>

Wow I thought it was a possibility but you would think there would be a clause where the title insurance would keep the tract he isn’t using.
The article should be saying some poor folks thought they were buying a home only to find out they were being scammed by some impersonators, this article makes it sound like the actual owners no longer have their home and if that’s the case then that’s f-ed up, laws should exist to not let that be the case. >

Isn't this what title insurance is for? >

You'd be surprised how many people turn down title insurance thinking it's "too expensive." >

A friend of mine bought a house.  It later turned out the house was built on the wrong property. So they purchased a house but the title showed they owned the land next to the one their house was on.  
Title insurance kicked in and the insurance paid for the land the house was sitting on. >

Did they get to keep both set of land? >

Ok I didn’t want to go there but there was some real legal wrangling and fighting.  And to my fucking astonishment yes, he got to keep the parcel of land that was next to the house that he actually bought thinking he was buying the parcel under the house.  
He got both tracts of land.  He paid for the tract next door and the title insurance paid for the tract under his house.