JS14 Cadastral Appraisal, Land Markets and Valuation
Erik Stubkjær
Modelling Real Property Transactions
FIG XXII International Congress
Washington, D.C. USA, April 19-26 2002
1/12
Modelling Real Property Transactions
Prof. Erik STUBKJÆR, Denmark
Key words: Cadastre, COST G9, real property rights, subdivision, transaction costs.
ABSTRACT
Steudler et al. report on the performance of cadastral systems internationally in Benchmark-
ing Cadastral Systems (1997). The authors met serious difficulties comparing data from
different countries, suggesting that more progress had to be made in the definition of con-
cepts and terminology. This concern is reflected among the recommendations of the Bathurst
Declaration: “Recognising the difficulties in interpretation of the many land administration
related terms, develop a readily accessible thesaurus […] to facilitate a better understanding
of the terminology used.” (FIG, 1999; no. 14).
The need for more elaborated concept sets - for a theoretical basis - was among the motives
for proposing a concerted research project: Modelling Real Property Transactions. Research-
ers from 11 European countries co-operate in the project that gained status as a COST action
as of March 1st 2001. The majority of researchers relate to surveying studies, and hence to
the FIG.
The main objective of the action is to improve the transparency of real property markets and
to provide a stronger basis for the reduction of costs of real property transactions by prepar-
ing a set of models of real property transaction. The developed models and a subsequent
comparative analysis can be used for improving the efficiency of the procedures. Further-
more, the COST action will support Ph.D.-studies by providing a much-needed international
research framework and a basis for Ph.D.-level courses.
The paper develops on the multi-disciplinary approach of the project and presents initial
findings.
RÉSUMÉ
Plusieurs travaux de recherche scientifique menés ces dernières années à propos des systèmes
cadastraux à travers le monde ont conduit à l'adoption par la FIG de la déclaration de Bathurst
(Australie) en 1999. Face aux sérieuses difficultés rencontrées dans l'interprétation comparée
des notions et du vocabulaire employés dans les administrations foncières, on y recomman-
dait de développer un thésaurus mieux compréhensible de la terminologie en usage afin qu'el-
le soit plus généralement accessible (FIG,1999; n° 14).
Ce besoin d'une base théorique plus élaborée et mieux intégrée a motivé le lancement, le 1er
mars 2001, d'un projet de recherche concertée, intitulé: Modélisation des transactions fonciè-
JS14 Cadastral Appraisal, Land Markets and Valuation
Erik Stubkjær
Modelling Real Property Transactions
FIG XXII International Congress
Washington, D.C. USA, April 19-26 2002
2/12
res. Cette «action» reconnue par le programme européen COST rassemble des chercheurs de
11 pays, oeuvrant surtout en arpentage et en études foncières et cadastrales.
Le but en est de rendre les marchés immobiliers plus transparents tout en réduisant les coûts
des transactions foncières. Les modèles en élaboration s'avéreront utiles dans les administrati-
ons publiques ainsi que pour la formation universitaire jusqu'au niveau doctoral.
Cet article élabore sur l'approche multi-disciplinaire de ce projet de recherche internationale
et en présente les tout premiers résultats, tant attendus.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
1997 berichteten Steudler und andere über die Leistungsfähigkeit von internationalen Katast-
ersystemen. Beim Vergleichen der Daten von verschiedenen Ländern hatten die Autoren
grosse Schwierigkeiten und schlugen vor, dass mehr Fortschritt in der Definition der Konzep-
te und Terminologie erfolgen müssten. Diese Bekümmerung ist auch in der Bathurst Erklä-
rung der FIG enthalten (Nr. 14, 1999). Die Notwendigkeit für Konzepte auf theoretischer
Grundlage war auch das Motiv für ein gemeinsames Forschungsprojekt über die Modellie-
rung der Transaktion von Grundeigentum. Forscher von 11 europäischen Ländern kooperie-
ren in dem Projekt, welches seit dem 1. März 2001 den Status einer COST Aktivität trägt.
Die Mehrheit der Forscher beziehen sich auf Studien im Vermessungswesen und damit auf
FIG.
Das Hauptziel der COST Aktivität ist die Verbesserung der Transparenz des Marktes für das
Grundeigentum sowie die Bereitstellung einer besseren Grundlage für die Kostenreduktion.
Die entwickelten Modelle und das Ergebnis einer Vergleichsanalyse kann für die Verbesse-
rung der Leistungsfähigkeit der Prozeduren benutzt werden als auch einer Grundlage für
Lehrgänge.
Der Beitrag ist auf der multidisziplinären Vorgehensweise im Projekt entwickelt worden und
präsentiert erste Erkenntnisse.
CONTACT
Professor, Lic. Agro. Erik Stubkjær
Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University
Fibigerstræde 11,
DK-9220 Aalborg Øst,
DENMARK
Tel. + 45 96 358350
Fax + 45 98 156541
E-mail: [email protected].dk
Web site: www.i4.auc.dk/est/
JS14 Cadastral Appraisal, Land Markets and Valuation
Erik Stubkjær
Modelling Real Property Transactions
FIG XXII International Congress
Washington, D.C. USA, April 19-26 2002
3/12
Modelling Real Property Transactions
Prof. Erik STUBKJÆR, Denmark
1. INTRODUCTION
Already in 1985, Dale drew attention to the fact that “sub-disciplines of surveying such as
geodesy held and still hold greater excitement and have attracted substantial research. Cadas-
tre has not. With few exceptions it was not until the 1970’s that any serious attempt was made
to […] carry out further research and place the study of cadastre on a more respectable intel-
lectual footing”. In the last decade there has been a growing pace of contributions to a theory
for cadastre. The International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) has promoted important reflec-
tion work, specially on the principles to be followed in order to create efficient cadastral
systems, which has resulted in a set of reference documents: “The FIG Statement on the
cadastre” (FIG, 1995), “The Bogor Declaration” (UNIMEC, 1996), “The Bathurst Declara-
tion” (FIG, 1999) and “Cadastre 2014” (Kaufmann & Steudler, 1998). Last, but not least,
Commission 7 of FIG carried out, between 1994 and 1998, a benchmarking project to com-
pare the performance of cadastral systems internationally. The authors met considerable
difficulties when comparing data from different countries (Steudler, Williamson, Kaufmann
& Grant, 1997) and therefore initiated a process of standardisation of definitions. One con-
clusion was that more progress has to be made in the definition of concepts and terminology,
so that it will be possible to develop appropriate indicators of performance of cadastral sys-
tems.
During the same period, the present author surveyed established academic disciplines, look-
ing for concepts and theory elements that would make sense in a cadastral context (Stubkjær,
1992; 1994, 1999, 2001), and made initial suggestions for a theoretical frame for cadastal
development (1996). In 1999, these efforts matured into a proposal for an international re-
search project. Researchers from about 10 universities in Europe and North America sup-
ported the project proposal and eventually, in March 2001, it gained status as a COST action:
Modelling Real Property Transactions.
The paper describes the organisation of this research effort and relates it to other European
research of relevance for the FIG community (section 2). The research so far includes a de-
scription of the subdivision process in three countries: Slovenia, Finland and Denmark. Initial
findings of a comparative analysis are presented, as well as the general objectives of the
project and its expected outcome (section 3). A conclusion closes the paper.
2. THE COST ACTION G9: MODELLING REAL PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS
2.1 Participation and Organisation of Research
The research project: Modelling Real Property Transactions, is based on the commitment by
university staff to provide a certain amount of research within the frames of the project. The
JS14 Cadastral Appraisal, Land Markets and Valuation
Erik Stubkjær
Modelling Real Property Transactions
FIG XXII International Congress
Washington, D.C. USA, April 19-26 2002
4/12
following 10 university departments are all concerned with FIG-related education and re-
search, and are formally related to the project:
− Dept. of Geodesy, Delft University of Technology
− Department of Building and Surveying, Napier University, Edinburgh
− Institute of Real Estate Studies, Dept. of Surveying, Helsinki University of Technol-
ogy
− Geodetic Department, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
− Land Reform Research Unit, School of Surveying, University of East London
− Professor group of Geodesy and Cartography, Riga Technical University, Latvia.
− Div. of Real Estate Planning and Land Law, Royal Institute of Technology, Stock-
holm
− Dept. of Geoinformatics, College of Surveying and Land Management, The Univer-
sity of West Hungary, Szekesfehervar
− Department of Geoinformation, Technical University of Vienna
− Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University
The following 4 departments are formally related to the project as well. They represent ex-
pertise in computer science and economics, respectively:
− Centre for Computing Technologies, University of Bremen
− Department of Computer Science, Aalborg University
− Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy, Copenhagen Business School
− Department of Business Administration, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
In addition, other researchers contribute to the project by presenting their research at the
seminars of the project. The invited expert to a seminar in Bremen, November 2001, was Dr.
Barry Smith, NCGIA, University at Buffalo, New York. He is a philosopher, who has made
pioneering studies designed to show that philosophical methods and theories can be applied
to information science. He participated in the preparatory phase of the project as well.
2.1.1 Organisation of Research
The project is established through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the participating coun-
tries. The formal instrument for this international co-operation is a document entitled: Memo-
randum of Understanding for the implementation of a European Concerted Research Action
designated as COST Action G9
“Modelling Real Property Transactions” (COST 328/00,
2001). It came into force March 1
st
, when the first five countries signed the Memorandum. It
is stipulated to continue to 2005.
The research is outlined in an 18-page document, a Technical Annex to the Memorandum of
Understanding, which is available at the official website of COST. It follows a prescribed
structure with the following headlines:
− Background
JS14 Cadastral Appraisal, Land Markets and Valuation
Erik Stubkjær
Modelling Real Property Transactions
FIG XXII International Congress
Washington, D.C. USA, April 19-26 2002
5/12
− Objectives and benefits
− Scientific programme: State of the art; The research issue; Methodological considera-
tions
− Organisation and timetable
− Economic dimension: assessed to 1.4 Mio. EUR
The research is largely financed by the participating countries, that is by nationally supported
research or - more often - by participating researchers, who pool (part of) their research time
into the project. The COST scheme supports this co-operation by covering some co-
ordination costs.
The research is directed by a Management Committee, which is made up by representatives
of the participating countries. National research bodies nominate one or two researchers as
members of the MC, who in turn selects a chairperson and a deputy chairperson. The research
is further organised into three working groups, on Ontology, Law, and Economics, respec-
tively.
2.2 What is COST?
COST (European Co-operation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research) supports
the co-ordination and networking of existing research activities, but it does not fund research
itself. Rather, COST funding covers the co-ordination expenses of each action (scientific
secretariat, contribution to workshops and conferences, publications, short-term scientific
missions etc).
Characteristics of COST actions or networking activities are that they are flexible, “bottom-
up” and can be truly pan-European as not only EU countries, but also accession countries
may participate. Participation in any Action is à la carte. Following a favourable peer review,
a Committee of Senior Officials may approve a draft MoU for a new COST action, before it
is opened for signing. Signatures from 5 COST countries are required to start an action. A
number and a title identify each COST action, e.g. G9 “Modelling Real Property Transac-
tions”.
In contrast to EU research programmes, this form of collaboration does not require an agreed
overall research policy. Thus, COST can acts as a forum for ideas and research issues, which
are not addressed by the established academic disciplines, nor part of the EU's priorities for
research and development. A COST action may, however, identify areas of future co-
operative research endeavour within the context of the European Research Area (EU Com-
mission, 2000), and the priorities and structure of the next Framework programme 2002-
2006, or within the European Science Foundation.
2.3 The Initiation of the COST action G9: Modelling Real Property Transactions
Many research issues within the scope of FIG's scientific commissions are not sufficiently
addressed by the university establishment, nor part of the EU's priorities for research and
development. The COST scheme may be a relevant frame for co-operation on such research
JS14 Cadastral Appraisal, Land Markets and Valuation
Erik Stubkjær
Modelling Real Property Transactions
FIG XXII International Congress
Washington, D.C. USA, April 19-26 2002
6/12
issues. The following review is meant as an inspiration for the initiation of subsequent COST
actions. What is needed?
2.3.1 An Existing Research Network
Within established disciplines like geodesy and cartography, networks among university
staffs and departments have been in operation for long. Within other fields, like cadastre,
stable and formalised networks are sparser. For example, Nordic university staffs concerned
with real estate and cadastre have met about every second year since 1980s to rather informal
seminars.
The EU's TEMPUS scheme funded a Joint European Project: Education in Land Information
Systems. From 1991 to 1997, this project provided the frame for yearly seminars. The par-
ticipants came from several Central European accession countries, and from the following
EU countries: Netherlands (the co-ordinator of the network), Denmark, and occasionally
Finland, Austria, and Greece (see, for example Gazdciki & Bogaerts, 1996).
From 1996 to 1999 a further TEMPUS project focused on the geodetic study programme of
Slovenia (Sumrada & Stubkjær, 2000). Through about two meetings a year, colleagues from
Austria, Denmark (co-ordinator), Finland, Netherlands and Sweden met with Slovenian
colleagues. The project concluded with the establishing of a revised and formally approved
study program that better reflected the needs of the more market oriented Slovenian society.
Besides, it established a group that was prepared to embark on a new research project, and
also able to perform the needed research.
Other networks may have a different development history. Important is to catch the opportu-
nities for financing improved co-operation on research related activities.
2.3.2 A Well Founded research Issue
A research issue may be well founded in three aspects that complement one another: One is
that the research project is described according to best practises in project management, e.g.
applying the logical framework matrix tool, where activities leads to verifiable results that
supports overall objectives.
The second aspect regards the essence of research: to provide new and proven knowledge.
Many FIG-related issues are multidisciplinary, and it is indeed hard to separate proven
knowledge from the flux of new mainstream practises. Precisely this is, however, the chal-
lenge of university staffs. A possible approach is to shape the research issue in a way that it
attracts interest by researchers from disciplines with stronger research traditions, e.g. eco-
nomics or informatics. The feedback from these researchers will assist in making a research
design that brings about a favourable peer review, cf. the presentation of the COST scheme
above. The proposal for the COST action G9 could benefit from stated co-operation with
renowned philosopher, knowledge engineers and economists, respectively.
JS14 Cadastral Appraisal, Land Markets and Valuation
Erik Stubkjær
Modelling Real Property Transactions
FIG XXII International Congress
Washington, D.C. USA, April 19-26 2002
7/12
The third aspect regards the purpose of research: Is it to provide a technology push, demon-
strating the potential of new inventions? Is it to reduce costs? Then who will benefit from it?
The problem oriented educational practise of Aalborg University focuses - in its ideal form -
on the needs or problems of a group of people in the society. This concern for those in need
may well serve both as a source of inspiration for the research and also assist in the attraction
of the necessary resources for research.
The COST action G9 has the long-term objective of improving the transparency of real prop-
erty markets. Whether this transparency will benefit globally operating capital or young
families looking for an appropriate house remains to be seen.
2.3.3 Luck, e.g. in Finding ’the Right Door’
The multidisciplinary nature of many of the research issues that are addressed by FIG com-
missions makes it difficult to find the right entrance to the units of the research establishment
and its resources. A field like the cadastre could relate to science and technology, because of
its heavy use of information technology and the location of most study programmes of geo-
detic surveying within the broad field of engineering. However, important issues related to
the cadastre are addressed by social sciences, e.g. law, political science, and economics.
A call by the Danish research board of social sciences triggered the submission of the pro-
posal for the project: Modelling Real Property Transactions. The project was reviewed
within the auspices of the Social Science-committee structure of COST, but was finally
adopted as belonging to the group: Miscellaneous.
3. THE RESEARCH EFFORT
3.1 The Purpose of COST Action G9: Modelling Real Property Transactions
“The main objective of the Action is to improve the transparency of real property markets
and to provide a stronger basis for the reduction of costs of real property transactions by
preparing a set of models of real property transactions, which is correct, formalised, and
complete according to stated criteria, and then assessing the economic efficiency of these
transactions” (COST 328/00, 2001).
The terms 'transaction' and 'transaction costs' are technical terms within economics, more
specifically New Institutional Economics. They relate to the fact that the cost of a commodity
in a market reflects not only the price paid. The cost includes the efforts of searching for the
relevant commodity and of assessing the quality of the product, as well as the costs of legal
protection of property rights, including the institutionalised paperwork and enforcement
measures.
In order to assess the transaction costs and the economic efficiency of selected markets in real
estate, the project takes its point of departure in a detailed description of the procedures in
which each unique transaction is embedded. The subdivision of a unit of real estate is one
example of the procedures studied. Others include the conveyance of title, and mortgaging.
JS14 Cadastral Appraisal, Land Markets and Valuation
Erik Stubkjær
Modelling Real Property Transactions
FIG XXII International Congress
Washington, D.C. USA, April 19-26 2002
8/12
The conceptual formalisms used for the description include the Unified Modelling Language.
The said procedures are mapped out through legislation, administrative prescripts, and pro-
fessional norms. These norms of behaviour vary across countries. In order to compare such
national rule sets, the terms and concepts that are used for the description of procedures are to
be carefully defined. The expected outcome of the research is what in the field of knowledge
engineering is called an ontology, that is a consistent specification of the concepts used
within a universe of discourse. Comparison of activities across countries becomes feasible
through the ontology.
A following major step will be the assessing of the costs that are related to the most frequent
of the studied activities, and more specifically the transaction cost that are related to, e.g. the
delicate procedures related to the conveyance of title. High values are at play, and because of
the needed recording at the Land Registry and different from the trading of jewels, you can-
not immediately exchange assets for money.
A comparative assessment of transaction costs in different countries is a necessary, but not
sufficient basis for cost reductions. Real property transactions are embedded in institutional
structures that vary across countries (more precisely: jurisdictions). The conception of real
property rights is not the same within the different legal systems: Continental European Law
(with subsystems), Common Law, Islamic Law, etc. Also, the division of work varies be-
tween units of public administration and between the diverse professions: lawyers, notaries,
real estate valuars, and of course geodetic surveyors. Within New Institutional Economics,
reference has been made to the fact that typewriter keyboards are standardised with a layout
(QWERTY..) that is not optimal (David, 1985, as quoted by North, 1996: 93). Similarly, in
the present case it is to be expected that the institutional structures related to real property
rights will not be changed just because of new evidence, even if such evidence was suffi-
ciently validated. What can be achieved, however, is a better understanding of the path of
institutional change (North, 1996: 92ff) that is, the long-term changing pattern of co-
operation (or lack of so) among governmental units and diverse professions in the domain of
real estate. Furthermore, a consolidated body of general and detailed knowledge on real
property will be established. This is needed among others for the education of the next gen-
eration of professionals and others agents in the markets of real estate.
3.2 Initial Findings: Comparing the subdivision Process of Three Countries
The following is based on yet unpublished manuscripts prepared by Rados Sumrada, Slove-
nia, Arvo Vitikainen, Finland, and the present author. The manuscripts include descriptions
of the ordinary subdivision process in terms of so-called 'Use Cases' (Sumrada, 2001). The
specific template applied here is borrowed from Cockburn (1998). The complexity of the
template and of the original descriptions has been carefully reduced in order to be able to
present the three subdivision processes on one page. The different style of authors is largely
left as in the original; reductions are made primarily to pack the information into one page (at
end of paper).
JS14 Cadastral Appraisal, Land Markets and Valuation
Erik Stubkjær
Modelling Real Property Transactions
FIG XXII International Congress
Washington, D.C. USA, April 19-26 2002
9/12
A striking difference appears between the Danish and the Finnish procedures. In Finland,
subdivision is part of the process of purchasing a parcel of a unit of real estate. The Land
Registry triggers subdivision when the legal formalities are settled. In Denmark contrarily,
subdivision is requested by the owner and precedes registration of title in the Land Registry.
The Slovenian case seems to be somewhere between these two extremes, but further investi-
gations are needed to identify similarities and differences.
Another difference appears between the Danish case on one side, and the Finnish and Slove-
nian case on the other. The two countries prescribe a report to be made, and in the Finnish
case the reports refers to a formal meeting with the parties in the field. The Danish provisions
are less formal: a formal meeting is normally not demanded and although needed documen-
tation is specified in detail, no report is mentioned.
However, an analysis at the level of individual attestations, etc. of the three countries may
well reveal that there is a high degree of similarity. This is because the objective of the three
subdivision cases most likely is the same. Tentatively, the functional objectives may be de-
scribed as to:
− establish systematically identified plots of land, and
− reorganise the rights in the plot and its surroundings at the wish of the parties,
− without compromising the rights of passive (and active) holders of rights,
− in compliance with spatial, environmental and agricultural legislation, etc, and
− maintaining the clarity and efficiency of registration.
The approach illustrated, focusing on UseCase-templates rather than the national legislation
and prescripts, has provided a basis for comparisons that are functionally structured. It will be
a challenge to develop a mutually agreed set of functional objectives, and develop a formal-
ism that relate the individual attestations and other data sets to the functional objectives in a
consistent way.
4. CONCLUSION
The call for improved definitions and for the development of consistent sets of concepts
regarding cadastre and real estate is addressed by the project: Modelling Real Property
Transactions. The project and it status as a COST action was presented with the view of
inspiring other researchers within the FIG-universe to apply the COST scheme for research
co-operation. Three complementary aspects of co-ordinated research: project management,
scientific strength, and societal relevance was introduced as criteria for a favourable peer
review.
Subdivision procedures of three countries: Denmark, Finland and Slovenia were synoptically
presented, and differences and similarities discussed. The discussion contributed to the per-
formance of further research by suggesting functional objectives for subdivision procedures.
Other foreseen research activities within the frame of COST action G9: Modelling Real
Property Transactions, was presented as well.
JS14 Cadastral Appraisal, Land Markets and Valuation
Erik Stubkjær
Modelling Real Property Transactions
FIG XXII International Congress
Washington, D.C. USA, April 19-26 2002
10/12
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The comments by Rados Sumrada and Arvo Vitikainen to a previous version, and the permis-
sion to use their unpublished material are gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Cockburn, A, 1998, Basic Use Case Template, Document TR.96.03a
http://members.aol.com/acockburn/papers/uctempla.htm [Accessed Jan 2002;
Sept.1999]
COST 328/00, 2001, Draft Memorandum of Understanding for the implementation of a
European Concerted Research Action designated as COST Action G9 "Modelling Real
Property Transactions". Brussels, COST secretariat, 19 p.
Dale, P,1985, Evolution and development in cadastral studies. The Canadian Surveyor, 39(4),
353-362.
FIG,1999, The Bathurst Declaration. Report on the Workshop on Land Tenure and Cadastral
Infrastructures for Sustainable Development. FIG publication no. 14.
Gazdzicki, J & Bogaerts T ,1996, 5
th
EUROLIS Seminar, 1996. Warsaw, Fundcja Rozwoj
Sggw, ISBN 83-86980-15-X. 164 p.
EU Commission, 2000, Towards a European research area. - COM(2000) 6
Steudler, D, Williamson, I, Kaufmann, J & Grant, D, 1997, Benchmarking cadastral systems.
The Australian Surveyor, 42(3), 87-106.
Stubkjær, E, 1992, The development of national, multi-purpose spatial information systems -
Danish experiences in a theoretical context. Computers, Environment and Urban Sys-
tems 16 (3) 209-217.
Stubkjær, E, 1994, Employing the Linguistic Paradigm for Spatial Information. Waugh, T C
& Healey, R G: Advances in GIS research SDH’94. University of Edinburgh. (1) 572-
587.
Stubkjær, E, 1996, A Theoretical Basis for Cadastral Development. Bogarets, M J M & Gaz-
dciki, J: 3
rd
EUROLIS Seminar, 1994. Delft University of Technology, 1996. Pp. 0.9 -
0.23.
Stubkjær, E, 1999, Cadastral Research - Issues and approaches Kart og Plan 59 (3) 267-278.
Stubkjær, E, 2001, Spatial, Socio-economic Units and Societal Needs - Danish Experiences
in a Theoretical Context. Frank, A U et al: Life and Motion of Socio-Economic Units.
GISDATA Series no. 8. London, Taylor & Francis. Pp. 265-279.
Šumrada, R and Stubkjær, E, 2000, Outcome of the Phare-Tempus project: Improved educa-
tion on environment and infrastructure. EUGISES Seminar, Budapest, Hungary, 2000.
http://geoinfo.cslm.hu/eugises/papers_pdf/sumrada.pdf [2002-01-05]
Šumrada, R, 2001, The Internal and External Views of Cadastral Information Systems. Paper
presented at COST G9-seminar, Bremen, November 2001.
JS14 Cadastral Appraisal, Land Markets and Valuation
Erik Stubkjær
Modelling Real Property Transactions
FIG XXII International Congress
Washington, D.C. USA, April 19-26 2002
11/12
Denmark:
Subdivision recorded in Cadastre
Finland: Subdivision recorded
in Cadastre and Land Registry
Slovenia: Subdivision recorded
in Cadastre and Land registry
Context
The owner sells a parcel of his unit of
real estate, e.g. to allow for building
construction on the parcel
Context: The owner sells a parcel of his
unit of real estate.
1. The owner and the buyer agree upon a
contract of sale
2. The appointed notary checks and verifies
the contract of sale
3. The buyer pays the transaction tax to the
government, and forwards the request for
title registration to the land registry.
4. The Land Registry checks and records the
new owner of parcel.
Context
The owner sells a parcel to the buyer, which is a
subdivided part of his unit of real estate.
Actors, active: Cadastral surveyor,
owner, cadastral authority
Passive: Holders of rights in the unit,
municipality, other local authorities,
land registry, neighbours
Actors, active: Buyer, cadastral authority,
cadastral surveyor, land registry, owner.
Passive: Holders of rights in the unit,
mortgagors, neighbours, notary, municipal-
ity, other local authorities incl. Land Court.
Actors, active: Buyer, cadastral authority, responsi-
ble surveyor, land registry, owner
Passive: Holders of rights in the unit, local authori-
ties incl. municipality, mortgagors, neighbours,
notary
Trigger: Owner requests the service
of the cadastral surveyor
Trigger: The land registry sends the
approval to the cadastral authority.
Tg: The owner or the competent authority request
the subdivision from a licensed surveyor (company).
Sub-activities
1. Surveyor accepts and files the case
2. Surveyor collects and investigates
data, and chooses a strategy for the
specific case
3. Surveyor establishes boundaries,
marks new boundaries and certain
existing boundary points; measures
boundaries and buildings, etc. w.r.t.
national co-ordinates
4. Surveyor settles property rights
that interfere with the subdivision
5. Municipality (and other local
authorities as needed) approves case
with respect to spatial planning, etc.
6. Surveyor submits case to cadastral
authority.
7. Cadastral authority checks and
approves case, and issues the case
approval to surveyor, land registry,
and municipality.
8. Cadastral authority sends relevant
data to municipal property register
and land registry
9. Surveyor completes statement on
allocation of easements among new
and old parcels and sends it to the
land registry
10. Owner pays fee to surveyor
11. Surveyor delivers documents
(cadastral map of parcel) to the
owner
Sub-activities
1. The cadastral authority checks and files
the approval of the land registry.
2. The cadastral authority appoints a
cadastral surveyor to carry out the process
of subdivision.
3. The surveyor informs the buyer that he
has an assignment to prepare the case.
4. The surveyor collects and investigates the
data on the boundaries, easements, etc.
5. The surveyor calls the interested parties
(actors) to a meeting where he:
- checks accordance with spatial plans, etc.
- establishes, marks and measures bounda-
ries
- settles property rights interfering with the
subdivision
- allocates easements among to new and old
parcels
6. The surveyor prepares a detailed report
(minutes of the above meeting and a
cadastral map of the parcel) on the subdivi-
sion.
7. The surveyor gives parties information on
their right to appeal to the Land Court.
8. The surveyor sends the documents to the
cadastral authority after the appeal period.
9. The cadastral authority updates the
cadastral database (JAKO), sends the
relevant data to the land registry, and the
documents (cadastral map of parcel and
report) to the owner.
10. The Land Registry updates the land
register (registration of new unit of real
estate).
11. Fee to the cadastral surveyor is paid.
Sub-activities
1. The actual owner requests the subdivision from
the selected surveyor, who checks, accepts and
registers it (ident, date).
2. The surveyor collects the required data
3. The surveyor submits a request for subdivision
permission to the municipality unit concerned, which
issues a subdivision permission.
4. The surveyor investigates data and prepares a
specific strategy (workflow) for the case.
5. The surveyor establishes and marks new bounda-
ries and certain existing boundary points; measures
w.r.t. national co-ordinates
6. The surveyor prepares a detailed report (lots
established and measured boundaries w.r.t national
co-ordinate system, agreements etc.) and also
prepares a subdivision invoice.
7. The owner (seller) pays the subdivision costs to
the surveyor.
8. The surveyor delivers detailed report (documenta-
tion, cadastral map and enclosures) to the owner.
9. The owner, or at his request the surveyor, submits
the subdivision case to the cadastral authority, and
pays the fee for subdivision.
10. The cadastral authority checks the fulfilment of
various conditions, the technical quality of the
submitted case (report), including approval of
definitive boundaries and their registration.
11. The cadastral authority updates the cadastral
database, issues the case approval to the owner (or
surveyor) and to the land registry, and sends the
relevant data to the Land registry.
12. Following registration of title of new ownership,
the land registry sends a decree on the approval to
the cadastral authority and the new owner (or
surveyor).
Related activities
I. Registration of title follows
subdivision.
II. Municipality updates Property
Register (ESR) and, if applicable,
Building and Dwelling Register.
Related activities: Registration of title:
1. The owner and the buyer make (with possible
legal assistance) a signed sale contract.
2. The buyer settles the real property sales tax to the
municipality concerned.
3. The appointed notary checks and verifies the sale
contract (valid, subdivision completed, tax paid, ..).
JS14 Cadastral Appraisal, Land Markets and Valuation
Erik Stubkjær
Modelling Real Property Transactions
FIG XXII International Congress
Washington, D.C. USA, April 19-26 2002
12/12
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Professor, Lic. Agro. Erik Stubkjær is professor for Cadastral Science at the Department of
Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Denmark, since 1977.
He has written numerous research articles and conference contributions with a view to ar-
ticulate theoretical foundations of the European cadastres.
Interest in educational development made Erik the co-ordinator of the EU's Phare/ TEMPUS
project: Improved Education on Environment and Infrastructure (1996-99). The project re-
garded the restructuring of the study programme of the Department of Geodesy, Faculty of
Civil and Geodetic Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, and resulted in a formally
agreed renewal of the study programmes.
He served as the chairman of the Programme Committee for the 7th Scandinavian Research
Conference on Geographical Information Science, which convened June 1999 at the Depart-
ment in Aalborg. During 1999-2001, he was co-ordinator of a Nordic-Baltic Network on
Land Management in Geodetic University Programmes, NorBalt.
Since November 2001, he is elected chairman of the management committee of a research
project, Modelling Real Property Transactions, which co-ordinates research in 11 European
countries.
Erik is member of the Danish Association of Chartered Surveyors, and of the IT-section of
the Society of Danish Engineers.
