Is there any logical inconsistency in a finding that an alleged encroachment does not exist?

We find no merit in plaintiffs' contention that the trial court's conclusion that the action was barred by limitations is inconsistent with its findings that no encroachments actually existed. We fail to see any logical inconsistency in a declaration that an alleged encroachment does not actually exist, but, assuming, for the sake of argument, that it does exist, any cause of action arising therefrom is necessarily barred by limitations. See Iacovitti v. Fardin, 127 Cal.App.2d 348, 355, 356, 273 P.2d 926.