
Every conveyancer knows the feeling. The file is progressing well, deadlines are manageable, and then something surfaces in the search data that doesn’t quite fit.
A conflicting record. A missing detail. A query that arrives too late to resolve cleanly. These moments rarely come from nowhere. More often they’re the predictable consequence of a gap in the data, something that was available but not caught, or available but not ordered.
Here are four of the risks that appear most consistently, and what good search data looks like in each case.
Planning history that doesn’t travel with the property
Planning records are among the most commonly misread elements in a local authority search – not because the data is wrong, but because it requires interpretation. A restriction that applied to a previous use, a consent that was granted but never implemented, a condition attached to an older permission that the current owner has quietly ignored – none of these are hidden. They’re in the data. But they require someone to look at the full picture rather than the headline.
The risk is greatest on properties with complex histories: former commercial uses, extensions built under permitted development, conversions from one use class to another. In conservation areas, the detail required is even more precise – not just whether works were approved, but whether they were approved under the correct consent route.
The search data should surface this. If it doesn’t, the problem isn’t the planning history – it’s the search.
Rights of way that aren’t visible on site
Public rights of way are a good example of a risk that feels theoretical until it isn’t. A right of way that crosses a garden or driveway doesn’t affect every transaction – but when it does affect one, and the buyer wasn’t told, the consequences are significant and the firm’s position is uncomfortable.
The challenge is that rights of way aren’t always visible on the ground. A path that hasn’t been walked in years is still legally protected. A route that’s been physically blocked by a previous owner remains on the definitive map. The seller may be entirely unaware.
A local authority search will include rights of way data, but the quality of that data varies considerably depending on the source and how recently it was verified. Knowing where your provider’s data comes from, and how current it is, matters more for this particular risk than almost any other.
Chancel repair liability on older rural stock
Chancel repair liability is one of those risks that experienced conveyancers are well aware of and occasionally encounter in practice. The liability, which can require a property owner to contribute to the cost of repairing the chancel of a local parish church, dates from medieval land law and is tied to the land rather than the owner’s beliefs or connection to the church.
Since 2013, unregistered chancel repair liability is no longer an overriding interest, meaning it must be registered to bind a purchaser. But for properties that changed hands before that date, registered liability can still exist and still bite.
The appropriate response is straightforward, a chancel search where the risk exists, and indemnity insurance where it’s warranted. The less straightforward part is identifying which properties warrant the extra step. Rural properties, older stock, and land near historic parish churches are the obvious candidates. The search data should prompt the question.
Flood risk that isn’t reflected in the asking price
Flooding is increasingly well understood as a property risk, but the gap between what a standard environmental search flags and what a property is genuinely exposed to has widened as climate patterns have shifted. A property that last flooded in 1987 may carry a lower risk rating than one that flooded in 2020 – but both carry risk, and neither is necessarily reflected in what the seller has disclosed.
The specific risk that catches firms out most often isn’t river or coastal flooding, which tends to be well mapped. It’s surface water flooding, the kind that results from drainage systems being overwhelmed during heavy rainfall, which is harder to model, less consistently reported, and increasingly common in areas that haven’t historically been considered at risk.
An environmental search that draws on current flood mapping, drainage records, and historical incident data gives a materially different picture from one that relies on older datasets. The difference matters when you’re advising a client on whether to proceed and on what terms.
What connects all four
None of these risks are obscure. Every conveyancer reading this will have encountered at least one of them in practice. What connects them is that they’re all data problems before they’re legal problems – and in each case, the quality and currency of the search data determines whether the issue surfaces at the right moment or the wrong one.
The search isn’t just a regulatory requirement. It’s the foundation on which advice is built. It’s worth knowing exactly what yours is built on.
For a closer look at how search data quality affects conveyancing outcomes – and what to look for when assessing your current provider – download our guide.

Fill in the form below to download your complimentary ‘Solving the
data puzzle’ guide:
Related Articles

Built to Thrive: OneSearch’s Three-Decade Journey in Property Data

The Property Data Jigsaw: Piecing Together a Seamless Conveyancing Transaction

Laughs, loyalty and lifelong learning: An interview with OneSearch’s Liz Jarvis

