The shortcomings of the Land Survey Authority

The Swedish Land Survey has a central role in the social structure of Sweden. The agency is responsible for managing and registering properties, boundaries, easements, common areas and other rights that form the basis of a functioning property market. Yet the operation has long been widely criticized – particularly with regard to processing times, lack of legal certainty, cost structure and varying technical and practical expertise.

The Director General of the National Land Survey of Sweden was dismissed from her position in December 2024 after the government lost confidence in her leadership. The reason for this was serious shortcomings in the handling of security-sensitive information within the agency. This event became a symbol of the structural challenges that the National Land Survey of Sweden has long struggled with – and has increased the pressure on the need for reforms, strengthened supervision and clearer accountability to ensure legally secure, efficient and trustworthy property management.

TOO LONG PROCESSING TIMES

One of the most notable shortcomings is the lengthy processing times for formalities. It is not unusual for cases at Lantmäteriet to take over a year to complete. For property owners, farmers and business owners, these delays can have major practical and financial consequences – especially in the case of property regulations, subdivisions or easements.

While the processing times at state land survey offices have certainly improved over the past year, and it is now common for cases to be completed within around eight months, problems persist at several municipal land survey offices, where waiting times often exceed twelve months, which continues to create frustration among affected parties.

LEGAL CERTAINTY & LACK OF COMPETENCE

Several legal cases and reviews show that administrative decisions are sometimes made on inadequate grounds, without sufficient consideration of legislation or the interests of the parties concerned. It also happens that the supporting documents for decisions are weak and that the justifications are unclear or incorrect.

We have even experienced cases where the land surveyor has changed the submitted application to give the property owners a completely different outcome from the proceedings and here has failed in its duty to provide information. The shortcomings of the land surveyor cause the property owners increased additional costs in the form of, for example, increased interest costs in property transfers that end up in long and costly appeal processes in the land and environmental court.

We also see that high staff turnover and a large proportion of newly graduated surveyors contribute to uneven quality in the administrative work. Local roots and experience have decreased over time. 20 years ago, it was common for surveyors to have in-depth knowledge of the municipalities they worked in – something that often simplified and shortened the processes.

EXAMPLES OF SERIOUS DEFICIENCIES

We have recently seen several cases where Lantmäteriet's handling has seriously failed in both legal certainty and information to interested parties:

In one case, the owners were not informed that a change in the procedure would in practice change the entire outcome. The new property therefore ended up in the hands of the wrong owner, which resulted in large additional costs for the owners – in the form of additional procedures, increased interest costs and new stamp duty. Despite the obvious information error, Lantmäteriet did not take responsibility, citing that the information “should have been understood”.

In another case, the National Land Survey of Sweden decided to form a community without consulting all interested parties. The decision was appealed, and the Land and Environmental Court found that the procedure did not meet basic requirements for participation and legal certainty. The case was referred back to the National Land Survey of Sweden for re-examination.

We also find that many surveyors lack insight into how farms are actually run and used in practice. We are often forced to justify the reasonableness of the size of the parcels or the appropriateness of property regulations – something that should be obvious to an authority responsible for the property structure of the countryside.

INCREASED CONFIDENCE AND FUNCTION

The examples we have mentioned show clear shortcomings in how certain procedures have been handled – especially in terms of communication, legal certainty and understanding of the circumstances of the owners of the property. Although many administrators do a good job under tough conditions, experience in the field indicates that there is a pattern where important parts of the Land Survey's responsibilities risk not being fully complied with. It is important to remember that the owners of the property are not experts in land surveying, which is why communication and clarity in what the decisions mean are extra important.

To restore and strengthen trust in Lantmäteriet as an authority, we see a need for:

» Clearer procedures and improved internal control.

» An increased focus on the rights and needs of stakeholders.

» In-depth understanding of how real estate, especially in agriculture, works in practice.

» Competence-enhancing initiatives and better continuity among case managers.

Our hope is that these areas for improvement are recognized and prioritized, so that Lantmäteriet can continue to be a stable, legally secure and trustworthy actor - something that is absolutely crucial for a well-functioning property market in both urban and rural areas.

Ann Knutsson

CEO, Agronomist, MBA, Registered broker