This is an excerpt from an email for an ALTA I just sent off.
I regret that I cannot agree to sign the specified special certification (Specification 21) for the following reasons:
B. A surveyor is not qualified to judge what permits or easements may be required. Often times certain businesses do require special permits to discharge the byproducts of their operations into city wastewater and storm water facilities. I cannot certify to Item B, as written.
C, D. & E. I can only certify with regards to easements and restrictions listed in the title report. Unwritten or unrecorded easements may exist which I could have no knowledge of. Therefore I cannot certify to items C, D, & E as written.
J. This item asks me to state setbacks and other provisions per city zoning. In Tulsa, as in all major cities, zoning restrictions are rarely if ever stated in simple terms. They are normally the subject of complicated formulas and negotiations that are outside the expertise of Land Surveyors. The ALTA/NSPS specifications recognize that it is an unfair burden on the surveyor to determine these, and states that zoning restrictions is to be shown as supplied by the title company. As such, I cannot certify to Item J.
K. I cannot know what the “reasonable needs of current or proposed use” might be. Therefore, I cannot certify to item K.
L. It would be outside of a surveyor’s area of expertise to judge what might be “adequate quantities” of water supply, sanitary water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, electricity, gas and other utilities. Therefore, I cannot certify to Item L.
M. I could only certify to show those easements that are listed in the title report, and then only to show those that are locatable. I could not certify that persons unknown are not holding unrecorded documents granting them easement rights. Further, I could not certify that there were no underground utilities – not visible at surface – that would nonetheless represent prescriptive easement rights when later discovered. Therefore, I cannot certify to Item M without significant alterations.
N. The property may very well be in a flood plain. I cannot agree in advance to certify that it isn’t.
Nice work!
I really like K. lol
Excellent. May I steal this and adapt it to my own purposes?
> May I steal this and adapt it to my own purposes?
Certainly, if you think it worthy.
Who would be dumb enough to sign off on that cert? They are actually asking you to break the law.
> Who would be dumb enough to sign off on that cert? They are actually asking you to break the law.
I figure that if I did the certification would have little value, because my insurer would refuse to pay off on any claims. Just about the only thing that could result is having my license pulled for practising outside my area of expertise.
It's breathtaking sometimes what they "expect" a surveyor to sign; has anyone ever seen one like that a surveyor actually did sign?
Do surveyors really sign these things?
L. is Civil Engineering, not Land Surveying.
My theory is that various lawyers are having a contest to see who can draft the most patently ridiculous certificate that they can get a surveyor to sign. That probably would have been a winning entry had you just been a bit more "customer-oriented". :>
"I hereby certify that the survey is complete and accurate, that it is not a space alien landing zone, that there is no threat of meteor damage..."
If we all would simply state in our contract that we will be using the standard certification, we wouldn't have to waste time answering to these shysters.
> My theory is that various lawyers are having a contest to see who can draft the most patently ridiculous certificate that they can get a surveyor to sign. That probably would have been a winning entry had you just been a bit more "customer-oriented". :>
Yes, there is probably a secret website somewhere where they share the latest certification and vote on which is most ridiculous.
ShysterConnect.com
What was A, F, G, H and I?
Sounds like they just want you to perform some standard research. These items should probably be contained in your states minumum technical standards to protect the publicB-)
Should have been posted under the 'Humor' category. What a fine piece of lawyerese. They've been trying to alter the Standard ALTA certs for decades. Unbelieveable. :-O
:good:
I always add the standard cert language to my ALTA survey proposals...trouble is the owner of the property rarely sends the contract to the attorney who asks for said ridiculous certifications.
from the law firm of: Dewey, Cheatum and Howe
