I am wondering how does someone defend a survey that is inconsistent with some surveys on a block. Without giving away too many identifying details, about six months ago my company was hired to perform an ALTA survey on a lakefront property. The property is described as lots 36 and 37 together with shorelands (this is in washington state). The area where this property is is a very tough area to survey but I found that this property had been surveyed in 1993. I looked at some other surveys in the area and the ones I looked at seemed to agree with the survey from 1993. I thought that the best thing to do was to go find the corners that were set in 1993, three of which were recovered and one corner (where there was new pavement) was reset. I tied these corners into published city horizontal monuments and showed a tie on my survey from one of the corners to the nearest published monument so that the next person could find it easier. I recorded my survey with a note that it was a retracement of the earlier survey. At the time I didn't really worry too much that the gis maps show that the garage for the property is almost entirely in the 20' un-built road that is shown on the plat in front of the lot. My survey and the one from 1993 have the garage 10 feet onto the property so the difference between the gis map and my survey is about 30 feet at the worst spot on the north line.
I am finding out from the surveyor at the city that they have identified inconsistencies between my survey and a survey of the next property to the north that was done in 1999. At this point in the shoreline the next lot, lot 35 is entirely in the lake and the next parcel where someone has built a house was created from part of a railroad right of way that was never built. The original plans for the railroad was that the temporary railroad was built along the shoreline but at some point they were going to straighten the line out over the water . To be clear the next parcel is not adjoining the parcel I surveyed but is separated by the 20 foot road row and also the south line of that parcel is north of the parcel by about 10 feet. The 1999 survey shows the road in the approximate location where the gis maps are placing it, however it doesn't actually show my clients garage, you would have to extend that line.
I feel that the right thing to do for either of these properties is to accept the surveys that were done and move on. I don't think that they need to be consistent with each other, or that the 20 foot road that was never built and is mostly out in the lake needs to be a straight line, but I feel that the surveyor at the city thinks I am crazy for saying this. I think that whatever survey I do in this area, it is going to be inconsistent with other surveys. The more I find out about the area the more problems I am finding (I will save those for another post)
I need help building a stronger argument for why the property lines that were established in the 1993 survey should be accepted, even if they were wrong at the time. The two surveyors who did their surveys in the 1990s were not able to come to an agreement and I don't see how I can resolve that. Leaving the lines where they are on the ground seems like the best thing to do even if it makes an ugly gis map.
Just fyi there is no chance of a road vacation here because it is in the shorelands area, there is an interesting legal angle where maybe they could do a quiet title action for the road. The surveyor at the city is talking about getting some easements but those would have to be passed by the city council and is also based on the premise that my survey and the one from 1993 is wrong.
Also how can I argue that the city must accept my survey as showing the property lines, unless the city or another surveyor conducts their own survey to establish the lines for the un-built road. I don't see how they can say that there are encroachments simply based on a gis map and not on an actual survey.
Sean R-M, post: 350540, member: 7138 wrote: I don't see how they can say that there are encroachments simply based on a gis map and not on an actual survey.
I think I found the source of your problems!
It all starts with the historic fact, that many surveys are NOT reliable. So, they trust their GIS more than surveyors.
Then, what do they do, when the DATUM for their aerial photogrametry is NOT based on SPC, or at least on a consistent datum, (Consistent with yours)
So, now you are going to have to find out for sure, what datum that they are using. And, in so doing, you will "Bring them with you".
This problem will NOT just "Go away".
They need professinul Land thurveyors, to lead them.
And, in the past such has not been the case.
Go for it. It is work, but it will PAY off handsomely.
I have done it in the local courthouse, in solving some of their problems. This one has not come up yet, but it will.
We all will have to do this.
N
I think you are on the right track.
Generally old surveys should not be rejected unless you have a very good reason, for example, the original monuments.
It's raises a bit of a concern for me that the surveyor at the City seems to be siding with the GIS solution over filed maps.
what controls the location of lots 36 and 37? Did you find evidence of called for original monuments? The two surveys that you want to use, did they find evidence of original controlling monuments? Has there been detrimental reliance on the 2 previous surveys? Do you have all the written evidence that could affect the location of lots 36 and 37? Could there have been an exchange of land that is not reflected on the map creating those lots? My suggestion is that you start from square one and make sure that you have all the written evidence relevant to the question and that you have all physical evidence relevant to the question at hand. Once you have a complete picture of the evidence then you will a basis to form an opinion about the two surveys that you want to rely upon. We should not go around wily nily and reject previous surveys, but we do need a basis to accept them just as we would any monument that we recover. I would suggest the default presumption is that the previous surveys are true and correct until proven otherwise. Even if you prove the previous surveys are not acceptable as a matter of survey, one may still have to accept them because to reject them would interfere with the rights of the land owners.
This is fairly common in this region; especially when dealing with waterfront, I see it all the time. 50 to 100 years ago; when 99% of these properties were created; nobody cared; then they invented the motor boat and waterfront property sky rocketed. Today; the value is measured by inches of waterfront. You better be able to stand behind your work; if you accept another surveyors work and he's wrong; you're just as wrong as he is.
Can you stand behind your reason to accept the 1993 survey over the 1999 survey? With the resources we have available at our finger tips in this state; this should have been a part of your research.
Sean R-M, post: 350540, member: 7138 wrote: Also how can I argue that the city must accept my survey as showing the property lines, unless the city or another surveyor conducts their own survey to establish the lines for the un-built road. I don't see how they can say that there are encroachments simply based on a gis map and not on an actual survey.
I thought you said there was a survey from 1999?
Sean R-M, post: 350540, member: 7138 wrote: I am finding out from the surveyor at the city that they have identified inconsistencies between my survey and a survey of the next property to the north that was done in 1999.
Sean R-M, post: 350540, member: 7138 wrote: I tied these corners into published city horizontal monuments and showed a tie on my survey from one of the corners to the nearest published monument so that the next person could find it easier.
If you can show that ties to the city control matches the record; you should be able to convince the city surveyor.
This is an example of what you can find:
For those land locked surveyors; this is usually what we deal with. Sometimes the GIS is pretty close:
