Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers, Environment and Urban Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compenvurbsys

3D property research from a legal perspective

Jenny Paulsson a,1, Jesper M. Paasch b,⇑
a
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Real Estate Planning and Land Law, Brinellvägen 1, 10044 Stockholm, Sweden
b
Lantmäteriet [Swedish Mapping, Cadastral and Land Registration Authority], 80182 Gävle, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This article investigates and discusses 3D property research, as evidenced by conference papers and other
Available online 26 January 2013 publications written in English, to analyze the distribution of interest areas and the occurrence of legal
aspects and trends within 3D property research occurring between 2001 and 2011. A total of 156 publi-
Keywords: cations on 3D property were examined. The publications were classified in four different categories,
3D property which represent different aspects of 3D property: legal, technical, registration and organizational. More
3D cadastre 3D property research has been conducted on technical aspects and registration than legal aspects. In the
Classification
legal category, most studies addressed national legislation and the practical use of (national) legislation.
Legislation
The authors believe that further fundamental legal research on 3D property is needed. The quantity of
research could be increased, for example, by promoting international discussion and increasing the num-
ber of comparative legal studies on 3D property rights. Additional and more focused attention should be
given to international matters, such as comparative studies on the use of 3D property concepts, the devel-
opment of (international) 3D property terminology and cooperation between 3D property unit owners.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction It seems reasonable to investigate the legal issues on which the

This article is partly based on a presentation (Paulsson & Paasch,
2011) given at the second 3D cadastre workshop in Delft in 2011
(van Oosterom, Fendel, Stoter, & Streilein, 2011) (hereafter referred
to as the second 3D Delft workshop 2011) and continues the work-
shop discussion on the content of 3D property research (Banut,
2011).
3D property research community should focus. The reason to sur-
vey 3D property publications is that, to the authors’ knowledge, no
such literature survey exists. The authors believe that the scientific
community would benefit from a survey and discussion of current
trends in 3D property research as a stimulus to further discussion
regarding where research in the field is or should be heading.
1.2. Aim

1.1. Background
3D property has been the subject of increased research activity
during the last decade. The research has covered a number of top-
ics ranging from legislative aspects to data management and visu-
alization. Although 3D property has a foundation in legislation, the
authors have noted a tendency to focus on non-legal, e.g., technical,
questions in 3D property research rather than on legal issues,
which are the basis of 3D property. This observation is supported
by the discussions during the second 3D Delft workshop 2011,
which resulted in a conclusion by the Legal Framework for 3D
Cadastres working session that further research on the legal as-
pects is required (Banut, 2011, pp. 3–4). This conclusion raises
the question of how research on legal aspects should be increased.
This article aims to investigate and discuss 3D property re-
search, as evidenced by conference papers and other publications
written in English, to analyze the distribution of interest areas
and the occurrence of legal aspects and trends. The outcome is
threefold: (1) a presentation of the thematic distribution of 3D
property publications for the period 2001–2011 according to a pro-
posed classification system, (2) an identification of current trends
in legal research on 3D property and (3) suggestions on how to in-
crease the quantity of legal research and the aspects of the topic on
which such research should focus.
The intended readership is researchers who conduct 3D prop-
erty research and land law specialists as well as academics and
other professionals engaged in land transactions and management
who have not previously engaged in the field.

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 26 633301; fax: +46 26 634710. 1.3. Method and delimitation
E-mail addresses: jenny.paulsson@abe.kth.se (J. Paulsson), jesper.paasch@lm.se
(J.M. Paasch). The methodological basis used in this article is a survey and
1
Tel.: +46 8 7906661; fax: +46 8 7907367. analysis of publications on 3D property.

0198-9715/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2012.11.004
8 J. Paulsson, J.M. Paasch / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13
The authors first develop a classification system suitable for
dividing 3D property research into categories. Next, a study of
the thematic distribution of 3D property publications is conducted,
and the publications are then classified according to the proposed
classification system. The survey identifies current trends in legal
research. Suggestions are offered on how to increase the quantity
of legal research in the field in addition to the aspects of the topic
on which future research should focus.
Many publications on 3D property exist. Therefore, the study
has been limited to the literature published between 2001 and
2011 that is listed on the International Federation of Surveyors
(FIG) 3D cadastre working group website.2 The reason to concen-
trate on the last decade is that the first 3D cadastre conference in
Delft in 2001 (van Oosterom, Stoter, & Fendel 2001) (hereafter re-
ferred to as the first 3D Delft workshop 2001) was a starting point
for organized international activity in 3D property research. The
publications listed at the FIG website were selected for study be-
cause the list is the result of the cooperation of researchers active
in the 3D property field and therefore a representative overview of
the research that has been conducted. However, the FIG publications
are intended for an international audience and therefore written in
English. This requirement limits the number of publications, partic-
ularly on national 3D property issues, which are to a considerable
extent published in the language of the country studied because
the research possesses a primarily national interest. Thus, these pub-
lications are inaccessible to the international community. In Sec-
tion 5, the availability of non-English publications is addressed in
regard to future research.
The theme of each publication is analyzed and assigned to one
of four categories. The classification system used in this article is
described in Section 1.4. The survey revealed that most publica-
tions could be assigned to more than one category. Often, two or
even three themes were addressed in the same text. This method-
ological problem of inconsistent data is solved by introducing so-
called primary and secondary themes into the categories. The pri-
mary theme is the dominant theme in each publication and used as
a basis for thematic classification. The secondary theme is the less
dominant theme (or themes) of the publication. The primary and
secondary themes do not belong to the discussion of the thematic
distribution of publications between the categories. Instead, they
comprise a discussion in the legal analysis.
The legal theme is of particular interest for this study and ana-
lyzed in regard to its legal context, such as the development of leg-
islation and implementation, in Section 4. Based on the analysis,
legal trends in 3D property research are identified and discussed.
Section 5 discusses how to increase legal research and how to stim-
ulate interest in topics that have been neglected in 3D property le-
gal research during the last decade.
The publications exhibit a large variety in research approach,
structure and scope. They range from conference proceedings of
a few pages to doctoral theses that provide in-depth analyses of
3D property issues. Initially, the authors investigated whether it
was scientifically reliable to classify each publication using the
keywords, where available, to describe the content. However, it
soon became obvious that most keywords were not suitable for
use in classification. The majority of the keywords are highly gen-
eral, such as ‘‘3D cadastre’’ and ‘‘Land management’’, and therefore
could not be used for classification. This terminological inconsis-
tency of keywords is discussed in Section 4.2.
The survey describes the thematic distribution of in total 156
publications, which cover 3D property research in Europe, North
America, South America, Africa, Asia and Australia.
2
www.gdmc.nl/3DCadastres/literature/ (accessed September 29th, 2012).
This study should not be considered comprehensive. Instead,
the study attempts to illustrate the distribution of research activi-
ties as a basis for discussion on increasing the awareness of legal
issues in 3D property research. A survey on national language pub-
lications, rather than publications in English, would be a valuable
contribution to this type of research. However, for practical rea-
sons, such a survey has been omitted from this study. In addition
to the presentation of results in Section 3, an analysis of the legal
research is performed and the trends of the studied period are
identified, which reveals, e.g., the distribution of research classified
into major topics. The quantity of collected data is too limited to
use in a detailed statistical trend analysis. However, the major
trends are analyzed.
1.4. Classification
To discuss the distribution of the topics addressed in 3D
property research, a standardized structure for classifying the
topics is required. Any classification is the result of the inten-
tions of the classifier. The content of and differentiation between
the groups can be discussed, and a strictly objective result may
not be achieved. To the authors’ knowledge, a standardized sys-
tem for the classification of 3D property (or other real property)
research topics does not exist. However, different attempts have
been made.
Three examples of the classification of topics are as follows:
(1) the first 3D Delft workshop 2001, where the sessions were
divided into three categories: technical; legal and organizational,
(2) the second 3D Delft workshop 2011, where the sessions were
divided into four categories: legal framework 3D cadastres, initial
registration of 3D parcels, 3D data management and visualization,
distribution and delivery of 3D parcels and (3) the classification
provided by Aien, Rajabifard, Kalantari, and Williamson (2011),
which provides three general categories of 3D cadastre: legal,
technical and institutional. According to Aien et al., the legal as-
pect supports the registration of 3D properties in a 3D cadastre.
Technical aspects refer to the use and knowledge of methods,
models and tools to perform 3D cadastre, such as the progress
in computers and data-capture methods. Cadastres are only
meaningful when they exist in an institutional context, e.g., by
defining tasks and responsibilities of the public registration
administration. The institutional aspects can be divided into cat-
egories, e.g., the execution and protection of regulations and the
provision of unified 3D concepts, such as the apartment, 3D
ownership and 3D property.
The categories listed above are useful for the classification of 3D
property research. However, as a basis for the literature survey, a
more nuanced classification may be required. The legal session of
the first 3D Delft workshop 2001 and the legal framework 3D cadas-
tres session of the second 3D Delft workshop resemble the legal
category of Aien et al. (2011). The initial registration of 3D parcels
and 3D data management and visualization, distribution and delivery
of 3D parcels categories of the second 3D Delft workshop 2011
seem to correspond to the technical categories used during the first
3D Delft workshop 2001 and in Aien et al., based on the content of
the presentations. The organizational category of the first workshop
corresponds to the institutional category of Aien et al. but was not
represented by a session of the second 3D Delft workshop 2011.
The standardization of categories of 3D property research may
be a subject for future discussion and is outside the scope of this
article.
Questions such as the development and implementation of leg-
islation and the creation of a legal framework belong to the legal
domain. Arguably, the registration of 3D property is part of the le-
gal framework because the existence of a legal system is a precon-
dition for legal enforcement through registration. However, it may
 J. Paulsson, J.M. Paasch / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13
also be argued that registration should be included in the technical
category due to the use of, for example, data systems and data stor-
age in registration. Therefore, the somewhat ambiguous term ‘‘reg-
istration’’ has been treated as an independent topic in this study
and includes topics such as data storage and the maintenance of
cadastral information in land administration and management sys-
tems, spatial and temporal dimensions, data integration and
height-representation purposes. In this study, registration is pri-
marily considered a (semi-)technical aspect, which would make
it possible to consider the technical and registration categories to-
gether in comparison with the legal category. Cadastres aim to reg-
ister the legal status of and property rights associated with land
and must progress toward improved cadastral management to pre-
vent future registration complications (Banut, 2011, p. 2). There-
fore, it is relevant to designate registration as a separate category.
Technical issues, such as spatial data infrastructure, data mod-
eling, database management, geographic information systems
(GIS), visualization and geometrical representation, cadastral sur-
veying, geometry, topology and data-exchange formats as well as
technical questions that relate to distribution and delivery and
the technical aspects of the international standard for land admin-
istration ISO 19152 – Land Administration Domain Model (LADM)
(ISO, 2012),3 are related to the technical aspects of 3D property.
‘‘Institutional’’ is a more limited term than ‘‘organizational’’. There-
fore, in the following classification, ‘‘organizational’’ is proposed as
a category. This category includes how properties are organized
and financed and how public and private institutions act and interact
to organize the development and implementation of 3D property.
Organizations and good governance address, e.g., understanding
the need for 3D cadastral information, collaboration, cooperation
and the integration of organizations and organizational structures
(Sutherland, 2001, p. 321). Operational aspects include the need to
understand policy and strategy to optimize operations, task design,
optimal database design and implementation to meet client needs
and organizational goals. Additionally, operational aspects include
methods of 3D cadastral data collection, processing and output
(Sutherland, 2011, p. 322).
Based on the above considerations, the authors use the follow-
ing four categories for classification: Legal, Technical, Registration
and Organizational.
Legal: The legal category contains publications on topics such as
real property rights, restrictions, responsibilities, real property,
superficies solo credit, security of tenure, legislation, subdivision,
spatial planning, legal objects and the legal framework.
Technical: The technical category contains publications on top-
ics such as database management, spatial data infrastructure, data
models, GIS, visualization and geometrical representation, cadas-
tral surveying, geometry, topology, exchange formats and the tech-
nical aspects of distribution and delivery.
Registration: The registration category contains publications on
matters that concern the registration of 3D property in land admin-
istration systems, such as the content, storage, structure and main-
tenance of 3D property information. ‘‘Land administration system’’
refers to any system that stores 3D property information, such as
land registers and purpose cadastres.
Organizational: The organizational category contains publica-
tions on institutional, management and capacity-building issues.
Organization is primarily a question of efficiency and how to orga-
nize and manage 3D property. Examples of organizational issues
include good governance, operational aspects and financial
aspects.
3 5
See Lemmen (2012) for an introduction.
9
2. Legal aspects of 3D property
There is no given structure in law. One approach to structuring
the legal domain is to divide it into smaller parts, ranging from the
fundamental question regarding what law is to the question of the
development of different legal ’’families’’ or other classification
systems, see Zweigert and Kötz (1998). Any classification occurs
according to the conditions and principles determined and applied
by the classifier and are therefore to a certain extent subjective.
Many difficulties are connected with comparative studies of legal
systems, which must be considered when interpreting the results.4
That legislation and practice are constantly changing makes it diffi-
cult to maintain a static perspective in a comparison. Although rule
comparison is a common means to perform comparative legal stud-
ies, there are other ways to perform legal research. To understand
the rules, the legal and non-legal context of the rules must also be
considered.
Legislation is a foundation of 3D property. Without proper leg-
islation, 3D properties cannot be formed. The technical, registra-
tion and organizational aspects are more pragmatic. Therefore,
the legal foundation should be established before the application
of a 3D cadastral system can be discussed.
Related to the difficulty of establishing a common terminology
for 3D property is the international variety of such property, which
makes it difficult to make comparisons in this field and to under-
stand which research is related to 3D property. Internationally,
we find a number of different concepts of 3D property rights.5
These concepts are related to using or owning a three-dimensionally
delimited part of a property volume. The concepts have different
names in different parts of the world, and the types vary with the na-
tional legal system. However, it is still possible to fit the concepts
into more general categories with similar features.
The most prevalent concepts are the independent 3D property
and the condominium (also known as apartment ownership), which
can be found in several countries around the world. The indepen-
dent 3D property refers to a volume of space that is subdivided
and separated from the remainder of the property. Often, the space
is a larger unit that includes several apartments or offices or a
space that is used for infrastructure facilities, such as tunnels.
The condominium 3D property concept can be found throughout
the world. A condominium is typically a combination of the own-
ership right to a specific part of a building combined with a share
in the common property that surrounds the condominium (the
land on which the building stands, the staircases and other facili-
ties) and mandatory membership in the owners’ association. The
concept is used to subdivide a building into several separately
owned apartment units. Two main sub-types of condominium
ownership are the condominium ownership model and the condo-
minium user right model. In the condominium ownership model,
the apartment is owned independently, similar to a piece of land,
and regarded as a real property unit, whereas the land on which
the apartments stand and the common parts of the building are
jointly owned. In the condominium user right model, the condo-
minium owners jointly own the building and the surrounding
grounds. The individual owner possesses only a certain share in
the common property, to which an exclusive right to use a specific
apartment in the building is connected (Paulsson, 2007).
Other types of 3D property rights are, e.g., the indirect ownership
forms, including tenant-ownership, where a tenant-owner associa-
tion owns the apartment building and the land on which the build-
ing stands and the members provide capital for the right to use the
apartment. This concept is common in Sweden. Another example is
4
See von Bar (2004), Bogdan (2004), David et al. (1974, Chap. 2), Van Hoecke
(2004) and Zweigert and Kötz (1998).
For a more detailed survey of these concepts and types, see Paulsson (2007).
10 J. Paulsson, J.M. Paasch / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13

the limited company system, where a joint stock company owns the 4. Analysis
property, whereas the residents, by acquiring shares in this com-
pany, obtain the right to exclusively use one of the building’s apart- 4.1. Legal research
ments. This concept is common in Finland.
The structure, principles and rules for 3D property are basically Technical, registration and organizational issues are important
similar for different countries and legal systems. The actual prob- if 3D property information is to be transferred, registered, orga-
lems appear to be the same but are typically solved differently in nized and presented in a socially acceptable manner. However,
each country (van der Merwe, 1994, chap. 5). From the perspective these activities cannot be performed without a legal foundation.
of international studies, a number of key factors related to 3D All transferred, registered, and visualized information is based on
property that seem to be important to problem-solving and com- legislation. As can be observed in Table 1, many publications de-
mon to most forms and systems can be discerned. These factors in- scribed more than one subject. Legal issues were often described
clude the delimitation of property units, the definition of common as secondary subjects, for example, as an introduction to technical
property, the forms of cooperation between property unit owners, and registration issues. Perhaps these introductory descriptions of
management and regulation issues, as well as the settlement of legal issues cannot (and should not) be avoided in non-legal publi-
disputes and insurance solutions (Paulsson, 2007). Case studies cations. However, certain researchers could have assumed that the
have shown that more or less substantial amendments to statutes legal foundation already exists and described problems and appli-
have been required in these areas, with shortcomings persisting cations based on that assumption, which may be one explanation
after many years of use and changes continuing to be made (Pauls- for the low number of legal contributions to 3D property research
son, 2007). during the investigated period.
Of the 28 publications assigned to the legal category, the major-
ity addressed more than one legal aspect. These aspects include, to
3. The literature survey a greater or lesser extent, the development and description of na-
tional 3D property legislation, the international comparison of 3D
3.1. Results property concepts and legislation, terminology, studies on domes-
tic 3D property solutions, studies on other national legal 3D prop-
The results of the literature survey are divided into two parts. erty systems and comparative analysis, and the practical use and
The number of publications that belong to each category and the implementation of legislation. The contributions were evenly dis-
content of the legal category are presented. tributed among these themes. However, most of the contributions
described national legislation and the practical use of (national)
legislation.
3.1.1. Distribution between categories
A total of 28 of the 156 analyzed publications were assigned to
the legal category, 63 to the technical category, 59 to the registra- 4.2. Classification
tion category and six to the organizational category. The number of
contributions in the categories varies during the studied decade According to the survey, the legal aspects constitute a small
(Table 1). The largest number of contributions was in 2011, the last portion of the current research on 3D property. Particularly when
year of the period, when 52 publications were published in total. the legal category is contrasted with the other three categories
The years 2001 and 2011 were the most productive years during (technical, registration and organizational) combined, the differ-
the surveyed period due to the first and second special conferences ence is considerable. In the classification, it was occasionally diffi-
on 3D cadastre that occurred in those years. The year 2007 pro- cult to determine to which of the technical and registration
duced the lowest number of publications during the surveyed per- categories a publication should be assigned.
iod with one publication in the legal and technical categories each. According to the survey, there is a tendency for several publica-
The legal category is the second-least researched among the cate- tions to address more than a single topic. Therefore, it was difficult
gories. With six publications, the organizational category is smal- to classify all of the publications precisely. Of course, a discussion
ler. The legal contributions increased numerically in 2011, as of certain aspects might have been required to introduce a topic.
have the contributions in the other categories. In addition, the sur- However, the scientific contribution would be more focused if pub-
vey revealed that most publications could be assigned to more lications would present one or perhaps two topics and not include
than one category, e.g., legal and registration or technical and reg- legal, technical, registration and organizational topics in the same
istration. These secondary subjects are marked with () in Table 1. article. For example, several publications start by briefly mention-
ing legal aspects in the introduction but proceed to a technical or
registration aspect without connecting these new topics to the le-
gal aspects. Therefore, it is questionable whether such publications
Table 1 should be included in the legal category.
Surveyed 3D property publications, 2001–2011. () = secondary subjects. In the publications that are assigned to the legal category or the
Year Legal Technical Registration Organizational Total/year other groups, there are few contributions that concern terminol-
ogy. These results agree with the conclusions of Paasch and Pauls-
2001 7 (9) 10 (5) 11 (6) 2 (7) 30 (27)
2002 2 (1) 2 (2) 4 (3) 0 (1) 8 (7) son (2011). The first 3D Delft workshop 2001 discussed the
2003 3 (5) 8 (0) 4 (7) 1 (3) 16 (15) terminology problems to a certain extent. However, since then, lit-
2004 0 (3) 5 (3) 4 (3) 0 (1) 9 (10) tle research related to this problem seems to have been performed
2005 0 (3) 4 (1) 6 (0) 0 (0) 10 (4) until the contributions to this topic of the second 3D Delft work-
2006 2 (2) 3 (1) 4 (3) 0 (0) 9 (6)
2007 1 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 2 (1)
shop 2011. The lack of a clear, primary terminology for the general
2008 2 (0) 0 (1) 2 (0) 0 (3) 4 (4) concepts of 3D property makes it difficult to standardize what ‘‘3D
2009 1 (1) 3 (0) 2 (1) 0 (0) 6 (2) property’’ means. For example, the term ‘‘3D cadastre’’ is occasion-
2010 2 (4) 5 (2) 3 (1) 0 (2) 10 (9) ally used to describe the actual property registration system(s).
2011 8 (15) 22 (3) 19 (11) 3 (7) 52 (36)
However, the phrase is also used as a general term for three-
Total 28 (43) 63 (18) 59 (35) 6 (25) 156 (121) dimensional real property. Similarly, it was impossible to use the
 J. Paulsson, J.M. Paasch / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13
keywords of the publications as a guide to classification because
the keywords may signify different things to different researchers.
Other terms for 3D property can also be found. Not all of these
terms include ‘‘3D’’ or ‘‘three-dimensional’’, which makes it diffi-
cult to discern which publications actually address the 3D property
issue. Certain publications refer to ‘‘multi-functional’’ or ‘‘multi-
ple’’, whereas other publications discuss ‘‘space’’, ‘‘volume’’ or
‘‘horizontal subdivision’’. Three-dimensional property in Australian
legislation is often referred to by the terms ‘‘stratum’’ or ‘‘strata ti-
tle’’. In the United States, ‘‘airspace rights’’ is used as a term for
such property.6 For obvious reasons, terminology from countries
where little is published in English on 3D property rights is more dif-
ficult to access and therefore to detect when searching for publica-
tions on 3D property research. Terms can also be translated
differently into English, even by different authors from the same
country, thereby increasing the difficulty of conducting comparative
legal 3D property studies.
4.3. Trends in legal 3D property research
When attempting to identify trends in 3D property research, it
is difficult to determine what a new trend is. A trend can be new in
one country but old in another. Ten years is a brief period, and the
studied publications in the legal category are too few to facilitate a
more thorough analysis of the legal content.
Trends in 3D property research are related to social develop-
ments, such as a need for new types of 3D property for new pur-
poses. For example, the development of apartment ownership in
Sweden was related to political change, and the need to define
3D property for infrastructure, such as railway tunnels, results
from the needs in urban areas for property rights to accommodate
infrastructure. Such general trends can be found in the studied
publications. Whereas certain trends have existed for a longer per-
iod of time, others have emerged recently.
Based only on the publications surveyed in this study, there are
certain countries where researchers seem to focus more on legal
than non-legal aspects. For example, the Scandinavian countries
seem to be particularly active in this area (e.g., Eriksson & Jansson,
2010; Valstad, 2010). Other countries where such research is per-
formed include, for example, Israel (e.g., Caine, 2009), Australia
(e.g., Aien et al., 2011), Canada (e.g., Ng’ang’a et al., 2001), Turkey
(e.g., Doner, Demir, & Biyik, 2011), the Czech Republic (e.g., Huml,
2001) and the Netherlands (e.g., Ploeger, 2011). This scholarly
activity correlates to a certain extent with countries that have al-
ready fully developed a system for 3D property rights, particularly
with respect to independent 3D property and condominium types.
In contrast, other countries seem to have more researchers active
in the field of non-legal 3D property research.
Certain themes reappear regularly in the publications during
the studied period, and some of these themes are evenly distrib-
uted over the years. These themes indicate the trends in legal 3D
property research activity during the studied period. The major
trends can be related to the following categories:
 Description of the need for national 3D property.
 Development of national 3D property legislation.
 Implementation of national 3D property legislation.
 Case studies on national 3D property.
 Practical application of 3D property concepts.
 Registration of 3D property.
 Modeling of 3D property.
 Standardization of 3D property.
6 7
See Paulsson (2007) for references.
11
Most publications in the legal category describe national legis-
lation. These publications are often limited to describing the
authors’ own legal system, the need for and development of 3D
property, e.g., in Onsrud (2003), or the forms of 3D property that
exist nationally and how they are implemented into one’s own le-
gal system, e.g., in Huml (2001). A reason for focusing on national
3D property may be that the researchers most likely are more
familiar with their own society’s needs regarding 3D property
forms and how such property could be implemented in the legal
system of the researcher’s country. One advantage that national re-
search possesses over international research is that the native re-
searcher has access to a larger amount of research material, such
as legal drafts, ordinances and legal material written in the na-
tional language. It is thus easier to start 3D property research at
home before expanding the research activities internationally. An-
other aspect is that 3D property legislation is a relatively new legal
concept, which may explain the focus on the need for national 3D
property legislation and its development and implementation.
Therefore, it is natural to focus on actual case studies when
describing the implementation of 3D property legislation and the
result of such implementation, such as how legislation is applied
to a certain project or area in the country or state (Eriksson &
Adolfsson, 2006).
Although publications often describe the current system or the
need for and ways to develop such a system, these publications are
not only of interest to domestic readers but also to all researchers
in this field who wish to make international comparisons and find
solutions that can be implemented in other legal systems. How-
ever, international matters and the comparison of legislative sys-
tems do not appear as frequently as national studies during the
studied period, although there are slightly more such studies in
the second half of the period (e.g., Paulsson, 2007) than in the first
half (e.g., Sandberg, 2003).
Before the second 3D Delft workshop 2011, certain issues were
identified to be investigated in detail and to define the scope of a
future 3D cadastre. These issues included what type of 3D cadastral
objects must be registered, the subdivision of subsurface infra-
structure objects and the representation of the 3D cadastral object
(van Oosterom, 2011). These issues relate to legal aspects, although
the issues are primarily focused on registration. The position paper
on the legal framework of 3D cadastres presented at the second 3D
Delft workshop 2011 addressed the need for increased attention on
legal aspects and the absence of common rules and terminology
(Ploeger, 2011). Many research issues noted in the present study
also include registration in relation to legal aspects, e.g., Sandberg
(2003) and Viitanen (2001).
Another noted trend is research on standardization in the field
of 3D property rights, such as the study performed by the FIG
Working Group on 3D cadastres with a global inventory of the sta-
tus of 3D cadastres, future plans and expectations (van Oosterom,
Stoter, Ploeger, Thompson, & Karki, 2011). Additionally, there have
been discussions, for example, during the second 3D Delft work-
shop 2011, with the purpose of exchanging (national) knowledge
and promoting consensus on important aspects of and methods
to solve different problems related to 3D property (Banut, 2011).
The modeling (or description) and standardization approaches
gained increased awareness during the research period. This
awareness seems due to a focus on the international exchange of
property information in general, e.g., regarding the LADM standard.
The LADM includes the legal aspects of land administration, such
as ‘‘rights’’, ‘‘restrictions’’, and ‘‘responsibilities’’ (ISO, 2012, sec-
tions 4.1.18–4.1.20). EULIS, the European Land Information Ser-
vice,7 is an initiative that provides land and real property
See http://eulis.eu/ (accessed September 29th, 2012).
12 J. Paulsson, J.M. Paasch / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13
information (Ploeger & van Loenen, 2004;2005). The use of modeling
principles to describe and document complex relations is not a new
legal tool. For example, modeling was used 12 years ago and de-
scribed as ‘‘finally adding method to madness’’ (Blackwell, 2000)
by creating legal interaction diagrams that illustrate legal relations.
Another important initiative is INSPIRE, Infrastructure for Spatial
Information in the European Community (INSPIRE, 2007), which pro-
vides, for example, data specifications for specific spatial themes,
such as administrative units and cadastral parcels.8 Another indica-
tion that modeling and standardization in 3D property are an
increasing trend in 3D property research can be noted in the pro-
gram for the third international FIG workshop on 3D cadastres in
Shenzhen, China, October 2012.9 An entire section of this conference
has been devoted to modeling, which has not been the case in pre-
vious 3D cadastre workshops.
5. Future research
There are several ways in which the quantity of legal research
could be increased, such as increasing the awareness of the distri-
bution of research issues and their foci and promoting interna-
tional discussions at conferences. To make the research results
available to an international audience, increased contribution to
and participation in international land management conferences
is required combined with the publication of research in appropri-
ate journals. In addition, conferences and journals not traditionally
used to communicate 3D property research topics should be
exploited. Participating in discussions with other researchers is
fruitful in this respect. In other words, it may be useful for the
development of legal 3D property research to persuade new con-
ferences and journals as well as legal researchers not traditionally
involved in cadastral research to pay more attention to 3D prop-
erty. One important aspect is to increase the awareness of the need
for legal research and why legal research can be considered to be
the foundation for research on other, more technical aspects.
As mentioned earlier, certain themes reappeared during the
surveyed period. However, the same questions persisted, as also
noted in Banut (2011). These questions concern, e.g., the absence
of a common terminology and rules, which makes it difficult to
compare solutions and develop guidelines (Banut, 2011, p. 2).
The previous section described the general trends in legal re-
search that could be identified in the studied publications. How-
ever, attention should also be directed to other legal aspects,
such as the following:
 Comparative studies on the use of 3D property concepts.
 An international perspective on publications.
 3D property terminology.
 Delimitation and definition of 3D property.
 Cooperation between 3D property unit owners.
The survey has revealed a minor interest in comparative re-
search on the use of 3D property concepts. It would be beneficial
for the research community if the number of studies that compare
national systems were increased and augmented by an interna-
tional perspective on the national systems that considered their
strengths and weaknesses. However, the authors do not consider
the important but sporadic comparative research published during
the study period as a current trend. Such research merely indicates
an increased awareness toward this topic, which may relate to the
creation of the LADM standard. Issues addressed by the discussions
8
See http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm for INSPIRE data specifications,
guidelines and regulations (accessed September 29th, 2012).
9
See http://www.cadastre2012.org/eProgramme.aspx (accessed September 29th,
2012).
during the second 3D Delft workshop 2011 (cf., e.g., Banut, 2011;
Ploeger, 2011) might also result in increased future research activ-
ity on these topics, which could develop comparative 3D property
research into a trend.
In addition to publication in the local language, research on
national systems and legislation should be written from an inter-
national perspective and, to an increased degree, be (re)pub-
lished in English or at least provide an English summary of the
main results to reach an international audience and promote
the exchange of knowledge. An increased international perspec-
tive and an increased interest in international comparative re-
search on 3D property rights is required to construct a
theoretical foundation for existing 3D property concepts and
their development.
One particular problem related to the need for legal research
is the lack of clear standardized terminology in the field (Paasch
& Paulsson, 2011). Only a small number of papers have dis-
cussed terminological aspects or implementation issues, e.g.,
Paasch and Paulsson (2011) and Eriksson and Jansson (2010).
The authors are aware that it may be practically impossible to
establish domain-specific keywords that cover all aspects of 3D
property research. The use of words and their correct interpreta-
tion has always played a central role in communication, and the
legal domain is no exception (Glenn, 2004). The common
denominator is that legal terms may be mistranslated. Therefore,
any study of legal systems must address the question of to what
extent that the words compared in the studied systems share
the same meaning (Paasch & Paulsson, 2011; Van Hoecke,
2004). To promote the international exchange of information
and experiences and to make it easier to find and understand re-
search publications in the field of 3D property, the field’s termi-
nology must be more consistent and standardized to a certain
degree.
Strongly related to terminology is the question of the delim-
itation and definition of 3D property. Without agreement regard-
ing the delimitation and definition of 3D property, it is
impossible to exchange or compare information. For example,
the traditional (2D) property concept can also be termed three-
dimensional because in most legislation, there is no delimitation
of property’s extension below or above the surface (Paasch &
Paulsson, 2011). Suggested definitions of 3D property, e.g., that
3D property be delimited horizontally and vertically (Paulsson,
2007, p. 31), form the basis for further discussion and research.
Cooperation between 3D property unit owners is also a topic
that deserves more attention. When studying different systems
for 3D property internationally, there are, as mentioned in Sec-
tion 3, certain key factors that seem to be important for a suc-
cessful and lasting system for 3D property, regardless of the
form of 3D property and the legal system. Many of the factors
relate to management aspects, which can be identified as an
important area that requires new rules. In this study, the man-
agement aspects have been assigned to the organizational cate-
gory, including dispute resolution and insurance solutions.
These aspects are important. However, in the studied publica-
tions, these aspects are not addressed to a significant extent.
In addition, these aspects are related to 3D property’s legal as-
pects. Other key factors are related to the delimitation of prop-
erty units, the definition of common property, the creation of
easements and the forms of cooperation between property unit
owners, which are issues that belong to the legal category. Be-
cause these factors have created problems in 3D property sys-
tems and resulted in amendments to the legislation of several
countries (Paulsson, 2007), these questions must be discussed
and solved within the scientific community and therefore in-
cluded in future research.
 J. Paulsson, J.M. Paasch / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13
6. Conclusions
Based on a survey of research on 3D property and the categories
’’legal’’, ’’technical’’, ’’registration’’ and ’’organizational’’ into which
the surveyed publications were classified, it could be noted that
the legal category constitutes a small part relative to the topic’s
importance and its role as a foundation for other, more technical
aspects. A problem identified in the survey concerns whether there
should be more specific legal research on 3D property or if it suf-
fices to include legal questions in the research of other non-legal
topics that can be found in the publications.
A foundation of results has been established by research and
other work on the legal aspects of 3D property, e.g., the develop-
ment of an ISO standard for land administration and the continuing
research of the FIG 3D cadastres working group. However, based on
this study’s results, further fundamental legal research on 3D prop-
erty is required. Increased attention should be directed to interna-
tional matters, such as comparative studies on the use of 3D
property concepts, the development of an (international) 3D prop-
erty terminology (including the delimitation and definition of 3D
property) and cooperation between 3D property unit owners. This
statement does not imply that existing research should be ne-
glected or transformed into legal studies. Instead, legal aspects
should form an independent research topic and not serve simply
as a background for or introduction to more technical and non-le-
gal research topics.
References
Aien, A., Rajabifard, A., Kalantari, M., & Williamson, I. (2011). Aspects of 3D cadastre
– A case study in Victoria. In Proceedings of FIG working week 2011. Copenhagen:
International Federation of Surveyors (FIG).
Banut, R. (2011). Overview working sessions. Summary and conclusions. 2nd
International workshop on 3D cadastres organized by FIG, EuroSDR and TU Delft,
16–18 November 2011, Delft, The Netherlands. Draft report. Kadaster, the Dutch
Land Registry Office.
Blackwell, T. (2000). Finally adding method to madness: Applying principles of
object-orientated analysis and design to legislative drafting. Journal of legislation
and public policy, 3(2), 227–293.
Bogdan, M. (2004). On the value and method of rule-comparison in comparative
law. In H.-P. Mansel, T. Pfeiffer, H. Kronke, C. Kohler, & R. Hausmann (Eds.),
Festschrift für Erik Jayme (pp. 1233–1242). Munich, Germany: European Law
Publishers.
Caine, A. (2009). Spatial rights legislation in Israel – A 3D approach. In Proceedings of
the FIG working week, Eilat, Israel, 2009. Copenhagen: International Federation
of Surveyors (FIG).
David, R., Szladits, Ch., Weir, T., Tschchikvadze, V.M., Zivs, S.L., Chehata, Ch., Derrett,
J. D. M., Iyer, T. K. K., & Cotran, E. (1974). Structure and the divisions of the law.
In R. David (Ed.). International encyclopedia of comparative law. The legal systems
of the world: Their comparison and unification (Vol. 2). Tübingen, Germany: Mohr
(Paul Siebeck).
Doner, F., Demir, O., & Biyik, C. (2011). Need for three-dimensional cadastre in
Turkey. In Proceedings of FIG working week, Marrakech, 2011. Copenhagen:
International Federation of Surveyors (FIG).
Eriksson, G., & Adolfsson, C. (2006). Experiences of the 3D cadastre legislation. In
Proceedings of the XXIII international FIG congress, Munich, 2006. Copenhagen:
International Federation of Surveyors (FIG).
Eriksson, G., & Jansson, L. (2010). Strata titles are introduced in Sweden. In
Proceedings of the XXIV international FIG congress, Sydney, Australia, 11–16 April
2010. Copenhagen: International organisation of Surveyors (FIG).
Glenn, H. P. (2004). Legal cultures and legal traditions. In M. Van Hoecke (Ed.),
Epistemology and methodology of comparative law (pp. 7–20). Oxford, England
and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing.
Huml, M. (2001). How to define real estate: 2D or 3D? Legal view, conditions and
experiences in the Czech Republic. In Proceedings of the international workshop
13
on 3D cadastres, 2001, Delft (pp. 293–299). Copenhagen: International
Federation of Surveyors (FIG).
INSPIRE (2007). Directive 2007/2/EC of the European parliament and of the council
of 14 March 2007 establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the
European community (INSPIRE). Official journal of the European Union, L 108/1,
25.4.2007.
ISO (2012). ISO 19152:2012. Geographic information - Land Administration Domain
Model (LADM). International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
Lemmen, C. (2012). A domain model for land administration. Doctoral thesis. Delft:
Delft University of Technology.
Ng’ang’a, S., Sutherland, M., Cockburn, S., & Nichols, S. (2001). Toward a 3D marine
Cadastre in support of good ocean governance. In Proceedings of the international
workshop on 3D cadastres, 2001, Delft (pp. 99–114). Copenhagen: International
Federation of Surveyors (FIG).
Onsrud, H. (2003). Making a cadastre law for 3D properties in Norway. Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems, 27(July). 375–283.
Paasch, J., & Paulsson, J. (2011). Terminological aspects concerning three-
dimensional real property. Nordic journal of surveying and real estate research,
8(1), 81–97.
Paulsson, J. (2007). 3D property rights – An analysis of key factors based on
international experience. Report 4:99. Doctoral thesis. Stockholm: KTH Royal
Institute of Technology.
Paulsson, J., & Paasch, J. (2011). 3D property research – A survey of the occurrence of
legal topics in publications. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on
3D cadastres, 16–18 November 2011, Delft, The Netherlands. Copenhagen:
International Federation of Surveyors (FIG).
Ploeger, H. (2011). Legal framework 3D cadastres. Position paper 1. In Proceedings of
the 2nd international workshop on 3D cadastres, 16–18 November 2011, Delft.
Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG).
Ploeger, H., & van Loenen, B. (2005). Harmonization of land registry in Europe. In
Proceedings of the FIG working week 2005 and 8th international conference on the
global spatial data infrastructure (GSDI-8), 16–21 April 2005, Cairo, Egypt.
Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG).
Ploeger, H., & van Loenen, B. (2004). EULIS – At the beginning of the road to
harmonization of land registry in Europe. European review of private law, 3,
379–387.
Sandberg, H. (2003). Three-dimensional partition and registration of subsurface
space. Israel law review, 37(1), 119–167.
Sutherland, M. (2001). Domain description organizational (conceptual) aspects. In
Proceedings of the international workshop on 3D cadastres, 2001, Delft (pp. 321–
322). Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG).
Valstad, T. (2010). At Last! After 10 years in waiting Norway has a new cadastral law
that also includes 3D objects. In Proceedings of the XXIV international FIG
congress, 2010, Sydney. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors
(FIG).
van der Merwe, C. G. (1994). Apartment ownership. In A.N. Yiannopoulos (Ed.).
International encyclopedia of comparative law. Property and trust (Vol. 6).
Tübingen, Germany: Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
Van Hoecke, M. (2004). Deep level comparative law. In M. Van Hoecke (Ed.),
Epistemology and methodology of comparative law (pp. 165–195). Oxford,
England and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing.
van Oosterom, P. (2011). Preface. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on
3D Cadastres, 16–18 November 2011, Delft, the Netherlands. Copenhagen:
International Federation of Surveyors (FIG).
van Oosterom, P. J. M., Stoter, J. E., Fendel, E. M. (Eds.) (2001). Registration of
properties in strata. International workshop on ‘‘3D Cadastres’’. Proceedings, 28–30
November, 2001, Delft, the Netherlands. Copenhagen: International Federation of
Surveyors (FIG).
van Oosterom, P., Stoter, J., Ploeger, H., Thompson, R., & Karki, S. (2011). World-wide
inventory of the status of 3D cadastres in 2010 and expectations for 2014. In
Proceedings of the FIG working week, Marrakech, Morocco, 18–22 May 2011.
Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG).
van Oosterom, P., Fendel, E., Stoter, J., & Streilein, A. (2011). Proceedings of the 2nd
International Workshop on 3D Cadastres, 16–18 November 2011, Delft.
Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG).
Viitanen, K. (2001). 3D Property ownership 3D land use in Finland. In Proceedings of
the international workshop on 3D cadastres, 2001, Delft (pp. 91–97). Copenhagen:
International Federation of Surveyors (FIG).
von Bar, C. (2004). Comparative law of obligations: Methodology and epistemology.
In M. Van Hoecke (Ed.), Epistemology and methodology of comparative law
(pp. 123–135). Oxford, England and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing.
Zweigert, K., & Kötz, H. (1998). An introduction to comparative law (3rd ed.). Oxford:
Clarendon Press.