When a Herriman property owner opened his mailbox on a sweltering day in mid-July, he wasn’t expecting anything unusual, much less a city notice stating that improvements in his yard were encroaching on city property. Dated July 9, the notice gave him 10 days to contact the city. Wondering if it could be a scam, the homeowner, who asked his name not be used, dismissed the notice. 

He also initially doubted the letter’s validity because the structures—a fence and a shed—were there when he purchased the property as a rental in 2022. “How could the property be sold to us in this condition?” he said. The city is not involved in private property sales, and home inspections rarely include boundary surveys indicating encroachment.

“The city has been pursuing compliance for illegal encroachments onto public property,” Herriman Communications Manager Jon LaFollette said. “Violation notices have been delivered to multiple people, and the city is working with those people to remove encroachments.”

The homeowner wondered about the reason for the seemingly sudden enforcement of the encroachments. “Why is this an issue after 20 years or so of being this way?” he said, referring to the structures on his property. 

Herriman has worked to address encroachments since 2022 when city employees happened to notice some obvious residential problems. “That made us wonder, how many of these are there?” Herriman Police Division Commander Brent Adamson said. 

This launched an ongoing discussion about how to handle the encroachments, 85 of which have been identified thus far. The city began with the largest issues and is working its way through the list. Herriman anticipates it will be over halfway done resolving existing encroachments by the end of the year. “We can only do so much at one time,” Adamson said. 

The property owner has also expressed disbelief that these encroachments were allowed to be built in the first place. However, most cities do not have officials who oversee or prevent encroachments, and municipalities often grant building permits stipulating only that a structure be a certain size and distance from neighbors or residences. Building inspectors ensure construction, including plumbing and electrical systems, are to code but are not responsible for preventing encroachments.

When he spoke with the city, the homeowner said the community service officer insisted the issue needed to be resolved within 10 days or the city would begin court proceedings. 

The city maintains the notice gives the property owner 10 days to contact the community service officer, not to come into compliance, and is the same amount of time for cases where owners need to remove weeds or junk vehicles from properties.

“When I asked for more specifics…, I was told, ‘For you to get the specific data you are looking for, you will need to get a survey done on your property that will show you your property boundaries,’” the homeowner said. 

“We can’t go out and do a survey ourselves. That’s simply not a service the city provides. We rely on the mapping data we have internally and through Salt Lake County,” LaFollette said.

Allowing for a 12-inch margin of error, the city says its information comes from the Salt Lake County Assessor and uses Geographic Information System mapping data to overlay property lines onto an aerial photograph. This image is then provided to homeowners. 

Parcel maps are also available to the public on the Salt Lake County Assessor website. City officials say they hope the margin of error will prevent residents or city personnel from having to pay for an on-site survey.

At the end of July, the homeowner received a second notice stating that the city would take action, including possible criminal or civil proceedings, if they didn’t hear from him in another 10 days. The letter also stated that a lien could be put on the property for charges incurred by the city in addressing the encroachment. “I had been sending emails and leaving voicemails, but I could not do anything without some answers to our basic questions,” he said.

“There was a communication breakdown,” Adamson said. “And some of the verbiage of the second letter needs to be changed.” The city appreciates all feedback and regrets the homeowner’s experience.

“I know a lot of people are frustrated,” LaFollette said, emphasizing that Herriman has made efforts to be lenient where possible to minimize impact. “We’re trying to be as reasonable as possible while protecting public property.”

When determining a timeline, the city says it considers size, expense, seasonal changes affecting work and other issues raised by the property owner. It may allow more time for homeowners to comply as long as they’re making reasonable efforts. 

If officials can’t reach an arrangement with a homeowner, the case may go to the administrative law court, where a judge may grant 30 to 90 days for the homeowner to provide a plan for compliance, not to become compliant. This proceeding differs from those of a judicial court.

The city says no one has been asked to remove any trees or structures attached to homes, though some residents have destroyed sections of driveway or removed gazebos, sheds, trampolines and sprinklers to comply. So far, the largest section of fence that has been removed was 150 feet. 

After discussing solutions for over a year, the city council determined earlier this year that the only way to be fair was to treat all encroachments equally. The council rejected selling the land in question to affected homeowners as a solution for the encroachments.

“All property owners are asked to remove the encroachment and return the land to its natural state,” LaFollette said. “Additionally, many of the dedicated open spaces have stipulations requiring they remain open spaces and cannot be developed or sold. The city can’t sell in many cases because of agreements with developers.”

To complicate matters, Herriman irrigation infrastructure rests against the homeowner’s fence. City officials have explained that after a resident becomes compliant, the city reviews the removal or alteration of landscaping or irrigation on a case-by-case basis. 

Based on a survey, for which he paid $1,650, the homeowner moved the shed and fence late last month. This cost him another $5,000. “The survey…  shows a significant difference than the Google Map image…,” the property owner said. “He will need to work with the Community Services Officers about that disputation,” LaFollette explained.

“Based on the initial investigation by the title company, [my title insurance] does not cover the cost of resolving this issue,” the owner said. 

“The city will perform an inspection of the completed work, photograph and document the work, and provide the homeowner with a Notice of Compliance so the homeowner and the city have a record showing the issue has been resolved,” city officials said. 

The property owner suggested that the city council could benefit from the encroachment situation by working with contractors or survey companies. City officials have emphasized that no city council member is personally benefiting from addressing the encroachments. 

“That’s why we specifically tried to remedy this without a survey,” Adamson said. “And we wouldn’t steer you to a specific survey company. We’d never refer homeowners to a specific contractor or anything like that. Some contractors may be getting business, but that’s not our goal. And there are many other different types of things that need removal, such as landscaping.”

A court date was assigned to this case but was subsequently canceled by the city. λ