Greetings and Happy Friday,
I have a client with a 60 year old Subdivision map.?ÿ Improvements were never done.?ÿ The city of jurisdiction filed a "Notice Cancellation" on the map claiming the map cancelled.?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ My client has applied for and has been given permission to obtain Certificates of compliance for each of the Subdivision lots. My question is:?ÿ when I write the Legal descriptions for each lot, can I refer to the old lot ??ÿ Say "Lot 1 of the sunken valley subdivision filed (so and so)?ÿ in Book 9999 of Maps page 00?ÿ Some county records etc..?ÿ OR must I NOW write metes and bounds for each Lot because the Map was cancelled ??ÿ ?ÿ
I'm leaning one way but I'd like to hear opinions?ÿ
Thank you all
?ÿ
My client has applied for and has been given permission to obtain Certificates of compliance for each of the Subdivision lots.
How were the lots described during this process?
States differ, but if the document is still in the Official Records, albeit canceled, there is no reason for metes and bounds. ???? ?ÿ?ÿ
I ran into a similar predicament here in Oklahoma.?ÿ After WWII a developer created a large (160 ac.) residential plat and marketed the lots heavily, selling almost all of them to individuals.?ÿ The trouble was the plat was never actually filed of record but the conveyances were all by "lot and block" description.
Due to a shifty developer no improvements were ever built.?ÿ Some owners tried to sue, some sold for pennies on the dollar, some walked away and the county got those for back taxes.?ÿ It was a mess.?ÿ The property stayed a wheat field for years.
I got involved when a title company hired me to "find" several of the lots.?ÿ After 40 years the State wanted some of the properties for a new highway.?ÿ Long story short we filed a 'survey' of the original layout.?ÿ To satisfy the title company each lot was described (per prior conveyance) by lot and block; more particularly described with a following meets and bounds.
In your case I guess it would all depend on the whims and rules of the local constabulary.?ÿ?ÿ
There is a situation in a nearby city where a large area was laid out as something like Park Place Addition to the city in the late 1800's.?ÿ After some period of time about a third of the platted blocks, streets and alleys were vacated.?ÿ Over time all of the lots in all of the vacated blocks were sold by lot/block as if they had never been vacated but on each deed it says something like:?ÿ formerly known as Lots 1 and 2 of Block 19 of Park Place Addition.?ÿ Additionally, there are streets and alleys laid out as if all those blocks, etc. had never been vacated.?ÿ It's as if the vacating action never occurred, except for the slight difference in the wording of the deeds.?ÿ The only time this became a headache for me was when we did an ALTA for an elderly care facility that was entirely within the "vacated" portion of the Addition.?ÿ The Philadelphia lawyer firm involved could not believe that the city was maintaining streets and alleys that the vacating action had eliminated.
I don't see why you wouldn't do both. Describe the lots using bounds or metes and then add the also known as parenthetically at the end. The map is recorded and easily obtained by the public. However, I would ask not us surveyors who will naturally find the best, most efficiently solution but ask a title company examiner what is customary in their world because they have to insure it and consider that route.?ÿ ?ÿ
Is the Plat a recorded document, signed by a surveyor, and with ties to physical monuments? Then it is also a recorded survey. No reason to have any legal description other than to refer to that plat. If no corners or monuments were ever set, this gets a bit more complicated I suppose.
Metes and bounds will only obscure the intention, which is to follow the original plat.
That is my opinion anyway. You could change my mind, but if I was paying the bill, I would not want metes and bounds. If I am following you, I don't want metes and bounds.
1. There is too much opportunity to mess up the descriptions.
2. To have congruity guaranteed you would need to reference the adjoining lots. How will you do that? You have to refer to the plat, right?
3. Secret third answer: Retrace the survey of the original plat, set corners at the lots, record the survey. Then simply reference your current survey in the descriptions.
?ÿ
I love working in recording states.?ÿ Not so much in Oregon, but across the river in Washington there seems to be a plethora of old unrecorded plats.?ÿ While they were never officially accepted by the county, the county still has the recorded in the public record and many current descriptions refer to lots as such.?ÿ It sounds as though the plat you are dealing with is of record.?ÿ Until such a time as the plat is reconfigured by a re-plat, I would use the old lot and block as descriptions.
