What satellite imagery is genuinely good for
- Confirming a plot's boundaries roughly match what's described in documents.
- Assessing surrounding land use — is the area residential, agricultural, or undeveloped?
- Historical comparison — many platforms show imagery from different years, revealing how an area has changed or developed.
- Terrain and vegetation context — general slope, water bodies nearby, forest cover.
- Feeding into hazard models — flood, landslide, and elevation analysis all rely on satellite and related remote-sensing data.
What it cannot tell you
- Legal ownership: imagery shows nothing about who actually owns the land or whether the title is clean.
- Encumbrances: a mortgage or court case is invisible from above.
- Interior condition: for built structures, satellite imagery reveals nothing about interior quality or damage.
- Precise legal boundaries: visual boundaries (fences, walls) don't always match the exact legal survey boundary.
- Fine-grained ground stability: subsidence and some landslide risk factors require specialised geological data, not just visual imagery.
The right way to think about satellite imagery
It is one input among several, strongest for context and hazard modelling, essentially useless for legal and financial verification. Treating it as a complete substitute for document and record checks is the mistake to avoid.
How propxpraman uses satellite data correctly
We use satellite and remote-sensing data specifically for what it's strong at — flood, landslide, and elevation analysis — while keeping legal title, fraud, and financial verification anchored to actual government records and documents, where that data belongs.