Dock interferes with plaintiff’s riparian rights

Defendants’ pier, which they constructed from their shoreline to the navigable waterway of a river, must be removed to the extent that it interferes with the riparian rights belonging to plaintiff’s property.

Background

Plaintiff Smith and defendants, the Popes, own adjacent parcels of land that abut the Lafayette River in Norfolk. While Smith was out of town, the Popes built a pier from their shoreline to the navigable waterway. When Smith returned, she sued for injunctive relief, claiming the pier infringed on the riparian rights belonging to her property.

The court has conducted a bench trial and heard argument on the matter.

Analysis

The right to build a pier or wharf “is premised on whether the property line extends into the water to the mean low-water (MLW) line.” Under Code § 28.2-1202, “ the limits or bounds of the tracts of land lying on the bays, rivers, creeks, and shores within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, and the rights and privileges of the owners of such lands, shall extend to the mean low-water mark but no farther.”

In Groner v. Foster, 94 Va. 650 (1897), the court adopted this method of determining riparian rights: “A just rule of division is to measure the length of the shore and ascertain the portion thereof to which each riparian proprietor is entitled; next measure the length of the line of navigability, and give to each proprietor the same proportion of it that he is entitled to of the shore line; and then draw straight lines from the points of division so marked for each proprietor on the line of navigability to the extremities of his lines on the shore. Each proprietor will be entitled to the portion of the line of navigability thus apportioned to him, and also to the portion of the flats, or land under the water, within the lines so drawn from the extremities of his portion of the said line to the extremities of his part of the shore. The general rule of division, therefore, is, as the whole shore line is to the whole line of navigability so is each one’s share of the shore line to each one’s share of the line of navigability. The lines so drawn will be parallel, or diverge, or converge, as the navigable water line happens to be equal and parallel with, or is longer, or shorter, than the shore line.”

In this case, lines extending from Smith’s property and the Tucker property into the water cut off the lines from the Pope property before those lines reach the MLW. In these circumstances, the Virginia Supreme Court has stated that riparian rights are cut off. The “pier interferes with the riparian rights of the Smith Property to the extent that it crosses the natural extension of her property line.

Ruling

“[T]he Court finds that the Pope Property does not have riparian rights that would permit the Popes to build a pier out to the navigable waterway. Thus, the Court determines the Popes must remove that portion of the existing pier from the point that it interferes with the natural extension of the Smith Property line to the end of the pier.”

Smith v. Pope, et al. Case No. CL16-13103, May 1, 2018; Norfolk Cir. Ct. (Smith). Joseph T. Waldo, Henry E. Howell III for the parties. VLW 019-8-033, 4 pp.