It seems the unstated proposal here is that cryptography will reduce the burden necessary to validate a title. Maybe.
Let's say the house is in a town that has 100 houses and the current title verification process is that you go to the town hall, which is open from noon to 2PM on Thursdays and every other Tuesday, and you ask Ethyl, who is 71 and has cataracts, to go check the title and verify the owner is who you say it is. She takes the title document from you and then goes to an original master and checks the names. There was a flood in the town hall, so houses 21-40 had their original documents damaged in the box but there's an attestation process that applies in that case. Also, a bylaw requires that Ethyl only deals with a licensed title verification agent, of which there is one in the town, and he doesn't work Tuesdays.
This is burdensome! Both Ethyl and the verification agent are probably rent seekers!
It seems like your pitch is "if instead of this, the town webpage had a cryptographically signed register that simply notes who owns everything, then you could just go on the webpage and verify it yourself."
That would be simpler! But not because of blockchain. It's also the case that in a non-blockchain world, the town could put the ownership on a traditional database online, and give owners PINs that can be used to do the title verification. Or just list all the owners publicly by name and make the town webmaster the central trusted authority that the changes are not fraudulent. Or they could even make the ledger cryptographically signed exactly like a blockchain but with the contents centrally stored rather than distributed/public.
So it's still hard for me to think how you can separate the blockchain pitch "processes would be more efficient if we designed them to be efficient", blockchain or not.