Please....I'm Begging You.
"If you don't attach the note and the owner moves the building back onto the lot someone in the future may believe that you mis-located the building."
Come on. Your survey map is a statement of the facts which exist on the date of the survey. If what you said above were true, we'd never put ANYTHING on a survey!
Wrong-granted there may be regional differences, but
> Come on. Your survey map is a statement of the facts which exist on the date of the survey. If what you said above were true, we'd never put ANYTHING on a survey!
My gawd man, a survey is a lot more that just a statement of facts found on the ground. It is a summary of all evidence and may include conversations with the client and abutters which should be documented in notes on the plan or on a "report of survey". Many surveyors put their "report of survey right on the plat".
A major encroachment such as a building being over the boundary line is an example of a situation where you must talk to the parties involved and determine the circumstances surrounding the encroachment. Having a party acknowledge the fact that their building encroaches over the line and that they intend to move is EXTREMELY RELEVANT.
Omitting the documentation of the encroacher's statement amounts, at the very least, to sloppy survey work.
Wrong-granted there may be regional differences, but
I don't think that it's the Surveyor's responsibility to show how persons affected by the Surveyor's opinion about where the boundary lines are located will deal with encroachments. I do think it's wise to interview all involved so that additional boundary evidence may be uncovered and evaluated before a plat is issued.
Wrong-granted there may be regional differences, but
> I don't think that it's the Surveyor's responsibility to show how persons affected by the Surveyor's opinion about where the boundary lines are located will deal with encroachments. I do think it's wise to interview all involved so that additional boundary evidence may be uncovered and evaluated before a plat is issued.
It is not necessarily so much how the affected party will deal with it per se, but rather documentation that the subject acknowledges the validity of the encroachment claim and committed to a third party that they will rectify the situation.
Like I said, I don't think there is any problem what so ever with placing such a note on a plat. It is done extensively around these parts. The general axiom for surveyors is to document facts both physical evidence and parole evidence. What do you think the title company would prefer: a plat showing an encroachment or a plat showing an encroachment with documentation detailing that the parties are aware of the encroachment and intend to rectify it?
Encroachments are not encroachments IMO until they are accepted as being such by the parties or a court says that they are. There are possible situations where buildings can be legally over the line. For example, the encroacher could legitimately claim that the building was placed over the line by unwritten agreement, etc, etc.
You are now the "Go to Surveyor"
It was just the "negligent" comment that stroked me the wrong way.
I will be doing a job next week on a small lot for a client that wants to build a new fence.
I discussed it with her and guess what, I am NOT going to show the house or concrete on my plat, however, I will add a note sort of like, "Improvements, not shown hereon, bear municipal number 1234 Negligent St., City of Whogivesadamn".
Wrong-granted there may be regional differences, but
"What do you think the title company would prefer..."
Therein lies the problem.
According to state laws and regs, what "the title company would prefer" does not enter into the equation.
A notation about what a property owner may or may not due at some future date, unknown to the land surveyor (or anyone else) does not belong on a land survey. A promise by a land owner that he may move a structure at some future date is NOT "evidence". A survey is not a site plan or a zoning opinion.
As an aid to trying to change your opinion on this, can you imagine yourself in front of the BOR investigator, or a judge, stating "Well, the land owner PROMISED me he was going to move the trailer."?
You are now the "Go to Surveyor"
Yeah, well for what it's worth, negligent was probably not the best word and it certainly wasn't directed at you.
You are now the "Go to Surveyor"
:good:
Wrong-granted there may be regional differences, but
> As an aid to trying to change your opinion on this, can you imagine yourself in front of the BOR investigator, or a judge, stating "Well, the land owner PROMISED me he was going to move the trailer."?
You don't get it Angelo. Our BOR rules are client-contract based within a framework of BOR rules. I would have absolutely no problem what so ever testifying that I was told by a client that he was going to move a building and reporting it on the plat if asked to do so by my client. Whether or not he does move the building is up to him,not me. I am reporting his stated intention; I am not guaranteeing he will do it. I have no liability what so ever if he doesn't move his building. I am a reporter of the facts of a project not the one taking responsibility for the actions of a client.
In most cases such notes are mandated by planning agencies to be placed on the plan prior the the issuances of building permits or for subdivisions. I find it unbelievable that you wouldn't do it in a similar situation-maybe it is a NYC thing?
Wrong-granted there may be regional differences, but
Well, maybe something like this might be okay in Maine (and other places), but I know this: I'd never put a statement as to non-boundary issues such as "Client stated he will remove existing building" on any boundary or topographical survey I sign and seal.
I am not going to make any statement one way or the other regarding an action that might or might not be taken by someone not under my direct supervision. The client can write a letter him/herself and attach it to the survey. In my scope of practice, if the structure exists, it is shown.....period. Why would I complicate my liability (either actual or implied) by opening up that can of worms?
I can see an engineer stating such on a "site plan", but around here, that's a whole different animal.
