I'm doing a fairly routine survey to establish the back of a utility easement for a local utility. Older subdivision done in 1980. After doing a preliminary survey to tie in what we could, I find one of the corners is out. Not by a foot, but more like 13'. The rub is that the corner has clearly been honored by the neighbors who have constructed a split rail fence to the corner that shows obvious signs of age. Not one to want to shake up the neighborhood, my mission is to locate the easement limits. However this corner is not on the ROW, not even close. My conclusion (and I will be corrected here if I'm wrong) is that the corner(?) now controls the lot line between the two lots, but not the ROW or the utility easement. It's just an awkward situation I find myself in. As this erroneously placed corner has been relied on for an extended period of time, who am I to come along and upset the apple cart.
Point 104 is the fly in my soup. The most careless surveyor in our neck of the woods could not have set it this far off, but it is, where it is and folks have clearly relied on it.
Thoughts?
> ... My conclusion (and I will be corrected here if I'm wrong) is that the corner(?) now controls the lot line between the two lots, but not the ROW or the utility easement...
I think that that is a reasonable hypotheses. I'd check .. think about...
a) where is the pavement surface relative to the boundary?
b) are you really sure that the property owner didn't find that bar lying in the ditch and push it in at the end of his fence? If it's just one rogue bar in an otherwise well monumented plat it may not be in it's original position. Sometimes an iron rod is just an iron rod. Where would you place the side line if the bar wasn't there at all?
I searched out and recovered enough to say with certainty it's a rogue. I could put it back where it belongs, but that is not my mission. Just let sleeping dogs sleep? I question how much weight it carries after being relied upon for so long.
It looks closer to being on the chord rather than the curve.
Recently I was surveying in a subdivision that was full of very large pines (36in and larger) along every street and around every house.
Many of the original pipe were in and standing straight. They were the called distance apart, yet most were not in a straight line and were off as much as 6ft. The original surveyor was known to tape and eyeball line.
Was this monument shown on the Plat?
Is this an original corner shown on the Plat? Is it undisturbed? If the answer is yes to both questions, then the rules of construction would lead you to hold the original monument.
Not clear what constitutes the corner that you have found but lets assume that it is consistent with others in the subdivision and perhaps carries some ID mark that links it to the original plat. If the surveyor referenced on the plat still exists, a courtesy call is in order.
Is it possible that the corner you find is on the lot line offset to the corner because of an underground utility that made the staking team nervous and said offset didn't get transferred to the plat?
I would gain permission to search for a rear corner and compare it to the front. That data may make the conversation with your client and the homeowners go smoother.
Or perhaps I am confusing this thread with the one about disturbed monuments. Specifically the one about the utility company hitting the pins and putting them back where they think they belong.
Need More Detailed Information
Is it on the lot line but not at the corner?
It may be possible that it was purposefully offset to avoid conflicting with already installed utilities. It is highly probable that it was removed to install utilities and not replaced by a surveyor. For all intents and purposes it does not appear to be an original surveyor's monument in it's original position.
I would not have a problem with setting my capped corner where it belongs as long as it is not into a utility line.
An overlap may have been created. The fence owner is required to defend his title if he in fact has any.
An overlooked item is that if a claim of adverse possession makes a parcel non-conforming the claimer or fence installer may be liable for Tortious Interference and or Slander of Title.
Paul in PA
> I searched out and recovered enough to say with certainty it's a rogue. I could put it back where it belongs, but that is not my mission. Just let sleeping dogs sleep? I question how much weight it carries after being relied upon for so long.
For it to be a plat monument you would have to prove somehow that it's mistaken location was it's original location, like by ties to adjacent monuments, or references, or improvements. For example, to the center of the constructed road. That fence may very well have been built first and the rod put in at the end of it by the property owner. At least that is just as likely as it having been set by the surveyor incorrectly. Without further proof that the rod is original and undisturbed it's just an iron rod that anybody can buy at Home Depot to tie up their goat.
The fence and iron together may represent a Practical Location. If so, it controls the direction of the line, but not it's terminus. But it may also just be a decoration not intended to mark the boundary at all. You would have to interview the two sets of owners and find out if they think the fence is the boundary to be sure of that.
For the purposes of your current project I think #104 is just a rogue piece of iron.
I think that by 1980 all juristictions in Alaska required something more easily identified then an unmarked "iron bar". So I would assume there is no question that the original monument has been found. If the monument has not been disturbed it should act like a witness corners, defining the line between the lots but not the ROW.
I can only speculate on how it arrived in it's present location. I find no record of a lot line adjustment. It's only a 50' ROW with pavement and rolled curb. Several utilities have dug in the vicinity over the years. Most of the road side corners have been obliterated by development over time. Normally I would shrug this kind of thing off as a contractor stabbing the corner back in while no one is looking after digging it up. (One utility represented in the photo is notorious for this in my book). The rebar is very consistent with what was set in 1980 but lacks any identifying tags or cap, again consistent with 1980 work. What gave me pause was the reliance upon this corner for the construction of a fence to delineate a common boundary between neighbors, which has stood in place for a number of years, and peace prevailed. Along comes Williwaw. He finds the corner's position to be inconsistent with the rest of the plat and in order to 'protect the plat', sets stakes that make clear the obvious error in the corner's position. I recovered sufficient additional control to make sure I was correct in my determination. There is .1-.2' error floating around, again consistent with 1980 work, but not 13'. The question in my mind is simply, by way of acceptance and reliance upon the corner by the two neighbors, has this (bogus)corner now become the accepted boundary between the two lots as a result of estoppel? For what it's worth, the corner(?) is +/- 3' off the computed line between the lots and 12' out from the computed intersection with the ROW (+/- 0.1').
If they both relied on it and no one knew about it being wrong - It depends 😉
I always used to say "It is where it is". Now when I question my field crew about such things they say "It is where it is". I can't win.
BTW: I don't question their judgement. I appreciate that they care and attack things from both ends. Every site visit usually confirms what they say. There was one time they didn't tell me about the pitt bulls hiding under the sheets of plywood.
Good doggie! I am not lunch! Good dog!
Was this monument shown on the Plat?
> Is this an original corner shown on the Plat? Is it undisturbed? If the answer is yes to both questions, then the rules of construction would lead you to hold the original monument.
Yes .... Maybe. Same piece of steel consistent with other found corners.
Was it undisturbed? .... I'd venture a guess of yes. Proof? None other than position.
Was it relied upon? Yes. By the people who built the fence thinking it marked their boundary.
Depending on what you are trying to accomplish, the solution may vary.
If you have a blunder by the original surveyor, with significance reliance by the adjoiners (you may need to interview them and/or their predecessors), the monument will probably control the direction of the lot line based on estoppel and/or the doctrine of monuments.
If you are only locating the r/w and the associated utility easement, I'm assuming based on the picture that some utilities are already installed - where are the current utilities located? If you are staking the utility easement for a proposed future utility, talk to the owners and see if they will agree to move the monument back to the calc'd easement line (again, unless the owners agree to move the direction of the established lot line location, hold it as it has been established). Without evidence that would definitely overrule the apparent reliance - you are correct - who are you to move an established corner?
Find a solution without creating a boundary dispute in a peaceful neighbor.
I Would Set A Correct Pin, Because It Defines The ROW
That a lot line may have moved by AP or acquiescence does not affect a ROW. The Easement remains in effect no matter who ends up with title to the land.
Paul in PA
As land surveyors we have no authority to adjudicate legal questions like estoppel and adverse posession -- I would monument whatever I believed the boundary would be without the "new corner" in question and then put a note about it on my plan, saying it may indicate certain rights, and that an attorney should be consulted if this is of concern.
The more likely possibility is it's an original monument.
It is on the R/W. Possibly the office calculated the intersection with an incorrect bearing? If it was off both ways then I would think a possible reset.
Estoppel has to do with the acts and statements of the parties so you would have to interview them to determine if it exists.
If someone moved an original monument to gain an advantage then estoppel may come into play, that isn't out of the range of possibility, was there some compelling reason to have moved an original?
You will have to decide if it's a disturbed monument or a blundered original one, but estoppel seems to be a quite a reach.
That utility easement may well move if it's an original.
Excuse me, that utility easement will pass through the original, not move cause it's always been in place.
The challenge might be
In the case of expanding an existing right-of-way say five feet onto the landowners the challenge might be to write the new description in the proper way. Not saying that is what is happening here, but am pointing out the challenge that would be involved in that situation. If that is what Williwaw were needing to do, how might he be looking at this dilemma differently from the way he is now. As surveyors we sometimes need to consider a potential situation more difficult than our immediate goal when arriving at our final opinions.
Lot's of good info and suggestions here.
FWIW, Brian Allen's thought process is the most likely direction I would proceed.
Will a recorded survey be produced or are you simply placing a lath at the easement line for construction purposes only? How far is it from the existing pin location to the easement line?
It will be interesting to hear how this one turns out!
