Unreasonably Long Docks in Michigan: How Long Is Too Long?

By: W. Dane Carey

Michigan lakefront property often comes with one of the most valuable rights a property owner can have: riparian access to the water. For many owners, that includes the ability to install a dock, place a boat hoist, moor a boat, swim, fish, and enjoy reasonable use of the lake.

But those rights are not unlimited.

A dock may be “on” the owner’s own waterfront, but still create problems for neighbors, boaters, and other lake users. A swim raft may be anchored in front of one property, but located so far from shore that it interferes with navigation. A boat hoist or mooring setup may be technically connected to a riparian parcel, but used in a way that creates congestion, safety risks, or a marina-like use never intended for that shoreline.

So how long is too long? Michigan law does not provide one simple statewide number. Instead, the answer usually depends on the waterbody, the location, the use, local ordinances, state permitting requirements, and whether the dock or related structure unreasonably interferes with the rights of others.

There Is No Universal Dock-Length Rule in Michigan

Many lakefront owners are surprised to learn that Michigan does not have a single statewide rule saying that a dock may be, for example, 40 feet, 60 feet, or 100 feet long.

That does not mean a lakefront owner may build or maintain any dock he or she wants. It means the analysis is more fact-specific.

A dock that is reasonable on one lake may be unreasonable on another. A long dock may be necessary on a shallow lake where deeper water is far from shore. The same length dock may be unreasonable on a narrow channel, a small inland lake, a congested bay, or a shoreline where it blocks navigation or interferes with nearby riparian owners.

The question is usually not simply: “How long is the dock?”

The better question is: “Is the dock reasonable under the circumstances?”

State Law: Hazards to Navigation

Michigan law addresses docks, rafts, and other water-related structures that create hazards to navigation.

Under MCL 324.80163, if an anchored raft or other item or material, whether floating free or attached to bottomland or shoreline, presents a hazard to navigation, the Department of Natural Resources or a peace officer with jurisdiction over the waterbody may relocate or remove it, or may order its relocation or removal. The person who owns or caused the hazard may also be liable for the actual and reasonable costs of relocation or removal.

This statute can apply to more than just swim rafts. Depending on the circumstances, it may be relevant to docks, hoists, buoys, anchors, floating platforms, or other items that interfere with safe navigation.

But the phrase “hazard to navigation” is inherently fact-specific. A structure’s distance from shore, proximity to ordinary boating routes, visibility, lighting, water depth, size, use, and location relative to other docks or channels may all matter.

EGLE Permitting and Part 301

Docks and other structures may also implicate Part 301 of Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, which governs inland lakes and streams.

As a general rule, a person may not dredge or fill bottomland, construct or place a structure on bottomland, construct or expand a marina, or structurally interfere with the natural flow of an inland lake or stream without a permit, unless an exception applies.

For ordinary seasonal residential docks, there is an exemption from the general permitting requirement, provided the dock is private, noncommercial, recreational, and does not unreasonably interfere with the use of the water by others. But larger, permanent, expanded, commercial, multi-user, unusually configured, or environmentally sensitive dock projects require closer review and are generally subject to permitting under Part 301.

A state permit should not be treated as a complete answer to every private-property dispute. EGLE may evaluate environmental and public-trust issues, but neighboring riparian owners may still have private claims based on unreasonable use, trespass, nuisance, bottomland encroachment, or interference with riparian rights.

Local Dock Ordinances

Some townships, cities, and villages regulate docks by ordinance. Local regulations may address:

• dock length
• dock width
• dock height
• setbacks from side lot lines or riparian boundaries
• number of boats or hoists
• lighting and reflectors
• seasonal removal
• keyhole or funnel development
• commercial or multi-user docking
• use of road ends, easements, or shared lake-access lots

Local ordinances can provide a more definite answer than general common law. But ordinances vary significantly by community. Some lake communities have detailed dock regulations. Others have very little. Enforcement also depends on the local government’s willingness and ability to act.

For that reason, a dock dispute often requires review of both state law and local ordinances.

The Common-Law Rule: Reasonable Use

Even where no state enforcement action occurs and no local ordinance squarely resolves the problem, Michigan riparian law still imposes limits.

Michigan courts apply the doctrine of reasonable use. A riparian owner may use the water and shoreline associated with his or her property, but that use must be reasonable in relation to the rights of other riparian owners and the character of the waterbody. See Thompson v Enz, 379 Mich 667 (1967).

The Michigan reasonable-use analysis generally considers:

• the size, character, and natural state of the waterbody
• the type and purpose of the proposed use
• the effect of the proposed use on the waterbody
• the benefit to the owner making the use
• the injury or interference caused to other riparian owners

This is not a mechanical formula. It is a balancing test.

A dock does not become unlawful merely because a neighbor dislikes it. But a dock may become unreasonable when it blocks access, creates safety risks, crowds neighboring riparian areas, interferes with navigation, creates excessive noise or activity, functions as a marina, or substantially interferes with another owner’s ability to use and enjoy the water.

Safety Matters

Safety is an important part of the reasonable-use analysis.

A dock, raft, or mooring arrangement may be unreasonable if it creates dangerous conditions for ordinary navigation. Relevant safety concerns may include whether boats must maneuver too close to other docks, whether the structure extends into a common boating route, whether it is difficult to see at night, whether it narrows a channel, whether it conflicts with boat traffic, or whether it forces neighboring owners to use their docks in an unsafe manner.

The stronger the evidence of actual safety risk, the stronger the claim. Photographs, videos, boating-pattern evidence, expert analysis, incident reports, and statements from law enforcement or lake officials can all matter.

Bottomlands and Neighbor Encroachment

A separate issue arises when a dock, boat hoist, mooring anchor, or raft crosses into another owner’s riparian area or rests on another owner’s submerged bottomlands.

On many Michigan inland lakes, riparian owners generally have rights to the submerged bottomlands adjacent to their property out to the center of the lake, subject to the rights of the public and other riparian owners. See Hall v Wantz, 336 Mich 112 (1953). Underwater boundaries are not always intuitive and usually do not simply follow a straight extension of upland lot lines. A proper riparian or bottomlands survey may be needed.

If a neighbor’s dock or mooring setup extends into another owner’s riparian area, the dispute may involve trespass, nuisance, unreasonable use, or interference with riparian rights. In those cases, the question is not only whether the dock is too long, but whether it is located in the wrong place. For more information on riparian boundary division, read: Ownership of Submerged Bottomlands in Michigan [link to other blog article].

Long Docks and Keyhole or Funnel Use

Some of the most serious disputes involve more than dock length. They involve intensity of use.

A single dock serving one lakefront home is one thing. A long dock serving a large number of off-lake owners, association members, renters, guests, or boats is another. Michigan courts and local governments often refer to this type of arrangement as “keyhole” or “funnel” use, where a narrow lakefront parcel funnels access to many nonriparian users.

The Michigan Supreme Court addressed this kind of arrangement in Kallman v Sunseekers Property Owners Ass’n, LLC, 480 Mich 1099 (2008). That case involved a dock with six mooring sites on a parcel with only 25 feet of lake frontage, used to funnel lake access to many users. The dock was challenged as a nuisance, both in fact and as a violation of the local zoning ordinance’s dock-frontage requirement. The Court of Appeals dismissed the challenge for lack of standing, but the Supreme Court reversed and allowed the claim to proceed, holding that an affected party can establish standing by showing that the challenged use directly affects its recreational, aesthetic, or economic interests.

That does not mean every shared dock is unlawful, and Kallman allowed the claim to go forward rather than finally resolving it. But it shows that dock length, number of boats, number of users, frontage width, intensity of activity, and impact on neighbors can combine to support a legally actionable nuisance claim.

When a Dock May Be Unreasonable

There is no bright-line test, but the following facts may support a claim that a dock, raft, hoist, or mooring configuration is unreasonable:

• it extends far beyond neighboring docks without a water-depth justification
• it blocks or narrows a navigational route
• it creates safety risks for boaters, swimmers, or neighboring dock users
• it crosses into another owner’s riparian area
• it rests on another owner’s bottomlands
• it supports more boats than the frontage can reasonably accommodate
• it functions like a marina or shared-access site on a small residential parcel
• it creates excessive noise, traffic, congestion, or nighttime activity
• it violates a local ordinance, deed restriction, plat restriction, or easement limitation
• it was installed or expanded without required permits
• it substantially interferes with neighboring owners’ use and enjoyment of their property

The more of these facts that are present, the stronger the case.

Practical Steps for Lakefront Owners

A lakefront owner concerned about an unreasonably long dock or unsafe raft should usually begin with information gathering.

Important steps may include:

• photographing and video-recording the dock, raft, boats, or hoists
• documenting dates, times, users, boats, and interference
• obtaining the neighbor’s survey, if available
• reviewing local dock, zoning, and keyhole ordinances
• checking whether EGLE permits were issued
• confirming whether the structure is seasonal, permanent, expanded, or newly installed
• determining whether the structure crosses a riparian boundary
• speaking with the township, zoning administrator, DNR, sheriff, marine patrol, or lake association
• consulting a surveyor experienced in riparian boundaries
• obtaining legal advice before the dispute becomes entrenched

In some cases, the issue can be resolved through a neighbor-to-neighbor agreement, written dock-location agreement, or seasonal-use limitations. In other cases, a demand letter, zoning complaint, EGLE complaint, law-enforcement request, or lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief may be necessary.

Litigation Is Sometimes Necessary, But Not Always the First Step

A lawsuit may be appropriate when a dock or raft substantially interferes with another owner’s riparian rights, creates a continuing nuisance, violates private restrictions, or encroaches across a riparian boundary.

Potential claims may include:

• declaratory relief
• injunctive relief
• private nuisance
• trespass
• violation of deed restrictions or easement limitations
• violation of zoning or dock ordinances
• interference with riparian rights

In some cases, damages may be recoverable. But litigation can be expensive and fact-intensive. Courts often want a clear record showing the location of the structure, the nature of the interference, the applicable ordinances or restrictions, and why the use is unreasonable. The more objective evidence available, the better.

Key Takeaways

Michigan does not impose a single statewide maximum dock length.

A dock, raft, hoist, buoy, or mooring arrangement may be unlawful if it creates a hazard to navigation.

State permits, local ordinances, and private restrictions may all regulate dock placement and use.

Even without a specific ordinance, Michigan’s common-law reasonable-use doctrine limits riparian activity.

A dock may be unreasonable if it interferes with navigation, creates safety concerns, invades another owner’s riparian area, or substantially interferes with neighboring owners.

Long docks serving many users or many boats may raise keyhole, funnel, nuisance, and zoning concerns.

These disputes are highly fact-specific and often require review of surveys, permits, ordinances, lake conditions, historical use, and the actual impact on neighboring owners.

Michigan Dock, Lake Access, and Riparian Rights Disputes

Carey Jaskowski PLC represents waterfront property owners, lake associations, businesses, and other clients in disputes involving docks, boat hoists, swim rafts, mooring, submerged bottomlands, riparian boundaries, public road ends, easements, keyhole access, and Michigan water law.

If you are dealing with an unreasonably long dock, unsafe raft, excessive mooring, or lake-access dispute, the first step is understanding which legal rules apply to your specific property and waterbody.

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