How $10,400 of soft costs on 27 acres gets spent before anyone checks whether the driveway is legal access.

A case worth studying, because the sequencing mistake is the common one. Take a buyer under option on 27 acres, $5,000 option fee applied to purchase, 90 days to decide. The plan is four lots off what looks like 400 feet of road frontage plus a shared gravel drive to the back two. The spend goes in this order: topo and boundary survey $6,400, soils and two perc holes $2,600, attorney $1,400 for a title review. The attorney goes last because it is the cheapest line, which means the buyer is sequencing by cost instead of by what could kill the deal. The gravel drive serving the back half of the parcel crosses 340 feet of the neighbor's field. It has been used since the 1970s, the ruts are a foot deep, and there is no recorded easement of any kind. What the parcel actually has on the public road is 60 feet of frontage against a drainage ditch with a culvert nobody has permitted. The 400 feet measured on the aerial belongs to the neighbor. The buyer asks the neighbor to grant an easement. The neighbor is polite and says no, twice, and mentions he has wanted that back field consolidated for years. A motivated no. Counsel's view in a case like this: a prescriptive or implied easement claim is arguable given the length of use, it varies by state, it would likely need a quiet title action, and the budget is a year or more with no certainty. The option lapses. Out $10,400 in soft costs plus the $5,000 fee, so $15,400. What to do differently: title work first, always, and specifically a written opinion on legal access before a dollar goes to a surveyor's crew. Sequence by what kills the deal rather than by invoice size.