What happens if an RPR shows an encroachment in Alberta?
Short answer
If an Alberta Real Property Report (RPR) shows an encroachment, the transaction does not automatically fail. The parties must determine what is being encroached upon, whether the encroachment is authorized, and whether the purchase contract requires the seller to resolve it before closing.
A current RPR identifies buildings and visible improvements in relation to property boundaries, easements, and rights-of-way. It also identifies visible encroachments. ([PDF] real property reports reca, [p. 1]; ADOA-Manual-01-2020.pdf, [s. 8.3])
An unresolved encroachment can affect municipal compliance, title registration, mortgage funding, closing, and the buyer’s willingness to complete the purchase. ([PDF] real property reports reca, [p. 2])
What is an encroachment?
An encroachment occurs when a building or improvement extends beyond the owner’s property boundary or into another legal interest. Examples may include:
-
A fence or retaining wall crossing onto a neighbour’s land.
-
Eaves, decks, garages, or other structures extending over a utility right-of-way.
-
A driveway, fence, retaining wall, or building extending onto municipal land.
-
An improvement located within an easement or right-of-way.
An RPR is prepared by an Alberta Land Surveyor and shows the location of improvements, their distances from property boundaries, registered easements and rights-of-way, and visible encroachments. ([PDF] real property reports reca, [p. 1]; ADOA-Manual-01-2020.pdf, [s. 8.3])
What should you check first?
Is the encroachment onto private or municipal land?
The solution depends heavily on whose land or interest is affected.
If the encroachment is onto a neighbour’s land, the parties may be able to enter into an encroachment agreement. Alberta’s Land Titles Manual describes this as an agreement allowing an improvement on one parcel to encroach onto an adjoining parcel. Once registered, it runs with the land in much the same way as an easement. (EAS 1 – Easement / Encroachment / Party Wall Agreement, [p. 1])
If the encroachment is onto municipal land, road allowance, parkland, reserve land, or a municipal right-of-way, municipal approval may be required. Calgary describes an encroachment as including a building, fence, driveway, retaining wall, or other structure extending onto City lands or interests. (Encroachments – The City of Calgary, [p. 1])
Is it authorized?
A Certificate of Compliance does not necessarily approve an encroachment. Calgary specifically states that its compliance stamp addresses building-location requirements under the Land Use Bylaw and is not approval of encroachments shown on the RPR. (Existing encroachments – The City of Calgary, [p. 2])
The RPR should therefore be reviewed separately for:
-
Municipal compliance.
-
Registered easements and rights-of-way.
-
Existing encroachment agreements.
-
Municipal consent letters, licences, or permits.
-
Whether the encroachment is identified as compliant, non-compliant, or requiring further authorization.
What happens if the encroachment is onto a neighbour’s land?
The seller and neighbouring owner may enter into an encroachment agreement allowing the structure to remain. The agreement may need to be registered on both titles and can set out the terms under which the encroachment continues. ([PDF] real property reports reca, [p. 2])
If no agreement is available, the structure may have to be removed at the seller’s cost. ([PDF] real property reports reca, [p. 2])
The court may also grant an easement or other relief in appropriate circumstances. Under Alberta’s Law of Property Act, the court can consider removal, an easement, acquisition of the affected land, or compensation, depending on the circumstances. (Buchanan v Stankovic, 2025 ABKB 457 (CanLII), [16])
The size and practical effect of the encroachment matter. In one Alberta decision, a small, long-standing encroachment was allowed to remain by easement where the purchaser honestly believed the improvements were within the property boundaries and the removal costs would be significant. (Buchanan v Stankovic, [24(a)–(d)]; Buchanan v Stankovic, [25])
That result is not automatic. Another Alberta decision treated even a small underground retaining-wall projection as a continuing trespass, although the court awarded damages rather than ordering removal because the intrusion was minor and monetary compensation was sufficient. (Lim v. Titov, 1997 CanLII 14886 (AB QB), [15]; Lim v. Titov, [17]; Lim v. Titov, [21])
What happens if the encroachment is onto a utility right-of-way?
An encroachment over a right-of-way can still be an encroachment even if the structure does not touch the ground. In Bruman v. Komarevich, 1999 ABPC 44 (CanLII), eaves extended approximately 0.66 metres over a utility right-of-way. The court held that the contractual reference to improvements being placed “upon” the right-of-way included improvements extending “over” it. (Bruman v. Komarevich, [8])
The seller was responsible for the reasonable cost of obtaining authorization from the City, even though the encroachment was described as insignificant and the City ultimately approved it. (Bruman v. Komarevich, [9])
What happens if the encroachment is onto municipal land?
Municipalities may require an encroachment agreement, licence, or removal.
Calgary requires formal approval for existing or proposed encroachments onto City lands or interests. If approved, the private landowner must enter into an encroachment agreement. (Encroachments – The City of Calgary, [p. 1])
An approved agreement may allow the encroachment to remain for the life of the structure, but Calgary states that the City may retain the right to require removal on notice. The structure may also be restricted from being added to, altered, or rebuilt without further written approval. (Existing encroachments – The City of Calgary, [p. 2])
Municipal approval is not guaranteed. In Dustan v Calgary (City), 2025 ABLCSAB 3 (CanLII), a retaining wall encroached onto City reserve land and a City utility right-of-way. The Board confirmed the removal order, explaining that the age of the encroachment did not override the applicable municipal bylaw. (Dustan v Calgary (City), [70])
What does this mean for closing?
The contract wording is critical. The agreement may require the seller to provide:
-
A current RPR.
-
Evidence of municipal compliance or non-compliance.
-
Particular warranties about easements, rights-of-way, or neighbouring encroachments.
-
Title free from specified defects or material encumbrances.
In Bruman v. Komarevich, the sellers’ contractual warranty covered improvements on easements and utility rights-of-way, and the encroaching eaves breached that warranty. (Bruman v. Komarevich, [1]; Bruman v. Komarevich, [8])
A buyer may request that the seller:
-
Remove the encroaching structure.
-
Obtain a neighbour’s encroachment agreement.
-
Obtain municipal authorization.
-
Register an easement or other agreement.
-
Provide a reasonable holdback.
-
Extend the closing date.
-
Negotiate a price adjustment.
Whether the buyer can refuse to close depends on the contract and the seriousness of the problem. Alberta courts have distinguished minor municipal deficiencies from problems that may require substantial remediation. In Healey v. Slobogan, 2008 ABPC 5 (CanLII), a technical side-yard deficiency did not justify refusing to close where a reasonable holdback was offered. (Healey v. Slobogan, [19]; Healey v. Slobogan, [33])
By contrast, a sufficiently serious breach can justify termination. In Baker v. Warshawski, 2010 ABQB 219 (CanLII), the court held that a major alteration to an important courtyard, combined with the surrounding circumstances, was serious enough to permit the buyer to terminate and recover the deposit. (Baker v. Warshawski, [64])
An Alberta buyer who discovers an imperfect title may also need to give the seller a reasonable opportunity to correct it. In Mullen v. Sumarlidason, 1974 CanLII 225 (AB QB), the buyer lost the right to repudiate after continuing to negotiate and failing to give the seller a reasonable deadline to remedy the title issue. (Mullen v. Sumarlidason, [27]; Mullen v. Sumarlidason, [32]; Mullen v. Sumarlidason, [36])
What if the encroachment was not disclosed?
Non-disclosure may create separate contractual or misrepresentation issues, depending on what the seller knew, what the contract required, and when the buyer learned of the problem.
In Baker v. Warshawski, the sellers knew about an encroachment and the neighbouring owners’ refusal to sign an agreement. The court found that failing to disclose those facts created a misleading impression and supported rescission before the contract was fully performed. (Baker v. Warshawski, [76])
A written warranty can also survive closing if the parties did not intend it to merge into the transfer of title. The Supreme Court of Canada held that an independent contractual warranty did not merge into the conveyance absent evidence of that intention. (Fraser-Reid v. Droumtsekas, 1979 CanLII 55 (SCC), [1980] 1 SCR 720, [734–738])
What if the problem is discovered after closing?
Possible issues may include:
-
Whether the seller breached a contractual warranty.
-
Whether the seller or realtor made an inaccurate or misleading representation.
-
Whether the buyer relied on the RPR or listing information.
-
Whether a title or encroachment agreement should have been obtained.
-
Whether the buyer’s title insurance policy responds to the particular loss.
In Power v. Goodram, 2012 ABQB 50 (CanLII), a realtor was found liable for negligent misrepresentation after failing to investigate and disclose a material party-wall configuration. The decision identified reliance, an inaccurate representation, a duty of care, negligent conduct, and resulting damage as relevant elements. (Power v. Goodram, [123]; Power v. Goodram, [142])
Practical rule of thumb
A minor, authorized encroachment may be manageable if it is properly documented and accepted by the buyer, seller, municipality, lender, and affected landowner.
An unresolved encroachment is more serious where:
-
It affects another owner’s land.
-
It is located on a road, reserve, park, or utility right-of-way.
-
The affected owner refuses authorization.
-
Removal would be expensive or structurally difficult.
-
The RPR is outdated or incomplete.
-
The contract contains an express warranty against encroachments.
-
The buyer or lender requires the issue to be resolved before closing.
What this means practically
An encroachment on an RPR is a problem to investigate, not an automatic deal-breaker. The parties should identify the affected land, confirm whether the encroachment is authorized, review the purchase contract, and determine whether removal, an agreement, an easement, municipal approval, a holdback, or another negotiated solution is required.
The RPR should not be treated as municipal approval by itself. A Certificate of Compliance may confirm certain building-location requirements while leaving a separate encroachment issue unresolved. (Existing encroachments – The City of Calgary, [p. 2])
The specific wording of the purchase contract and the timing of discovery will usually determine whether the issue must be cured before closing, can be accepted with documentation, or may justify termination. The RPR, title, contract, and any municipal or neighbour correspondence should be reviewed together before the closing position is decided.
Berjak Law handles Real Estate law matters in Edmonton and across Alberta.
Berjak Law
10080 Jasper Avenue, Suite 301
Edmonton, Alberta
780-879-0200
This article provides general information and is not legal advice.
