Property Boundaries in the Netherlands: Erfgrens and the Kadaster

A boundary dispute between neighbours in the Netherlands almost always turns on one question: where does the erfgrens, the legal property boundary, actually run. The answer is rarely the fence or hedge that has stood there for years, because Dutch law separates the boundary that is registered from the boundary you can see.

Burgerlijk Wetboek Boek 5 gives an owner two distinct tools. One lets you have the existing boundary marked so nobody can argue about it later, and the other lets you have a genuinely uncertain boundary fixed by a court. Getting the right tool for the situation matters, because they sit in different articles and lead to different places.

This page explains how the registered boundary works, how to demand boundary markers under artikel 5:46 BW, how a court determines an uncertain line under artikel 5:47 BW, what a Kadaster grensreconstructie does, and which court hears the dispute.

Information last verified on 22 July 2026. This page provides general legal information about Netherlands law and does not constitute legal advice in an individual case.

The registered boundary and the visible boundary

Every plot of land in the Netherlands is recorded in the public registers kept by the Kadaster, the national land registry. The boundary that matters in law is the kadastrale grens, the line the Kadaster holds, which was fixed when the plots were first created or last resurveyed.

A fence, hedge or row of paving is only evidence of where people have treated the boundary as being. It can drift from the registered line over the years, and a long-standing hedge that everyone assumed marked the boundary may in fact sit inside one owner's land. The visible feature does not move the legal line on its own.

That gap is why a boundary argument is worth resolving on paper rather than by eye. Once the registered line is established, the question of who owns which strip usually answers itself, and questions such as where a fence or hedge may stand fall into place around it.

Demanding boundary markers: artikel 5:46 BW

Artikel 5:46 BW gives every owner a simple, permanent right. The Dutch text reads:

De eigenaar van een erf kan te allen tijde van de eigenaar van het aangrenzende erf vorderen dat op de grens van hun erven behoorlijk waarneembare afpalingstekens gesteld of de bestaande zo nodig vernieuwd worden. De eigenaars dragen in de kosten hiervan voor gelijke delen bij.

In plain terms, either neighbour may demand at any time (te allen tijde) that clearly perceptible boundary markers (afpalingstekens) be set on the boundary, or that existing markers be renewed where needed. This process is called afpaling, and the two owners contribute to the cost in equal shares (voor gelijke delen).

The point of artikel 5:46 BW is prevention. It applies where the line is not really in dispute but is unmarked or has become unclear on the ground, and it lets a careful owner lock in the boundary before a future buyer or a new neighbour starts to question it. A neighbour cannot refuse to take part, because the article makes co-operation a demandable right.

When the boundary itself is uncertain: artikel 5:47 BW

Artikel 5:46 BW assumes everyone knows where the line runs and simply wants it marked. When the course of the boundary is genuinely uncertain, a different article applies. Artikel 5:47 BW provides:

1 Indien de loop van de grens tussen twee erven onzeker is, kan ieder der eigenaars te allen tijde vorderen dat de rechter de grens bepaalt. 2 In geval van onzekerheid waar de grens tussen twee erven ligt, geldt niet het wettelijk vermoeden dat de bezitter eigenaar is. 3 Bij het bepalen van de grens kan de rechter naar gelang van de omstandigheden het gebied waarover onzekerheid bestaat, in gelijkwaardige of ongelijkwaardige delen verdelen dan wel het in zijn geheel aan een der partijen toewijzen, al dan niet met toekenning van een schadevergoeding aan een der partijen.

Three things follow from the text. First, where the course of the boundary is uncertain (onzeker), either owner may at any time ask the court (de rechter) to determine it. Second, and this is the practical sting, in that uncertainty the normal statutory presumption that the possessor is the owner does not apply, under lid 2, so simply having occupied the strip does not settle it.

Third, the court has wide discretion under lid 3: it may split the disputed strip in equal or unequal parts, or award the whole of it to one party, with or without compensation. Artikel 5:47 BW is the litigation route for a real boundary conflict, as opposed to the housekeeping of artikel 5:46 BW. Because the possessor-is-owner presumption is switched off, a neighbour who has quietly used a contested strip cannot rely on that use alone, which is what makes the article even-handed.

The Kadaster grensreconstructie

Before a dispute reaches a court, the Kadaster offers a service that resolves many of them: a grensreconstructie. A surveyor (landmeter) visits the site and re-marks the existing kadastrale grens on the ground, using the original measurement data from when the boundary was established.

The Kadaster describes the outcome as clarity about where the registered boundary lies, together with a report and the surveyor's measurement sketch (meetschets). In 2026 the service is priced from EUR 559, and because that figure is reviewed periodically you should check the current amount with the Kadaster before ordering.

A grensreconstructie is evidence, not a judgment. It shows where the registered line runs, which often ends the argument on its own, but it does not by itself decide a genuine legal dispute about ownership. Where the parties still disagree after a reconstructie, the route is artikel 5:47 BW and the court.

Which court hears a boundary dispute

Most neighbour-law disputes are claims of undetermined value and are decided by the rechtbank, not the kantonrechter. The kantonrechter's "regardless of amount" rule covers tenancy, employment and consumer-sale cases (artikel 93 sub c Rv), not neighbour law, which is routed by value.

A boundary claim, for example a demand that the court fix the line under artikel 5:47 BW or order markers under artikel 5:46 BW, is usually a claim of undetermined value (onbepaalde waarde), so it goes to the rechtbank. A purely monetary neighbour claim of EUR 25,000 or less, such as compensation for damage, can instead go to the kantonrechter under the ordinary money threshold in artikel 93 Rv. The distinction is worth getting right, because starting in the wrong court costs time and money.

When long use changes the boundary: verjaring

Occasionally a boundary question is really an ownership question created by time. If someone possesses a strip of a neighbour's land as if it were their own for long enough, ownership can pass by verjaring (acquisitive prescription). Possession in good faith can lead to acquisition after ten years under artikel 3:99 BW, while possession that is not in good faith can still result in acquisition once the original owner's claim to recover the land has itself lapsed, which under artikel 3:105 and artikel 3:306 BW turns on a twenty-year period.

Verjaring is fact-heavy and often contested, and it is a distinct route from marking or reconstructing the registered line. Where a strip has been fenced off and used for decades, it is worth taking advice on whether the registered boundary still reflects who owns the land. The Kadaster keeps information on this topic alongside its boundary services.