Under Michigan law, riparian rights are considered special rights which are associated with the ownership of the bank or shore of an inland lake or stream.[1] Such rights are typically held by a “riparian owner” to use the water in a waterway adjoining such landowner’s property.[2] Whereas, a “riparian proprietor” is a landowner who is in possession of riparian lands or who owns an estate therein.
Common disputes over riparian land and/or rights involve docks, access and use of beaches, environmental issues, and boundary lines. Establishing boundary lines within inland lakes can preempt or resolve various disputes that may otherwise emerge amongst neighbors and landowners. Therefore, this blog post will discuss the importance of this issue and key factors to consider when determining riparian boundaries for inland lakes.
Depending on the location and history of riparian land, there may be existing plats, subdivision maps, or written agreements already documenting boundary lines. As an initial matter, riparian owners should obtain and review all recorded documents related to their property to confirm whether the boundary has been previously fixed.
Whether boundary lines remain undefined or needing to be confirmed, there are methods and statutory frameworks to make such determination. Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), provides a definition for riparian boundary determination with inland lakes. Specifically, the statute defines the “ordinary high-water mark” as the spot on the shoreline where the land noticeably changes from dry ground to land that is usually affected by water.[3] The NREPA provides guidance for identifying physical features of inland lakes or streams that contribute to defining boundaries.
Michigan courts have also weighed in on defining the areas over which riparian owners hold rights to. Courts have found the proper method for determining riparian boundaries—especially in irregularly shaped bodies of water—involves:
- drawing a “thread” line through the geographic middle of the water body;
- confirming where the riparian owners’ surface property lines meet the water; and
- drawing lines from the thread at right angles to where the property lines meet the water.[4]
Importantly, courts have emphasized utilizing information beyond just prior surveys, to analyze the shapes of shorelines when establishing boundaries.
In addition, under Michigan statute a riparian owner may request and pay for the Department of Natural Resources to establish the location of the ordinary high-water mark for his or her property. Upon this request, riparian owners will enter into a written agreement with the Department.
Professional surveyors offer another practical method. Michigan law requires that surveyors meet particular qualifications and comply with regulatory standards for locating and mapping out riparian boundaries.
As a general last resort, riparian boundaries can be assessed and determined through a declaratory ruling in court. Michigan courts have applied approaches for riparian boundary determination.
Determining riparian boundaries on inland lakes and streams is proven to be complex and tricky. There are numerous factors that contribute to applying the proper method when assessing such boundaries. Factors can include the shape of shorelines, depth of inland lakes or streams, layout of existing docks, vegetation characteristics, soil levels, and erosion. Given these variables, inaccurate or informal assessments can result and potentially lead to conflicts over lake access, dock placement, or use of bottomlands.
As such, riparian boundaries should be addressed and legally confirmed to avoid these issues. If you own or are considering purchasing waterfront property in Michigan and have questions about riparian boundaries or related rights, our firm can assist with document review, survey coordination, agreement drafting, or court action when necessary. To speak with one of our attorneys, please reach out to Dalton & Tomich, PLC at 313-859-6000.
[1] MCL § 324.30101(s).
[2] Morse v. Colitti, 317 Mich.App. 526, 536 (2016).
[3] MCL § 324.30101(s).
[4] Heeringa v. Petroelje, 279 Mich.App. 444 (2008).
