David C. Hicks

Something Spooky Is Lurking in Your Survey: The Rise of Survey Fraud

Standard

October is the season for ghosts, goblins, haunted houses, and things that go bump in the night. But for real estate lawyers and title professionals, there may be something even scarier hiding in a closing file: a fraudulent survey.  And unfortunately, this one is not wearing a costume.

An emerging form of real estate fraud involves property surveys that have been fraudulently altered or, in some instances, completely fabricated. With today’s sophisticated graphic-editing software and artificial intelligence tools, changing a document has become frighteningly easy. Even worse, the finished product can look remarkably authentic. That means the survey sitting in your closing file may not always be what it appears to be.

A Survey With a Few Tricks

Fraud-prevention reports have described schemes in which existing surveys were allegedly manipulated to conceal or misrepresent conditions affecting property. Examples have included an existing survey allegedly altered to remove an improvement, as well as a fabricated survey allegedly omitting structures encroaching into an easement.

Now you see it. Now you don’t.  These are not harmless edits. A survey can play an important role in identifying or evaluating boundaries, improvements, easements, encroachments, and other physical matters that may affect the title to or use of the property.

But remember that the survey and title examination serve different functions. A clean-looking survey does not eliminate matters disclosed by the public record, and a survey should not be treated as a substitute for a proper title examination. When the survey, legal description, recorded documents, and conditions on the ground do not seem to tell the same story, that discrepancy deserves further investigation.

Look for the Survey’s Skeletons

Unfortunately, there may not be one obvious clue that a survey has been manipulated. Still, a few red flags should cause you to take a closer look:

  • Inconsistent fonts, text sizes, spacing, or formatting.
  • Letters or numbers that appear to float, lean, or otherwise differ from surrounding text.
  • Smudges, unusually faint lines, white areas, or other indications that information may have been removed or replaced.
  • A surveyor’s signature or seal that appears misaligned, copied and pasted, or visually disconnected from the document.
  • Differences between the property’s legal description and what is depicted on the survey.
  • A recorded easement or other matter revealed by the title examination that an apparent current survey unexpectedly fails to depict or reference.
  • Electronic file creation or modification dates that do not reasonably correspond with the purported date of the survey or revision.

None of these things, standing alone, necessarily proves fraud. Documents are frequently scanned, copied, downloaded, combined, and converted into different electronic formats. Unusual metadata or formatting should therefore be treated as a reason to ask questions, not proof that a survey has been fraudulently altered.

Don’t Be Haunted by a Fake Survey

Fortunately, one of the best defenses against survey fraud is surprisingly low-tech: independent verification.  Whenever practicable, obtain the survey directly from the licensed surveyor or independently confirm with the surveyor that the version provided for the transaction is authentic.  If a survey comes from the seller, buyer, real estate agent, or another third party, consider independently identifying and contacting the surveyor to verify the document.

And here is an important point: do not rely exclusively on the phone number or email address printed on a questionable survey.  If someone has gone to the trouble of fabricating a survey, creating fraudulent contact information is not much of a leap. Independently locating the surveyor’s legitimate contact information provides an additional safeguard.

The Same Old Fraud Lesson, Wearing a New Costume

Title professionals have already learned an important lesson from years of combating wire fraud and other real estate scams: trust but verify. The same principle applies here.

Technology continues to make document manipulation easier and more convincing. That does not mean every imperfect-looking survey should send the closing attorney running from the building like the last scene of a horror movie. It does mean we should resist accepting a document at face value when something does not look right. Fraudsters may have some new tricks.

Our best treat remains the same: slow down, ask questions, compare the survey with the title evidence, and independently verify before relying on the document. Because when it comes to property surveys, the scariest problems may be the ones somebody has carefully erased.

Sullivan’s Island, Fractional Ownership, and the Limits of Zoning Law

Standard

We all know that South Carolina has some of the most beautiful natural scenery in the nation.  As the weather gradually improves, and with Spring Break underway for many and the summer rental season right around the corner, tourists begin flocking to our beautiful beaches.

In February 2026, a legal dispute[1] on Sullivan’s Island quietly reshaped the conversation around property rights, zoning enforcement, and the future of residential ownership models in South Carolina’s coastal communities. At the center of the case was 2 SC Lighthouse, LLC, a property owner, and Pacaso, Inc., a company that facilitates fractional homeownership. On the other side stood the Town of Sullivan’s Island, determined to enforce its long‑standing restrictions on short‑term rentals.  While the case involved a single property, its implications reach far beyond one address.

Sullivan’s Island has long maintained strict zoning rules designed to preserve its residential character. Among those rules are limits on short‑term vacation rentals, which town officials argue can disrupt neighborhoods and strain local infrastructure. As new real estate models have emerged, the town has taken a close look at how these arrangements fit within existing ordinances.

That scrutiny intensified when a home owned by 2 SC Lighthouse, LLC was used in partnership with Pacaso. Pacaso’s model allows multiple buyers to purchase fractional ownership interests (in this instance, one‑eighth shares) in a single property. Each owner receives scheduled access throughout the year, and Pacaso manages maintenance and logistics. However, unlike a true rental property, occupants do not pay nightly or weekly fees to stay in the home; they are staying in a property they legally own.

Town officials concluded that the arrangement functioned like a vacation rental in practice, even if it was structured differently on paper. The Town’s Zoning Administrator issued a violation, asserting that the property was being used as a prohibited short‑term rental under Sullivan’s Island zoning laws. That decision was upheld by the Town’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA).

2 SC Lighthouse and Pacaso appealed to the Charleston County Circuit Court. The court sided with the Town, effectively agreeing that the zoning authorities’ interpretation of the ordinance should stand.

The property owner and Pacaso appealed, arguing that a fractional ownership is not a rental, and that the Town was stretching the definition of “short‑term rental” beyond what its ordinance actually said.

On February 18, 2026, the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s decision, siding with 2 SC Lighthouse and Pacaso. The ruling turned on the critical distinction between ownership and renting. The court emphasized that the individuals staying in the home were owners, not tenants. Without a rental transaction (no landlord‑tenant relationship and no payment for temporary lodging), the court found that the town’s definition of a short‑term rental did not apply.

In making its ruling, the court clarified that interpreting a zoning ordinance is a question of law rather than a factual determination entitled to broad deference. While zoning boards are given leeway in applying ordinances, they cannot rewrite or expand those ordinances. If a municipality wants to regulate fractional ownership, it must do so explicitly.

Although the ruling is an unpublished opinion and is not binding precedent, its practical impact is significant. For Sullivan’s Island, the decision places limits on enforcement under current zoning language. The town may still regulate short‑term rentals aggressively, but it cannot treat fractional ownership arrangements as rentals unless its ordinances are amended to say so.

For other South Carolina coastal communities, the case serves as a warning and a roadmap. Many towns face similar tensions between preserving neighborhood character and responding to evolving real estate practices. The decision signals that courts will closely scrutinize attempts to regulate new ownership models using old definitions.

For property owners, the ruling reinforces a core principle of land‑use law: property rights cannot be curtailed by implication. Restrictions must be clearly stated, not inferred based on policy concerns alone.

The decision does not end the debate over fractional ownership on Sullivan’s Island or elsewhere. Municipalities may respond by revising zoning ordinances to directly address co‑ownership models. Developers and property owners, meanwhile, will likely continue testing the boundaries of traditional zoning frameworks.

This case highlights the broader reality that zoning laws written decades ago are being asked to govern a rapidly changing housing market. As ownership models evolve, so too must the rules that regulate them—through legislation, not interpretation.

For now, 2 SC Lighthouse, LLC’s victory stands as a reminder that in land‑use law, words matter, and towns must play by the rules they have written.

[1] Pacaso, Inc. & 2 SC Lighthouse, LLC v. Town of Sullivan’s Island, South Carolina, Appellate Case No. 2024‑000134, 2026‑UP‑078 (S.C. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2026) (unpublished).