I think the LSIT is wrong.
He said "I did review the issue with lot 27's lake access, and the original surveys that created those lots where done only on paper and based on the 1931, there were no field surveys done to establish the lake boundaries, they where simply drawn in based on field observation alone. The only way to know if they have access is to first do a section breakdown and set the property corners based on the original survey dimensions prorated from the current measured dimensions. Until this is done, there is no way to ever establish lake access. Doing so now while we are doing the other properties nearby will save you a lot of money. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
This is after I wrote him: "Bob (the surveyor) ?ÿwould probably know lots 26 and 27 are riparian lots and accretion and reliction rules apply for determining boundaries.?ÿ
?ÿ
I am thinking the original meanders shown on the 1956 supplemental survey that established meant for the access to the lots to be from the water as the meander line juts into the neighbors lot that the Borough now shows as having no lake access and my lot blocking his right of way, although there is a 50 easement on the lake side of his lot, it likely still doesn't reach to the boundary shown by the Borough.
?ÿ
I paid for an unofficial and non-recorded survey where I helped on the rod to record the meanders and the surveyor at that time calculated a lot line with some waterfront for the neighbors. This was in '08. He didn't break the section down and didn't set any monuments and what I got was a pdf.
?ÿ
So, back to the LSIT, the LSIT says it'll be $2000 -$3000 to survey my lot.
?ÿ
What do the experts think?
?ÿ
Maybe he is wrong, unless when he writes "pro-rated" he is referring to riparian lot rules of accretion and reliction.
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
??? ??? ?????ÿ
You'll need to throw out a bigger bone and some documents to get a response that might start a dialogue for your interesting and vague post.
Plat or map will do wonders for some free noncommittal discussion.
An LSIT is offering to perform a survey for you? I hope I am reading your post incorrectly.?ÿ
Seeing the plat is critical to receiving useful responses.
Did the first half of your post get deleted somehow?
You paid for one unofficial survey and unrecorded "survey" where no monuments were set, are unhappy with the "results", are trying to get another unofficial survey done by someone who is not licensed (at least as far as we can tell by your post), are already telling that individual that they are wrong, and are now asking licensees (who could have sorted this out in the first place with a proper survey) to validate your opinion on the issue? Surely you'll get the exact answer you're looking for here...
Since you mentioned a section breakdown, I'm too far removed geographically to have a good answer for you, even with the plan copies the others are asking for. Where I work, eastern Mass., the lots fronting on lakes were mostly developed around 1900-1930 with very poor quality plans, and very little original monumentation set. These were intended as camps for people to escape the heat and pollution of the city, but are now built up with permanent residences. $3,000 to survey a lake front lot would be on the low side for me.
OP here...
@Rover83 To say I am mad or unhappy about any survey or its results is not accurate; it's just an interesting question which I think can be reframed by saying is the LSIT saying too much to a potential client when the survey requires a familiarization, if not specialization, in riparian rights and land surveying? If they do not have the obvious talent, am I mistaken in having that crew survey such a thorny issue.
It appears the LSIT is speaking for the surveyor. I doubt that he would be offering to do the survey; instead, he is working the emails for the Surveyor. Let's give him the benefit of a doubt. And I am not saying that he is wrong, just that I think he might be. One should be careful and provide information that is accurate as this is more of an issue than just set the lot corners.
Please see the attached for details of the issue. Oh, the dock in the picture was built by the owner of lot 27, but the owner of lot 26 obtained a permit for the dock under his name.
?ÿ
An LSIT with little or no experience in dealing with riparian issues has no business discussing the price of survey with you. It appears you're approaching this from the stand point that because the BLM water (paper) plat showed Lot 27 having water frontage, that it has riparian rights. That is simply not a given. These are protracted lots based on a theoretical section breakdown. They are what they are and in this case there is no direct legal access to the lake short of an agreement (an easement in writing and recorded) with the owner of Lot 26. The lake bed is owned by the State and it is their boundary as well. Honestly your best bet if you're seeking to resolve this is to replat (Lot 26 & 27) to give Lot 27 lake access. You will need to go through the borough's platting process and this will cost far in excess of $3000 (including a section break down and monumentation). I'd recommend you go the private access easement route. The long and short of it is the meanders on the BLM water plat mean absolutely nothing. They are (gross) approximations for area purposes only. Full stop.
Good luck!
These lots were platted in 1956 and patented about 1959, pre??Parks Highway, Alaska Highway 3. There was a trail to the south with the native folks being the original owners. There could have been some foot traffic to lot 27.
So, with that said, please let pose the question: access would have to be presumed via water, right? If there was no access, there could be no Federal lot, right?
Thanks! I really appreciate it and I think it is interesting!
It is my opinion that Lot 27 was never intended to have lake front access.?ÿ End of story, as of today.?ÿ If a massive sinkhole opens up and the gap between the lake and Lot 27 becomes submerged, then your property line doesn't change but obviously you have access to the lake.
That opinion and $5 might buy you a cup of coffee.
@zephak I hate to be the one to break it to you but life ain??t fair and there are scads of parcels out there with no legal or physical access created by BLM by plats exactly like this one. If you want the answers, you??re going to have to dig deeper than an Internet forum. Like I said. Good luck!
Williwaw is spot on. The feds surveyed the land for disposal. If patent was earned prior to statehood access is dealt with under federal law in effect at the time patent was earned. If the elements required for patent occurred after statehood it is purely a state law issue.
Access law is not something you will (reliably) learn here. Hire a professional surveyor for a survey and an attorney to navigate the law.?ÿ
My .02, Tom...
