Under Hawaii's 1997 law regarding "de minimus" discrepancies, which is NOT considered an encroachment?

In Hawaii's 1997 law regarding "de minimus" discrepancies, which addresses minor encroachments, a discrepancy that is considered to be of minimal impact may not be deemed an encroachment if it falls within specific limits. The particular situation highlighted in this question involves a chain link fence crossing 4 inches beyond the boundary.

This scenario is analyzed under the provisions of the "de minimus" law, which allows for certain minor encroachments to be tolerated, meaning they do not warrant legal action or reparation. The law sets specific thresholds, often around a few inches, where such minor encroachments are acceptable, typically to promote neighborly relations and common-sense approaches to property use.

In this case, the chain link fence extending just 4 inches into the neighbor's property is below the threshold that would qualify it as a formal encroachment. It embodies the principle of being "de minimus," which acknowledges that small transgressions on property lines may not create significant adverse effects or disputes.

In contrast, other options describe scenarios where the encroachments are considerably larger—such as a pool intruding by a full foot or a roof overhang of 9 inches—which exceed the acceptable boundaries set by