The question is, was the house built before or after granddad subdivided the land? Were the two parcels once under common ownership before the severance into two separate lots? And was the driveway there serving both lots before the lot was subdivided?This house was built by his dad years ago. It might be possible that it was built on the grandads land partially. It was sold to me not under this assumption. No mortgage company would offer a loan on a house like this without fixing it first.
It looks to me, from the survey you posted, that when the lot was created, they tried to carve out exactly one acre of land. But they got it wrong making the easterly line cut through the house. It looks like that no actual survey was done. It was done on paper. And if the deed only refers to bounded by, what is the easterly line bounded by? It's not the driveway, it's not a road, it's not a feature. So what is the boundary that the deed refers to?
In SC property law there is a doctrine of Easement Implied by Prior Use. It most often referrers to an issue of ingress/egress but there are cases in SC that deal with such things as drainage ditches and structures that existed before the land was subdivided. Simply put, if the use was intended to continue after the land was subdivide, then it may be possible to get an Easement Implied by Prior Use.
So if granddad had a lot and he builds a house for his son or grandson on his land, puts in a driveway (or one that already existed) that served both houses and then later subdivides the lot into two (or more) lots the presumption is that it is implied that the driveway will serve both lots. And, according to you, the driveway has served both lots. It's too late for the neighbor to now claim that he no longer wishes to share the shared driveway with the new buyers.
You have a house built partially on another lot. You have a driveway that was used by both lots for a long time. The question again is what was the history of when all these things took place.our supreme court set out seven elements a plaintiff must prove in order to establish an easement implied by prior use.
The party asserting the right to an easement implied by prior use must establish the following: (1) unity of title; (2) severance of title; (3) the prior use was in existence at the 533*533 time of unity of title; (4) the prior use was not merely temporary or casual; (5) the prior use was apparent or known to the parties; (6) the prior use was necessary in that there could be no other reasonable mode of enjoying the dominant tenement without the prior use; and (7) the common grantor indicated an intent to continue the prior use after severance of title.
I agree with other posters that you need to consult a land use or real estate attorney that knows easement law in SC.
All is not lost yet without knowing the entire history of how this situation come to be.
Consult with an attorney before you decide. I think you are being snookered.