Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Hypothetical
The city/county did not even honor their own conditions on the plat before allowing a structure(s)(see snippet below). This is why government should keep its nose out of platting unless the fixed works are dedicated/constructed and functional before signoff. The plat just created a bunch of “what ifs” and future “shoulds” that average buyers don’t understand and they believe they are buying a government approved unit of land complete with official stamps and signatures. I think plats like this do more harm than good. We have much of the same in the area I live and I tell people that if they are not going to do thorough due diligence then make sure they have lots of cash in reserve to fight for their property rights (perceived or real) in the future. My 2 cents, Jp
@jp7191 we own a parcel on a Parcel Map (a minor subdivision map in California) filed in 1984. Similar situation. We live on the largest lot and the house dates to 1935. Our lot has a 10′ drainage easement which serves the vacant lot which it runs to. Same thing, there is a note that drainage is required before building permits. The only construction happened on the other 4 parcels so the county didn’t require the “drainage.” No permit was issued on our lot since 1984 so the “drainage” requirement didn’t happen. So the easement has no pipe in it. Slight of hand by the subdivider and his engineering consultant. We do have a set of “as-built” plans which at least show the pipe being stubbed to the R/W, guess what, it’s not there. It was not built as shown on the “as-built” plans LOL.
On a regular subdivision map all the improvements have to be built before release of the bond. On Parcel Maps (generally 4 lots or less with exceptions, ours has 5 lots because we are the remainder) it is tied to the building permits so if the required improvement is not on the lot for which the permit is being pulled it is not required.
I’d guess (because that’s the best I can do) that if Smith (lot 4) has been using the northerly access route since buying it from Brown, that that would imply Brown giving permission for it’s use, and adverse possession would not apply. What would possibly apply is an easement by implication or maybe an affirmative easement. Either way (or whatever way), if Jones wants to try to get his strip of land back he’s going to need an attorney.
That said, I’d let Jones know about the possibility of such easements burdening his property and recommend he consult an attorney before paying for a new survey. The counsel may let him know that he’s up a non-navigable stream flowing with excrement and the survey would be a waste of money. Knowing attorneys, though, he may also convince Jones that he has a shot and he’d be back on your doorstep asking if he can pay you to do a thing.
dd@dougie
How do you justify the cost of not exercising due diligence? Make your offer contingent on the seller providing a current boundary survey.
@dougie I think to many surveyors become “developer friendly surveyors” for economic reasons or because they are following local standard practices but in the process they are giving up protecting the public as the main professional function of the surveyor. This has come after many years of regulating land use leaving surveyors to muddle through all the regulations and conditions to produce land divisions that can be harmful to the public but meet the bar set by bureaucrats. It seems we as a profession are taking the back seat more and more to the rule making (?). My 2 cents, Jp
Do you walk, when the seller says he’s not going to do that?
I hope everyone has a great day; I know I will!@dougie if a buyer makes an offer with contingencies, the seller can accept the offer, ignore the offer or the seller can make a counter offer which removes the contingencies. So yes the buyer can walk if they don’t like the counter offer, happens all the time.
- Posted by: @dougiePosted by: @dave-o
and the survey would be a waste of money.
How do you even know there’s a problem, with out a survey? The Assessor’s GIS? LOL, good luck getting that to fly…
From what’s been shown in the 3 pictures we’ve seen so far… which, of course, isn’t a problem unless Jones decides to try to make it one.
dd Stupid people insist on doing stupid things no matter how much advice they receive in advance from people who know what they are talking about.
- Posted by: @dave-o
isn’t a problem unless Jones decides to try to make it one.
It wasn’t a problem; until the surveyor showed up and pointed his finger at it.
Let’s say Jones try’s to sell his property and you are the buyer; is it going to change your mind if a survey shows a driveway without an easement?
I hope everyone has a great day; I know I will! @dougie
Of course. Why would I knowingly buy into what could end up becoming years and tens of thousands of dollars in fighting this, after the other guy puts up a fence, and my only access is through the cul-de-sac?
@dougie
Ahh, thanks, didn’t go back and re-read. Then also, no
That’s my point; if there isn’t a survey, everyone just goes along their merry way; if there is a survey, he’s going to throw up a big red flag, that no one wants to look at. Because it means someone needs to through a bunch of money at it…
I hope everyone has a great day; I know I will!@dougie the surveyor didn’t make it a problem. It’s not a problem unless (until) Jones decides to make it one. Oh, that’s what I said.
dd- Posted by: @dougie
Do you walk, when the seller says he’s not going to do that?
I??m going to have to think about it while drinking a beer this afternoon at my favorite local brewery.
Through, throw, threw?????
Log in to reply.