@chris-bouffard Our first and foremost obligation is the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
Btw one of the surveyors I spotted using that also uses this:
BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN AND CORNERS SET REPRESENT DEED LOCATIONS; OWNERSHIP LINES MAY VARY. NO GUARANTEE OF OWNERSHIP IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED.
I wonder if the client is aware when he hires this person that no guarantee of ownership is going to be implied by the stakes that will be set around his property.
That is a useless geometric exercise and certainly not a boundary survey. To tie in with another thread I was just reading, this is part of what keeps surveyor wages lower than they should be: lack of professional training and lack of understanding of what professional service is.
A survey NEVER guarantees ownership. We make a determination of a legal description, and we form expert opinions as to the intent therein, but no way does a competent surveyor guarantee ownership. A statutory warranty deed makes a guarantee of ownership (a guarantee from the seller). Title insurance (subject to exceptions) provides a guarantee of ownership, a guarantee backed by the underwriting insurance company and subject to exceptions.
What sort of guarantee is the surveyor making? To make a guarantee, you would need full title research all the way back to first out, review of all the original documents, do the field survey, and have underwriting (or deep enough pockets yourself) to cover if you missed any little item for the past one to four hundred years (depending on where you do the survey). In addition, you would need the training of a real estate lawyer, and a title officer, as well as your current expertise as a surveyor.
The closest thing to a guarantee is a statutory warranty deed from someone with pockets deep enough to make it right, a proper title insurance policy (with an ALTA/NSPS survey) from good title company underwritten by a financially solid entity, and the all of the above reviewed by a competent real estate lawyer. That is what a good commercial lender does when they write a mortgage for a significant asset. A survey is only part of that, and it is in no way a guarantee.
A proper boundary survey is an expert opinion as to the location of certain described real estate the bounds of which have been found and/or marked in the field combined with a maintained record of that survey (in surveyor's records, at the courthouse, whatever).
Nowhere in that statement, and nowhere in any law in my state, does a survey constitute a guarantee of OWNERSHIP.
@dmyhill Perhaps his wording was lacking, but I think he was complaining about surveying the deed vs the evidence of the boundary. Perhaps I'm wrong. The survey should reflect what is owned if anything is owned and not the deed description.
Better yet the survey should show what is able to be owned. It should show ownership lines, not deed lines. Who the owner is, is a matter of title.
Curious as to what the good people of this board think about this note:
THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE CLIENT NAMED HEREON, ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED. ITS USE DOES NOT EXTEND TO AND IS NOT AUTHORIZED FOR USE BY ANY UNNAMED PERSON OR PERSONS. THIS SURVEY IS NOT TRANSFERABLE TO ANY OTHER PARTY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION AND RECERTIFICARTION BY THIS SURVEYOR TO ANOTHER PARTY.
TIA
Dougie
I’m wondering if this was an attempt at protecting his product from being used by another for a use it was not intended for. Permitting etc.
It may be suitable for depicting the boundary of a piece of land but not for calculating lot coverage etc.
Have any of you came across a plan that was clearly your work but someone has manipulated it by stripping all identifying features of who created the original plan and made it to look their own. New title, date, prepared by etc.
Kinda feels like you got ripped off.
It seems likely that the disclaimer may be trying to limit the use of the survey to the Buyers transaction, and not some future transaction (new Buyer), since the lending institutions have tried to squeeze the requirement of a new survey out of the process.
@dmyhill Perhaps his wording was lacking, but I think he was complaining about surveying the deed vs the evidence of the boundary. Perhaps I'm wrong. The survey should reflect what is owned if anything is owned and not the deed description.
Better yet the survey should show what is able to be owned. It should show ownership lines, not deed lines. Who the owner is, is a matter of title.
We don't get to decide what is owned. We can show evidence of occupation (which is to say evidence that someone has acted like they own it). To go further, we do not know what is owned, we do know what the deed description describes (if it is a valid deed). If I have a deed with no ambiguity and it does not match occupation, there is a possibility that I misinterpreted the deed but there is also the possibility that the description does not match what the occupier believes (or wishes) they owned. No surveyor in the United States that I know of is empowered (on their own) to rectify that deed to match the occupation.
I think you mean "what could be owned" as showing the occupation and evidence of someone acting like they owned it (inadvertently, with or without permission, or adversely). But, I am unaware of any statute that empowers a surveyor to rule as to the transfer of title due to such evidence. Nor am I aware of a statute that allows us to modify the description of the parcel to fit such evidence.
How would you show ownership lines if they differed from deed lines? (Following original monuments set by the surveyor when the land was subdivided is following the deed.)
And, I am humbly asking (seriously) that you show me a survey where you authoritatively show that the ownership lines differ from deed lines without any court determination, boundary line agreement by the parties, or any outside authority. I would love to learn how to do that.
Have any of you came across a plan that was clearly your work but someone has manipulated it by stripping all identifying features of who created the original plan and made it to look their own. New title, date, prepared by etc.
Best is when it still includes your stamp and signature...somehow.
No surveyor in the United States that I know of is empowered (on their own) to rectify that deed to match the occupation.
I retraced a short plat one time. The guy comes out and asks me why I am digging a hole right there...I say I am looking for a corner...he points to a fence 10 feet away. "That is where we agreed the line would be." I walk over and find a rebar and cap at the fence corner and another at the other corner.
I held those corners. But that is following the short plat that subdivided it. That recorded document shows a number for a distance, but it also referenced a corner that was set. (Didn't show the fence for some reason, and I am 100% sure the fence predated the short plat.) So when the deed says, "Lot A", I agree it means to those corners and to those fences.
Now, let's modify that scenario: Fence is there, elder pointing at fence, but no rebar and cap. What then? Are we saying that we can simply decide to throw out the survey evidence (distance from front corner showing on plat) because some dude points at a fence?
If the originaly posted disclaimer is for a topo, or as-built or something like that it may make sense. But if it's for a boundary survey it is garbage. Three thoughts:
1. You can't disclaim away your professional responsibility.
2. If it actually achieved its goal it is inviting chaos. The next surveyor who needs to locate your clients boundary can't use it? The neighbors can't use it? This may explain some of those pincushions.
3. Take some pride in your work. I didn't become a surveyor to provide a transitory service for a particular individual. No wonder some of us charge less than a plumber.
@rover83 protection of the public and loyalty to a client are the same thing. Being loyal to the client does not change the results of the survey and therefor does not impede the safety of the public.
What do you mean by loyalty? Any loyalty beyond loyaly carrying out the services you were contracted to preform sounds dangerously unprofessional. I would advise against using that kind if language in any situation where it could eventually get to an attorney attacking your survey.
@dmyhill Yes, indeed. A national firm put their logo sticker over my seal and signature and passed off the work as their own. I let them know how displeased I was.
- I use a very similar disclaimer. Here is a reason to have such a note. Former owner of a survey company did a survey for a client. That client sells to buyer who built a building. Problem was that buyer built the building a little over the property line. Between the date of the survey and the encroachment was discovered was less than 4 months. The buyer nor the builder hired the surveyor to either show them the boundary lines nor to mark them again. The buyer sues the surveyor with the claim that the survey was transfered to the buyer and that the surveyor was liable. It turns out the builder used a control point instead of a PK Mag nail that was the actual corner. Now nothing can stop someone from suing you, but when you have a judge that is uneducated in our profession and she even stated that she thought a note stating copyright or something similar was needed. I don't have a problem with any disclaimer that helps me win if I have to go to court.
It turns out the builder used a control point instead
This is why I pull my control or make sure it's hidden...
I don't have a problem with any disclaimer that helps me win if I have to go to court.
Having a good attorney helps too, and ask your E&O carrier what they think
“PK Mag nail”
That’s not acceptable as a property monument, nor is an X in concrete. Set a real monument. Stamp lot#’s and lines on them, make them Uber visible. Hide or remove nearby control. Think how it will all look to the client and assigns.
That’s not acceptable as a property monument
In what jurisdiction?
@rover83 Certainly not in Arizona, and surveyors have been disciplined for an "X' in concrete or just a PK nail.
Are we talking specifically about Arizona?
From what I remember, AZ, like many other states, has standards for the size and materials of the monument, but these are subject to a "whenever practicable" clause.
I've seen some pretty oddball situations that preclude setting the monument that I would like to have set, even for offsets. On the flip side, I'm also fairly sure that there are surveyors who cut corners regularly and install substandard monuments when they could have set more permanent ones.
I'm not disagreeing that we should set the most permanent monument that we can reasonably set.
@samthesurveyor if we tried use every trial court decision to guide our work we would have a very whacky world. Trial courts come out with conflicting, nonsensical rulings all the time. It's one of the reasons we try to avoid court.
If we find two monuments at a corner we don't just set a new one in the middle, because a trial court judge said to do that once in a different case.
These are courts of equity, and are more concerned with "fairness" in the immediate situation than a deep understanding of the law.
That’s not acceptable as a property monument
In what jurisdiction?
If we have stooped to using legal minimum standards to determine what is acceptable the future isn't very bright.
We charge people thousands of dollars to determine their boundaries and then mark their boundaries to protect their investment that probably represents a significant portion of their life's work and we can't take enough pride in our work, and their land to set something more substantial than a PK nail?