracked walls, subsidence and structural damage caused by inadequate shoring or retention during nearby excavation can still give rise to a claim on this basis. That duty applies regardless of what a development consent or construction certificate says about the work being approved: approval to build is not the same as protection from liability if a neighbour's land loses its support in the process.

Mistake 5: Treating an encroachment as something to sort out informally, then leaving it too long

A wall, footing, eave or roofline that crosses onto a neighbouring property — even by a small margin — is an encroachment, and "we'll sort it out eventually" is a poor substitute for resolving it properly. Under the Encroachment of Buildings Act 1922 (NSW), either the affected owner or the owner of the encroaching building can apply to the Land and Environment Court, which has broad discretion to order compensation, the transfer of the affected strip of land, or an easement or other right over it — weighing factors including the value of the land affected, the extent of the encroachment, the cost and disruption of removing it, and the circumstances in which it happened. Leaving an encroachment unresolved doesn't make the underlying legal position go away, and it tends to surface at the worst possible time — when a sale, renovation or subdivision requires clean title.

If a dispute is already underway

If excavation has already started next door, a fence is already half-built, or a renovation next to your boundary is underway and you're only now finding out about it, the priority is different from the checklist above: protecting your position quickly. That can mean a formal notice, an urgent conversation backed by clear legal advice, or in some cases an application to prevent further work while the underlying dispute is resolved.