I may be confused, but it looks like a different line length between the two documents between lot 101 and the new "Lot 1".
Also, the rear distance of Lot 103 changed by exactly 4 feet.
But it's the same bearing, so that would project that 4' difference parallel to the original lot line.
@gstritter I highly recommend getting a licensed land surveyor involved. As Andy noted, the two surveys do not agree on key information. Also, it appears that the center line of Rose Hill is not necessarily the center of the pavement. On ths survey showing your mother's lot, Rose Hill is 70 feet wide to the east of Chadwick, then it shows her lot line is 40 feet from the center line of Rose Hill. The survey of the King tract indicates a total width of Rose Hill as being 60 feet. But, I believe the tax map provided earlier showed the King tract projecting some distance further out into Rose Hill which might explain the 9-foot difference along the line between your mother and King. However, maybe it should be 10 feet instead of 9. Weird stuff like this is relatively common in the world of land surveying, so definitely get a surveyor.
If only we could get on a surveyor’s schedule! That’s why I originally posted to your forum. I think the reason for the differing line lengths is that Rosehill Rd was widened to put in another lane in each direction.
That shouldn’t change the lot boundaries between those 2 lots, right?
Only in that their lot extends closer to Rose Hill than what your mother's lot does by about ten feet. The entire remainder of that line should be in common.
@jitterboogie I did a google search on average cost for a land survey in my zip code for fun. Yeah that doesn’t help us either because that price is way way low. Talking about pay. 3 years ago i worked part time for a guy. His senior crew chief pay was not much especially the cost of living in the area. I asked the boss about that he said that was top wages. He was living in the 90’s I think. I made that as a i man in 1994. Anyway a few months later we were at a chapter meeting and sitting around. i was helping a guy solve a problem on a gps issue. Looking at his raw data. My boss was there the guy said if you want a full time job i will pay you x. Way way higher than i was making or his sr crew chief. I laughed because I said i was fine just getting back into the groove of things. Plus he was what I thought someone should be making in the area where i was but i was not driving to his office for that. He has become a good friend as well. I have no idea what the pay scale is nationwide but i know some areas and some are a good living and some will put you in the poor house. But the race to the bottom on survey prices according to google is crazy. Surely those are bogus numbers. 500 for a survey. I don’t see how one can drive to the site and keep lights on. I remember 90 and 100 dollars for a lot survey in 90’s. But we did many a day.
The deed for the neighbor states that the property is the "major portion" of lot 1. That is an odd call where I work. I find several items interesting. A) Adjoining line calls are made on 3 of four sides of the deed. Guess which adjoining line is not called out? The line of interest.
B) I believe there is a scriveners error in the call for adjoining Lot 101 in the deed. It should be lot 103 if you follow the courses around.
C) There are calls for monuments at all four corners of the deed including the line of interest. Monuments control over courses.
D) The deed course calls do not match either survey exactly. Fairly consistent with the 1966 survey more than the 1977 survey particularly in the rear.
E) curious why the 1977 survey shows the 1966 10 foot utility easement in adjacent lot 103 but not lot 101. I suppose it could be due to the fact there was no easement included along the side of the 1977 survey, just the back.
F) Haven't taken the time to see if the 1977 survey or deed or both closes geometrically. Many surveyors have seen 7's turn into 2's which might explain the 112 in the 1977 survey vs. the deed call of 117 in the rear. If the survey has a 5 foot misclosure for example that would support the 117.
G) Approximate Google Earth measurements on overhead imagery relating occupation to center of streets tends to support the 1966 plat record distances. That along with the deed stating the back corner of the neighbor is common with the corners of lots 102 and 103 would make your corner common to it as well.
You can understand why a survey professional is needed. If your neighbor is interested in finding the line as you say the neighborly thing to do would be to split the cost and agree to the survey results whichever way it may go.
Gwen....Shoot me an email at my member name (without the hyphen)@gmail.com if you haven't booked a surveyor. I will see what I can do to get you into my schedule. I have worked in Cumberland County before as well.
I don't think it was an attack, more like a realistic observation. Which I think he hit right on. Realtors, for the most part, don't have much appreciation for our profession. I mean, we rarely give them good news, and many times hold up or kill a sale
fair enough.
I'm probably reacting to something else that's underlying.
And surveyors don't hold up the sales it's the poor planning and lack of participation and knowledge of the realtors imnsho. It's not a huge surprise, it's just survey and pretty standard for commercial property and damn near expected by title companies and always mentioned.
either way, happy Friday!
Well, yeah, but if a residential buyer decides to have a survey done, many times discouraged by realtors, and a boundary issue is discovered, the buyer may either walk or re-negotiate. So, we're not a welcome sight for many, especially the realtors who're out there erroneously pointing out the boundary lines to potential buyers
especially the realtors who're out there erroneously pointing out the boundary lines to potential buyers
...werd...
Buyers have one similarity with our survey clients. No matter what you say or how you say it, they only hear the parts that match up with what they want to hear.
BTW, am I the only teenage boy who noticed one of the official names on one of the surveys. That is: Cherry B. Horne. Reading it as cherry be horny.
what a mess... the rear line of Lot 103 changes between maps, the deed for the new Lot 1 doesn't really follow the record distances ..road right of ways have changed. it's no wonder there's confusion and people don't want to work there. It would take days of field work and research only to tick everyone off and not get paid what the effort requires. An early poster said 5,000 retainer to get started. That might be too low.
@andy-j Oh come on this is the fun jobs. This is what i live for and wish i were licensed to try this stuff. But yes everyone is correct these are not the big bucks jobs for sure. Nothing is straightforward on things like this and getting back to the original and following it back to present takes time and thought and dealing with all the issues in between making the phone calls to peers and saying what were you seeing am I missing something etc.
This is all normal stuff in western Mass. Most of the deeds were written by the landowners. They cut out a lot here and there, and the distances could be 100-200' off in less than 1000'.
The deeds may fit together on paper, and in the minds of the owners, but the actual configurations sometimes bear little resemblance to their intent. Definitely fun. Come to Florida, Mass. Good times
