Ownership of Submerged Bottomlands in Michigan: Is Your Neighbor’s Dock on Your Property?

By: W. Dane Carey

For many Michigan waterfront owners, the property line shown on a survey answers only part of the ownership question. The visible, dry-land boundary may be clear. But what happens when that boundary reaches the water?

That question comes up often in disputes between lakefront neighbors over docks, boat hoists, mooring locations, swim rafts, seawalls, dredging, and access to deeper water. A neighbor may believe that a dock is properly placed because it extends straight out from the shoreline. Another owner may believe the dock crosses an underwater property line. Sometimes both may be acting in good faith because submerged bottomland boundaries are not always intuitive.

This article explains the general rules governing ownership and apportionment of submerged bottomlands on Michigan inland lakes and streams.

What Are Submerged Bottomlands?

“Bottomlands” generally refers to the land beneath the water. In the context of Michigan inland lakes and streams, bottomlands are the lakebed or streambed lying below the ordinary high-water mark, whether or not that land is covered by water at any particular time.

A property owner whose land borders a natural inland lake, river, or stream is generally known as a riparian owner. Riparian ownership carries special rights associated with access to and use of the water. Those rights may include the right to access the water, place a reasonable dock, moor boats, use the water for ordinary domestic purposes, and enjoy the waterfront, subject to the rights of other riparian owners, the public’s navigation rights, and applicable state and local regulation.

As a general rule, riparian owners on Michigan inland lakes and streams own the submerged bottomlands adjacent to their property out to the center, thread, or legally apportioned middle of the waterbody. See Hall v Wantz, 336 Mich 112 (1953). That ownership is not unlimited. It remains subject to public navigation rights, environmental regulation, and the correlative rights of other riparian owners.

This article focuses on natural inland lakes and streams. Great Lakes bottomlands involve different public-trust rules and should be analyzed separately. Artificial or man-made lakes are also treated differently. Michigan courts have held that riparian rights do not arise from an artificial body of water, so the ownership rules described here may not apply to lakes, ponds, or channels created by human action. See Persell v Wertz, 287 Mich App 576 (2010); Holton v Ward, 303 Mich App 718 (2014).

Why Bottomland Ownership Matters

Bottomland ownership matters because many common waterfront activities physically occupy the lakebed or streambed. A dock rests on or is anchored into bottomlands. A boat hoist sits on bottomlands. A mooring anchor occupies bottomlands. A raft, buoy, seawall, dredging project, or marina improvement may also implicate bottomland rights.

If a neighbor places a dock, hoist, anchor, or other structure on your submerged bottomlands without permission, the issue is similar in concept to a fence, shed, or driveway encroaching onto dry land. The fact that the encroachment is underwater does not make it legally meaningless.

Michigan courts have recognized that riparian rights in water-covered bottomlands can resemble ordinary property ownership, subject to public rights of navigation and other limitations. In practical terms, a neighbor generally cannot use your bottomlands as if they were his or her own.

Your Underwater Property Line Is Usually Not a Straight Extension of Your Lot Line

One of the most common misunderstandings in riparian disputes stems from the assumption that upland side lot lines simply continue straight into the water.

That assumption is usually wrong.

The angle of an upland boundary line may matter up to the shoreline, but once the boundary reaches the water, the legal analysis changes. Michigan law focuses on equitable apportionment of riparian rights. The goal is not mechanically to project upland lot lines into the lake. The goal is to divide access to and use of the water in a way that fairly accounts for the shape of the shoreline, the configuration of the lake or stream, the location of navigable water, and each owner’s relative shoreline frontage.

That is why two neighboring owners can both be surprised by the outcome. A dock that appears to extend “straight out” from one lot may still angle into another owner’s riparian area if the shoreline is curved, concave, irregular, or located in a bay or cove.

The General Goal: Equitable Apportionment

Michigan courts have repeatedly emphasized that there is no single fixed rule that solves every bottomland-boundary dispute. Inland lakes and streams vary dramatically. Some are round. Some are long and narrow. Some have bays, points, islands, peninsulas, coves, channels, irregular shorelines, or significant changes in depth.

Because of that variation, the controlling concept is equitable apportionment. See Hall v Wantz, 336 Mich 112 (1953). In general, each riparian owner should receive a fair and proportionate share of riparian access and bottomland use based on the owner’s shoreline frontage and the physical characteristics of the waterbody.

That does not mean every owner receives the exact same amount of usable water frontage. Nor does it mean every owner has a guaranteed ability to place the same size dock or use the same type of boat. The legal objective is a reasonable and equitable division of riparian rights under the circumstances.

Round Lakes: The “Pie” or Center-Point Approach

For a circular or nearly circular inland lake, the analysis is relatively straightforward. The center of the lake can be used as a common point, and riparian lines can be drawn from shoreline boundary points toward that center. This creates a series of pie-shaped wedges.

That approach works best when the lake is round and the shoreline configuration allows each owner to receive a fair share of access and bottomlands.

But many Michigan lakes are not round. For most lakes, especially long, narrow, irregular, or oblong lakes, the center-point method may not fairly divide riparian rights. In those cases, other methods are usually needed.

Irregular or Oblong Lakes: The Thread-Line Approach

For many noncircular lakes, surveyors and courts use a “thread line” or centerline approach. A thread line is generally drawn through the geographic middle of the waterbody. Riparian boundary lines are then drawn from the shoreline boundary points toward the thread line, often as close to right angles as possible at the thread.

This approach is designed to avoid unfair results. If upland lines were simply extended into the lake, some owners could receive an excessive share of the usable water while others could be cut off from meaningful access. The thread-line method tries to apportion the waterbody more fairly based on the shoreline and lake geometry.

Even so, drawing a thread line is not purely mechanical. In Heeringa v Petroelje, 279 Mich App 444 (2008), a Michigan Court of Appeals decision involving a dock-extension dispute on Pine Creek Bay of Lake Macatawa, the court recognized that determining the thread line can involve judgment and that the underlying goal is equitable apportionment. The court emphasized that the thread line should be based on the original shoreline, using all available evidence, rather than a mechanistic application of one survey source.

Docks, Deep Water, and the Line of Navigability

In many practical disputes, the key issue is not ownership of the entire lakebed. It is whether a dock, hoist, or mooring location interferes with another owner’s access to navigable water.

That is why surveyors and courts may focus on the area between the shoreline and the line of navigability or deep water. Docking is often a near-shore issue. If the shoreline is relatively straight, riparian lines may be drawn in a way that runs generally perpendicular to the smoothed shoreline or to the relevant navigational line. If the shoreline is irregular, especially in a cove or bay, a more customized apportionment may be necessary to prevent some owners from being unfairly cut off from usable water.

The same general principle applies: the method should serve the purpose of fair riparian allocation, not the other way around.

Coves, Bays, Points, and Narrow Frontage Lots

The hardest cases often involve coves, bays, and narrow waterfront lots.

A lot with only a small amount of frontage may still have riparian rights, but those rights may be difficult to exercise without interfering with neighbors. Conversely, a wide lot located on a concave shoreline may not receive as much usable docking space as its owner expects if strict projections would crowd neighboring parcels.

Coves and bays can be especially challenging because a straight-line approach may cause riparian lines to cross, overlap, or leave some owners with no meaningful access. In those situations, a surveyor may need to identify headland points, determine the relevant shoreline configuration, apportion the line of navigability, or use a hybrid method.

These are highly fact-specific questions. A professional riparian survey is often necessary, and even then, the survey may represent an expert opinion rather than a final legal determination unless accepted by agreement, agency decision, or court order.

Can a Neighbor Acquire Rights Over Your Bottomlands?

Possibly, depending on the facts.

If a neighbor has maintained a dock, hoist, anchor, or other structure on another owner’s bottomlands for a long period of time, legal doctrines such as adverse possession or prescriptive easement may be asserted. These claims are fact-intensive and can be difficult to prove, but they should not be ignored.

Waterfront owners should be especially careful about long-standing encroachments. A neighbor’s dock that is slightly over the line may seem harmless at first, but silence over many years can make future disputes more complicated. The appropriate response depends on the circumstances. Sometimes a written license or neighbor agreement may solve the problem. Other times, a survey, demand letter, permit objection, or lawsuit may be necessary.

Practical Steps in a Bottomland Boundary Dispute

A riparian boundary dispute usually should not begin with assumptions. It should begin with documents, facts, and a careful review of the physical setting.

Useful steps often include:

• Reviewing the deed, plat, survey, and legal description
• Identifying whether the property actually touches the water or is separated by a road, walkway, easement, or strip of land
• Determining whether the dispute involves an inland lake, stream, Great Lake, artificial lake, channel, bay, or cove
• Locating docks, hoists, anchors, buoys, rafts, seawalls, and other structures
• Determining historical use and whether a neighbor may claim prescriptive rights
• Consulting a surveyor experienced in riparian apportionment
• Evaluating whether a negotiated boundary agreement, license, or court action is appropriate

The earlier these issues are addressed, the easier they often are to resolve.

Key Takeaways

Riparian owners on Michigan inland lakes and streams generally own submerged bottomlands adjacent to their property, subject to public navigation rights, environmental regulation, and the rights of other riparian owners.

Underwater property lines usually do not follow a straight extension of upland lot lines.

Michigan law focuses on equitable apportionment of riparian rights, not a rigid one-size-fits-all formula.

Round lakes may use a center-point or “pie” method, while irregular or oblong lakes often require a thread-line or other equitable approach.

Docking disputes may focus on access to deep water or the line of navigability, especially where the shoreline is irregular.

Artificial or man-made lakes are treated differently, and the ownership rules above may not apply to them.

If a neighbor’s dock, hoist, boat, anchor, raft, or other structure encroaches on your riparian bottomlands, the issue should be addressed promptly.

Michigan Riparian Rights and Bottomland Disputes

Carey Jaskowski PLC represents waterfront property owners, lake associations, businesses, and other clients in Michigan riparian-rights disputes involving docks, hoists, road ends, lake access, easements, plats, submerged bottomlands, and waterfront property boundaries.

If you are dealing with a dispute over a dock, boat hoist, mooring location, bottomland boundary, or access to navigable water, the first step is understanding what rights exist and where those rights are located.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Riparian and bottomland disputes are highly fact-specific, and anyone facing a specific issue should consult qualified legal counsel.