This couple will either agree with the state on the land swap or?
Being the encroachment is on Green Acres land they have few options.
Does Not Matter If They Find The Title Policy...
...they own the land as originally surveyed.
If the barn is not shown correctly on the original survey, that is a survey issue not a title issue.
If the driveway in question is not shown at all on the original survey, that is a survey issue not a title issue.
That the barn is within setbacks is less of a problem, it is an existing condition. It is not a concern of the State but of the township.
That a small corner of the barn is on State land is de minimis, a judge can allow it. It may not even require a judge. The State could allow a conditional license for use because it does not diminish the use of the parkland.
The fence and driveway can be removed/relocated at less cost than litigation.
They best be happy that the State does not seek unpaid rents.
Paul in PA
Classic "Suck's to be you scenario." I deal with the state on a daily basis.
Considering the ratios they use to trade wetlands these folks would be better off jumping on the 2:1 swap.
Steve
Their story seems "off". First, it says the boundary of the property was always staked correctly, but the 1994 surveyor apparently mislocated the barn. So, if the boundary was always correctly known, they really have no excuse for all the things they added later that are clearly way beyond the property line.
It says the barn and driveway was built, unpermitted, by prior owners, but as Paul points out, that 1994 survey was done for them, apparently 6 years after they bought the place (bought in 1988?), and does not show the paved driveway back to the barn (biggest encroachment), the encroaching shed, or the encroaching fences .... In addition, just looking that the 1994 survey, even if the barn location is slightly off, you can tell they don't have room east of the barn to pave about 35 more feet of driveway (which they apparently admit to doing on their own), or add fences 40' out ... the only error I see the 1994 surveyor making is mislocating the barn, which apparently encroaches by 1.4 feet. The rest of it (fences, paving and shed) was apparently added later.
I'm not sure how much of this is "bamboozling", and how much is their own fault. It looks to me like they took a 1.4' barn encroachment, and turned it into a 30-40' fence and driveway encroachment.
Comparing the two surveys:
- The older survey shows 56', the newer survey appears to show a rear house offset of 57.3'. Within a foot of each other.
- The older survey shows pipes at the corners, the newer survey shows no control.
- The older survey shows the barn to be clear (rough scaling approximately 10+/-), the newer survey shows the Barn just over the line.
- The older survey shows the driveway ending at the dwelling, the newer survey shows the driveway continuing on to the barn.
Based on the house offset both surveys seem to have the line located in the same place. The barn appears to be miss-located on the older survey. It appears to me that the owners added improvements to the property without knowing where the line was located. Even if they could not find the pipes shown on their survey, if they had measured 56' off the house as their original survey showed they would have realized that they were putting the improvements almost 30' onto the State Park land. Even the miss-location of the shed does not account for that great of an encroachment.
I have to agree with the State in this case. This is a clear case of why you should get your lines marked before undertaking improvements on or near the property lines.