Maryland Riparian Rights and Underwater Land Ownership

The Appellate Court of Maryland recently addressed the issue of who owns underwater land in Donohue v. Mavronis, 267 Md.App. 676 (2025). George Mavronis (“Mavronis”) and Kevin Donohue (“Donohue”) own adjacent parcels that sit on the northern bank of the Haddaway Creek in Baltimore County, Maryland.

Waterfront Improvements, Bulkheads, and Permits in Maryland

In 1985, Mavronis and the U.S. Government executed an agreed order that allowed Mavronis to remove fill and grade an existing waterfront marshland abutting his property in accordance with the specification of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Mavronis then constructed a pier and a bulkhead in this area in accordance with permits issued by Baltimore County.

After Hurricane Isabel damaged the bulkhead in 2003, Mavronis was granted the necessary permits from Baltimore County to make repairs. These repairs led to a lawsuit with the previous owners of Donohue’s lot, who claimed that some of the repair work encroached on their land. The case was settled in 2009 and both parties agreed that Mavronis’ dock is affixed to his land and that the bulkhead and pier are owned by Mavronis.

How a Waterfront Boundary Dispute Led to Litigation

Donohue purchased his lot in 2020 and entered into an oral rent-to-own agreement with Michael and Angel Detty (the “Dettys”). The current dispute boiled over into litigation after the Dettys erected a chain link fence directly to the water line pursuant to a survey they had conducted. The fence went through Mavronis’ land cutting off his access to his dock, bulkhead, and pier. Mavronis alleged the fence trespassed on and physically damaged his property.

Competing Claims Over Property Lines and Land Under Water

Donahue argued that Mavronis’ improvements encroached on his property because his deed identified the boundary as including the waters of the Haddaway Creek, therefore his property extended straight into the water and title to the land under the water was vested in him.  However, Mavronis relied on §16-201 of the Environment Article of the Maryland Annotated Code and argued that the disputed land belonged to him because he constructed improvements, with permits, into the water which were attached to his property. Following a “battle of the experts” that included testimony from three surveyors, the trial court ruled in favor of Mavronis and Donahue appealed.

Appellate Court of Maryland Ruling on Riparian Property Rights

On appeal, the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the trial court. The crux of the Appellate Court’s opinion was based on the general rule that “[t]itle to the under water land is in the State, and remains there until improvements are lawfully made. Thus, the lines called for in a property owner’s individual deed cannot control if in derogation of the riparian right common to a group of property owners.” Id. at 700. The Appellate Court then cited a portion of §16-201 “[t]he person may make improvement into the water in front of the land to preserve that person’s access to the navigable water or, subject to subsection (c), to protect the shore of that person against erosion. After an improvement has been constructed, the improvement is the property of the owner of the land to which the improvement is attached ….” Id. at 698.

Limits on Shoreline Improvements and Required Permits

The Appellate Court pointed out that the right to make such improvement is not unlimited, as it may require property owners to obtain the proper permits and licenses from local, State, and federal authorities. In this case, the Appellate Court recognized that Mavronis’ evidence demonstrated that the local jurisdiction approved the bulkhead and fill when originally constructed and repaired, as well as the settlement of the previous lawsuit that established the bulkhead was affixed to Mavronis’ land. Therefore, Mavronis owned the land under the water and Donohue’s property boundary as established in his deed stopped at the water’s edge.

Key Takeaway for Maryland Waterfront Property Owners

The takeaway from this decision is that property owners with waterfront access should be aware that previous construction work done by neighbors to preserve access to the navigable water may legally encroach on their property.

About

James E. Crossan of Liff, Walsh & Simmons is the head of the firm’s Commercial & Civil Litigation practice. He is experienced in all phases of litigation and has spent his entire legal career as a civil litigator. His litigation practice focuses on contract disputes, and he works directly with individuals and corporate entities in a wide range of civil matters, including construction, real estate, estates and trusts, and banking and finance.