-
Boundary question
-
If the land owner on the other side of the branch calls to the branch will you be showing any gores and overlaps that may exist holding the calls on the subdivision map. I hope not. I have no idea who drawn by was but checked by more than likely failed to notice that the branch wasn’t referenced on the map. Somebody F’ed up and I’ve never felt compelled to repeat others F’ups.
-
In my small corner of the world, they used to map a branch, stream, creek graphically and show bearings and distances along a “traverse line” to form a mathematically closed figure. At angle points and in select bends, they would give a perpendicular distance from the centerline to the “traverse line” but usually leaving you to have to scale the distance along the traverse line to try and recreate a specific location. As technology advanced and riparian rights became something to feud over, those practices faded out and most began platting the actual centerline as closely as their methods could get them. Local custom for the time period is important to know. With no distances to the centerline or line work to indicate that the centerline is the property line, I’d stick to the bearings and distances on the plat. Monuments, reliance on them and possession might sway things… A lot. I ran across a deed years ago reserving a 30′ strip of land along the bank of a river. The confusion about where the actual 30′ strip was really bad.
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose -
As to investigation of lot line establishment:
- How old is this map?
- Is there anyone around familiar with that surveyor’s methods?
- Is it possible to find any of the original lot owners?
Lacking any more available info as to establishment, I would be inclined to hold the watercourses as they closely follow and there is that label indicating that the courses are intended to represent the branch. It’s simply not logical to infer that the surveyor switched methodology simply because he did not repeat the label with each course.
However, I’d feel a lot better about it if I were to take the opportunity to sit down with the current lot owners, explain the situation that there are reasonable arguments either way and that a Boundary Line Agreement to either hold the watercourses or the dimensioned courses could be executed to remove any possible ambiguity.
Taking the opportunity for that conversation has at least 3 big positives.
1. It shows that you are being diligent makes you look like a proactive expert rather than one who leaves potential problems in his wake.
2. It provides an opportunity to provide a solution that avoids conflict between neighbors as opposed to leaving a situation that may well cause conflict.
3. It provides certainty for future landowners and surveyors by eliminating the question with a documented and agreed to interpretation.
-
Thanks again for the constructive insightful feedback.
-
However, I’d feel a lot better about it if I were to take the opportunity to sit down with the current lot owners, explain the situation that there are reasonable arguments either way and that a Boundary Line Agreement to either hold the watercourses or the dimensioned courses could be executed to remove any possible ambiguity.
Taking the opportunity for that conversation has at least 3 big positives.
1. It shows that you are being diligent makes you look like a proactive expert rather than one who leaves potential problems in his wake.
2. It provides an opportunity to provide a solution that avoids conflict between neighbors as opposed to leaving a situation that may well cause conflict.
3. It provides certainty for future landowners and surveyors by eliminating the question with a documented and agreed to interpretation.
^^^THIS^^^
When in doubt, remove it.
Thanks, Evan.
Log in to reply.