-
ALTA Item #18 What would you do?
As a Surveyor on a site, we are required to report this if there is any “Observed Evidence”. If I were a solo operator, I would only have “Observed Evidence” on the surface and would be reported as such in the notes.
However, the Co. I work for is engineering the site for development and there is a Geotech report of the site that has the soil conditions. I cannot find anywhere in the report that mentions (by others) that there is any “Observed Evidence” below the surface.
1. If you had that report, would you make a general comment about it on the ALTA even though it has zero relevance to the ALTA? (IE “See Geotech report, dated xxxx for soil info”)
2. If there was a reference in the report of below ground evidence, would you mention that on the ALTA, knowing that as a Surveyor in a medium sized company, you may have never been made aware of that Geotech report?This ALTA has not been certified yet, we are still going through the draft. I’m trying to get opinions and settle a discussion.
-
11 Replies
-
A Geotechnical report that you are aware of is evidence. Failing to mention it and/or the adverse conditions it may reveal would be negligence in my humble opinion.
-
I would think observed evidence would be limited to what you can see on the surface. Personally, I try to strike through this requirement during the proposal process. My answer would be none observed or such assessments are not made by this Surveyor. I would inform my client in writing about the existence of the report. It is the Geotechnical Engineer’s responsibility to provide his opinion on the report. This is a question that I would like to see removed from the ALTA Standards. What qualifies a surveyor to make this assessment? This is beyond our professional expertise.
-
I would go with Number 1, state what you observed, make reference to the report and send everyone a copy of the report.
-
The ALTA standards plainly state the surveyor cannot certify to reports or opinions of others. To me, observed either means visible or indicated by some sort of above ground appurtenance.
-
lmbrls, post: 346526, member: 6823 wrote: This is a question that I would like to see removed from the ALTA Standards.
Looks like from this that Item 18 may soon get removed.
2016 ALTA Standards -
I would think that referring to another report to make sure the end-user if aware of this other report would not be the same as certifying to that report.
-
If the report had information indicating the uses in 18 it should be disclosed. As has been stated you should also clearly state what you are able to evaluate given your expertise (or lack thereof).
The more important statement should probably be ‘I don’t know what might be here’. A geotech report may or may not include investigation of questions related to number 18… -
My view on observed evidence (typically earth work, graveyards, wetlands, refuse dump, etc.), is to just make a note stating the following:
18. There was no observed evidence of the site being used as a graveyard, refuse dump, nor was there any signs of recent earthwork EXCEPT FOR
………………………. as shown on the face of the map.I would not consider a geotech report as ‘observed evidence’ of anything, rather I would consider it a report, much in the same way I would view a title report. A geotechnical report falls into the realm of engineering, not surveying, so I would have NO problem with leaving it off entirely from my ALTA.
Nor would I include previous stormwater design schematics, architectural preliminary designs, or arborist reports.
That being said, I would not put up a fight if my client wanted it added to the notes, in which case it would just be another note stating a geotechnical report on the subject parcel was provided, prepared by so and so on this date.
-
Don’t leave anything to doubt…..
It is best to disclose whatever you know, see and find about a property you survey and make a report.
I had a group of developers wanting me to leave off a flood report of their property about 30rys ago.
It had been done and paid for with pubic funds and was delivered to a city and there it sat, never disclosed and shown to the public.
They got really mad and threatened me ruin and destruction.
One of them even built an office building there. He has been the only tenant and no one else has built or leased there. Water level has been into the windows of the building three times.
The problem is not the elevation.
The problem is FLOW. There is not enough of an opening under the 4 lane highway with a turning lane and a frontage road to evacuate the water.
Adding 10 feet of fill would cause the water to flow over the highway….the land is basically a catch basin.
I still have a copy of that report in my office and it has still never made its way to public notice and I’ve referred to it on several projects I’ve been a part of around the town.
Bottom line, we work for the public and are supposed to protect their interests during the course of carrying our our daily business.
It may be the developers that build and get projects going, the people that buy the property are the ones that actually pay for everything.
They are the ones that don’t like surprises and errors and overlooked things that cost them money and bring cause for you to reimburse them.
Don’t allow things to come back to haunt you or bite you in the @$$ -
All good points. My intent was to reference the report in the General Notes, but state that no physical evidence is apparent on the surface. I’m being asked to state and show more, but I have been holding my ground and getting resistance.
On a similar note…..
Item 19 has been checked. Again, we have a report with a location map that I could easily draft in approximate limits, but did not survey the wetland locations.
I’m leaning towards doing the same and just make reference to the report. Would I be incurring additional liability if I were to rough draft those locations?
-
Observed evidence is different than written documentation. Might talk to them about it, but I’m not sure if you’re obligated to mention it on the survey.
Log in to reply.