I hate that update term too. Dont scold please.
Anyway, long story short. We did an ALTA a few years back, stamped by another surveyor here before I was licensed.
Attorney calls a few weeks back, wants an update to the plan. We explain that the requirements have changed, so notes will need to change along with site check, updates, etc.. After weeks of this going back and forth, attorney finally says, "old certification is fine, no need to change." In other words, she knows the plan will not meet the requirements, just doesnt care. Needs for a closing ASAP.
My company's owner, an attorney himself, sees no problem certifying to the old requirements. I disagree, since it says right in the regs "these standards supersede all previous, etc, etc.. So, we cant call the plan an ALTA in my opinion.
Of course, since attorneys dont listen to surveyors, they are going to go forward with the plan as is. I'm not stamping/reviewing, so not much I can do. Thankfully, I wasnt involved with the fieldwork either.
Any input? Thanks in advance.
-V
Who is going to stamp it then? If they are reusing the old one I would think the previous surveyor would have some words.
I would give them two options. If they want a new survey, they pay for a full new survey and new certification. This would include rerunning the boundary before I would stamp it and checking all the improvments along with the title work and updated ALTA requirements certification.
or I would provide them with a copy of the old survey, as is, no updates, new signatures, stamps, etc. Just a copy of the old survey.
There is really nothing in between.
I like how Sam just cut through all the money/talkie/feelings, with the truth of the matter!
N
I agree with Sam Clemens. I don't think you can do a recertification and still call it an ALTA unless you satisfy the new requiremnts.
> I agree with Sam Clemens. I don't think you can do a recertification and still call it an ALTA unless you satisfy the new requiremnts.
Sorry I meant Sam Clemons.
Excellent response Sam, and exactly correct. As has been pointed out, the Standards themselves clearly state that they supercede the old ones.
I just went through this last week with an attorney. He wound up telling me that he understood exactly what I was saying. He then told me that the title company had provided the seller with a "Statement of no Change", and that if the seller was willing to sign it the title company would waive the survey requirement.
> I hate that update term too. Dont scold please.
>
> Anyway, long story short. We did an ALTA a few years back, stamped by another surveyor here before I was licensed.
>
> Attorney calls a few weeks back, wants an update to the plan. We explain that the requirements have changed, so notes will need to change along with site check, updates, etc.. After weeks of this going back and forth, attorney finally says, "old certification is fine, no need to change." In other words, she knows the plan will not meet the requirements, just doesnt care. Needs for a closing ASAP.
>
> My company's owner, an attorney himself, sees no problem certifying to the old requirements. I disagree, since it says right in the regs "these standards supersede all previous, etc, etc.. So, we cant call the plan an ALTA in my opinion.
>
> Of course, since attorneys dont listen to surveyors, they are going to go forward with the plan as is. I'm not stamping/reviewing, so not much I can do. Thankfully, I wasnt involved with the fieldwork either.
>
> Any input? Thanks in advance.
>
> -V
There is nothing wrong with reviewing and updating previous work.
Yes, it will no longer be a true ALTA survey, I have no issue with that.
A few quick edits to the old drawing (lining thru specific portions of the old cert for one) and adding new notes that fit the current situation is just fine.
The client wants a specific product. They know what they want.
If the final product is clear, serves the purpose, and does not make assertions that are not true then all is good.
As a new PLS this is a good learning experience for you.
Recently a nearby tract sold. I found a problem with it and two other adjoining properties several years ago.
One 3,800 ft boundary with 4 original monuments found in place with witness trees as described in everyone deeds was 130+ feet (2chains) too far wast by distance.
Their title insurance did not cover any loss because they had signed such a waiver to not have a new survey when they purchased the property (3rd owners).
The surveyor that did the job under cut every other and when it was over quoted that he wished that he had not been given the job. Two days max turned into a week.
There are no winners when shortcuts like this are taken.
> There is nothing wrong with reviewing and updating previous work.
> Yes, it will no longer be a true ALTA survey, I have no issue with that.
> A few quick edits to the old drawing (lining thru specific portions of the old cert for one) and adding new notes that fit the current situation is just fine.
>
> The client wants a specific product. They know what they want.
> If the final product is clear, serves the purpose, and does not make assertions that are not true then all is good.
>
> As a new PLS this is a good learning experience for you.
Peter,
You know I like you man but gotta disagree with you on this.
There is a reason the new ALTA standards say that the current version supersedes all previous versions. If your client is the only person who will ever see or use your survey, there is nothing wrong with negotiating any type survey specifications. (Within the minimum standards required by law of course.)
The problem is almost never will the client be the only person to see or use the work. The fact they want an update on a ALTA survey means that others will be relying on the work. They will have a reasonable expectation that the work complies with certain standards. If they call it an ALTA survey, it better meet those current standards. When the surveyor puts ACSM-ALTA on the survey that tells lots of other parties what conditions have been met. Failing to meet those standards and calling it something it is not, opens a wide door to all sorts of additional liability.
Larry P
ALTA "Update" - statutory requirements
Illinois minimum standards state "All ALTA/ACSM land title surveys are to be performed to the current ALTA/ACSM Minimum Standard Detail Requirements" (1270.56a3). You might want to check your state's rules regarding ALTA surveys (if any).
OK Larry, sorry I was not more clear, I will bloviate a bit:
"Line Thru" would mean either drawing a big fat line thru the existing text that states that the document in an ALTA Survey, that would include the title block.
"adding new notes" would be words like 'this is a field review of the ...' or 'this is a resurvey of ...' or 'I have reviewed and updated the encumbering documents but no field inspection was made after June 12, 2006...'. Whatever fits the case.
A simple statement of the standards used would also be included in those "new notes".
Yes, sometimes it is easier to just modify the CAD file and reprint, but sometimes it could be a big deal.
Not all clients are as dumb as a brick.
The ALTA standards are aimed at a title insurance policy. Not everyone wants a title policy. Sometimes they just want old work reviewed and changes noted.
As far as third parties... if they think something that is not titled a ALTA survey is actually a ALTA survey, they are 'dumb as a brick'.
I'll do an update if it's requested in a reasonable time period (a few months), and the parties named in the cert are the same, and the title policy is the same one. I'll stamp it with the date of the original. Otherwise, they get a new survey. To me, updating an ALTA after a few years is like updating a polaroid photo.
Larry and Peter, I agree completely. The "update" isnt the issue. I would consider every alta, updated or not, to be a new plan.
I just cannot see how you can certify to standards that have been replaced with new ones. Again, I'm not reviewing this plan, however, I can see this coming up in the future on a plan that I'm involved with.
Just preparing for battle.
Thanks again for the input.
-V
maybe the client does not really, really, really want an actual ALTA survey... just a second look at previous work.
Once you get past that issue, then it is simply just another project.
Ask you boss to discuss it a bit more, perhaps he can shed some light on it in a business sense beyond the nuts and bolts of Surveying.
Keep and open mind, things are seldom what they appear to be.
"now go out and do the right thing" Dr. Laura 😉
The attorney still wants the plan labeled as an ALTA. I should have mentioned that before, sorry.
If she would be willing to accept the plan, prepared to the old standards titled as an "Existing Conditions" plan, I probably wouldnt have a problem.
-V
> The attorney still wants the plan labeled as an ALTA. I should have mentioned that before, sorry.
>
> If she would be willing to accept the plan, prepared to the old standards titled as an "Existing Conditions" plan, I probably wouldnt have a problem.
>
> -V
Oh CRAP! I would have a problem with that too...
best of luck with that... Peter
If there is a way for surveyors to lose money, they will jump over themselves to do it.
This is a new survey. Charge accordingly.
VH - have you seen the Feb. 20, 2012 Beer Leg discussions on ALTA Certifications? Lots more info to be found there.
KS
Thanks. I'll check that out.
-V
