Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Business, Finance & Legal › Nosey Neighbor TN Bill requires to notify all adjoiners that you did a survey by certified mail
Nosey Neighbor TN Bill requires to notify all adjoiners that you did a survey by certified mail
holy-cow replied 1 year, 1 month ago 24 Members · 42 Replies
I mean, I understand the idea behind this. But aren’t there, better, ways to serve public notice to the landowners than this?
Is TN a mandatory recording state? If not, maybe that is a better way.
Exactly. This could have been avoided if Tennessee land surveyors didn’t have the the self defeating idea that surveys shouldn’t be recorded
The public is not served by secret boundary surveys. This is a blundering attempt to fix that. Just require recording. It will be cheaper than sending certified mail to all the adjoined and spending time answering their calls.
@wa-id-surveyor We were careful to give the surveyor mulitiple options for notice and avoid ‘certified mail’. This proposal is horrible…
Last week I??m at a section corner a mile from the project and it kind of scares the property owners, is there a problem? Inaccuracies? I just had a survey, is it wrong? Fortunately Nick did some deft diplomacy and property owner education on the fly.
The section corner was right where I expected to find it, no problem. BLM tied into it on a dependent resurvey approved in 2016 as a faithful perpetuation of the original. It is a San Bernardino County Surveyor monument.
The public is not served by secret boundary surveys. This is a blundering attempt to fix that. Just require recording.
I could not agree more with your first sentence. Secret boundary surveys should not be occurring.
I’m also well in favor of a recording requirement (not as a means of forgoing contacting the neighbors, but for several other reasons).
What practical good does recording do to inform a neighboring property owner that the surveyor has decided the line is in this spot versus that spot? Do they now need to not only keep an eye on their physical property lines, but also make a yearly pilgrimage to the recorders office to beat their paper bounds as well. For many people, that is not something they will be doing. So, recording (without specifically notifying the neighbor) doesn’t seem too far from a secret survey to me.
Exactly. This could have been avoided if Tennessee land surveyors didn’t have the the self defeating idea that surveys shouldn’t be recorded
The public is not served by secret boundary surveys. This is a blundering attempt to fix that. Just require recording.
While I’m sure that there are TN land surveyors opposed to recording every survey, the issue just isn’t that straight forward. In fact the rules in place make it near impossible to record a map unless you’re creating a subdivision.
In Tennessee when they created the ability for counties and local jurisdictions to implement planning they defined a “Subdivision” as being any division of land that results in one or more parcels that are less than 5 acres. I’m glossing over details, but the gist is that when you create something less than five acres you’re subject to Planning and recording a plat. An unintended result was that the Planning Departments have convinced the County Registers (where we record maps) that maps can only be recorded with Planning Department approval. This ignores the fact that we should be able to record “Exempt Maps” for surveys creating lots greater than 5 acres. Some Registers allow this and others insist that it go through planning. Some Registers are so afraid to record a map without planning approval that they have stripped exhibits for boundary line agreements or easements from deeds prior to recording. This leaves you with a deed often with no description of the agreed line or easement that was being created.
I would give anything if I could easily record a map every time I complete a survey of a property that has a poorly described boundary, easement, or other defect in the deed. I hate knowing that if the owner doesn’t hold on to my map or have their deed updated to reflect the results of the survey that my work will effectively disappear at some point and likely someone else will have to re-solve the same issues all over again in the future.
I’d say this a great opportunity for the NSPS and the Tennessee board to get together and figure out how to enforce the rules of law that bind the Survey statutes and slap the hands of the planning and unlicensed personnel from over stepping. Complacency has really killed our impact and degraded what this profession actually provides to the community and public at large. Whenever I see AICP, I cringe a little because I know that the majority of those people think they know everything that there is to know about lots and parcels and GIS and dare I say land survey. In discussion with them, only the really well seasoned and long term people actually understood the relationship, but even then there’s an intractable belief that sucey is just a necessary evil that will eventually be replaced by phones and computers.
ymmv.
@stephen-ward Sounds like a much larger set of problems which are not be adequately addressed by this proposed legislation.
This could have been avoided if Tennessee land surveyors didn’t have the the self defeating idea that surveys shouldn’t be recorded
I think you have this backwards, no one is saying that plats shouldn’t be recorded. The resistance is to a new rule which must then be enforced. The idea that all surveys should be recorded is novel and still needs to be assessed in full considerations of the power it gives to Planners and Review Officers to continually raise rates and add more and more and more requirements to be met as a condition of approval.
I would only push for mandatory recording if the board of licensure for PLSs was solely in control of the criteria for what is considered a recordable plat. Even then it diminishes the a PLS by turning him into a quasi-administrator.
The term “secret survey” is just silly. Nothing ever prevents a person for paying a knowledgeable person for sharing their knowledge. While it may be true that within the PLSS an erroneous corner has the potential to harm more land owners than in the Colonial system, I still don’t see this as a reason to preclude people from coveting knowledge of what my be their most valuable asset.
I can’t tell if this law is dumb or accidentally brilliant.
It seems dumb in that notifying them after the fact doesn’t really do anyone any good. But it also seems brilliant in that it could punish the surveyor that doesn’t speak with the adjoiner(s) prior to conducting the survey (which is what we should be doing).
Either way it’s still worse than passing a simple recording law, imo.
These bills may have the effect of curbing adverse possession/unwritten rights type claims, etc?
The idea that all surveys should be recorded is novel and still needs to be assessed in full considerations of the power it gives to Planners and Review Officers to continually raise rates and add more and more and more requirements to be met as a condition of approval.
Only subdivision plats are reviewed in recording states (or in my state anyway); random parcel surveys are recorded without review.
Anything that creates a new description is to be reviewed in my State. Most go ahead and record every survey anyway so that we all have a level playing field and to avoid the tendency to pincushion simply because we have no idea someone has already been there before us.
@jon-payne I agree there is a little bit of disconnect between the legal idea if notice and the practice idea of notice. The practical effect of recording requirements on “secrete surveys” though is far from zero.
When a land owner discovers a new monument, or other survey activity on their boundaries in a recording state they can easily find the survey (at least they should be able to), in a non recording state they have to beg their neighbor (assuming the same neighbor still owns the property) or if they can figure out which surveyor to contact they can beg the surveyor. Who may or may not share their information and may only share their information if they are paid for the same work again.
@stephen-ward you have identified the opportunity for an intermediate step. Requiring counties to record surveys that are voluntarily submitted by surveyors.
This could have been avoided if Tennessee land surveyors didn’t have the the self defeating idea that surveys shouldn’t be recorded
I think you have this backwards, no one is saying that plats shouldn’t be recorded. The resistance is to a new rule which must then be enforced. The idea that all surveys should be recorded is novel and still needs to be assessed in full considerations of the power it gives to Planners and Review Officers to continually raise rates and add more and more and more requirements to be met as a condition of approval.
I would only push for mandatory recording if the board of licensure for PLSs was solely in control of the criteria for what is considered a recordable plat. Even then it diminishes the a PLS by turning him into a quasi-administrator.
The term “secret survey” is just silly. Nothing ever prevents a person for paying a knowledgeable person for sharing their knowledge. While it may be true that within the PLSS an erroneous corner has the potential to harm more land owners than in the Colonial system, I still don’t see this as a reason to preclude people from coveting knowledge of what my be their most valuable asset.
Requiring surveys to be recorded is just that. You are confusing two issues. A recording requiremnt gives planners and reviewers no authority at all. A minority of states that require recording also require reviews. I am not un favor of that at all.
A majority of states have very reasonable fees for recording surveys ($20 is a common number). The states with ridiculous fees usually aassociate the fees with a review, not the recording. If you are concerned with out of control country fees in TN the legislation could set a recording fee.
Two objections to your Secret Survey argument:
1. That “knowledge” generally disappears when the surveor dieshy.
2. Why should a land owner have to pay a surveyor for work that the surveyor already did that affects their own property? Requiring access the information for all interested parties increases the value of the surveyors produce for both the purchaser and the neighbors.
I don’t understand the argument against sharing. Recording I get, especially with fees involved. Here we are required to file surveys with the County Surveyor’s Office. No fees. In my county this has really turned out to be a cool and helpful thing. Now to file a survey you simply send a pdf to “Survey Submit” and its all done. Then it’s placed in the mapping application “Plat Finder” a completely searchable app with color coding that shows any filed surveys that can be downloaded and saved/printed free. No need to go into any project blind anymore.
Mike@aliquot The gold and political capital to make it happen are the issue.
To be clear, I am only talking about retracement surveys and not subdivisions.
Mandatory recording provides the impetus for future exploitation. The two issues are separate only in that one agencies enacts the recording requirement. Planners and reviewers have have more political power than surveyors, so it’s best not to tempt them in the first place.
My main objection stems from my interpretation of the reasoning behind the fourth and fifth amendments and a deep appreciation for the right to privacy. I find it immoral to force a person to record an instrument that may cause them harm. I’ve heard the argument that a PLS in a recording state can wink and nod and simply hold onto the survey to give their client more time to deal with a given boundary issue. I view this as tacit acknowledgment of the perverse nature of denying a US Citizen the right to be secure in their persons, by which I mean the knowledge of their boundary location and any consequence thereof.
Most would still agree that it’s better to let 10 criminals walk rather than send a single an innocent man to prison. I extend this line of thinking to someone trying to do the right thing by hiring a surveyor then having to share the unfavorable results with their well monied neighbor. Making someone pay for a professional opinion, then requiring them to share it, without compensation and no matter what the results, runs against the spirit of Bill of Rights. It also diminishes the trust that can be placed in the PLS.
I won’t argue against mandatory recording being a net benefit to the majority, in terms of time and money. I just use different weights on my scale of justice.
I don’t understand the argument against sharing. Recording I get, especially with fees involved. Here we are required to file surveys with the County Surveyor’s Office. No fees. In my county this has really turned out to be a cool and helpful thing. Now to file a survey you simply send a pdf to “Survey Submit” and its all done. Then it’s placed in the mapping application “Plat Finder” a completely searchable app with color coding that shows any filed surveys that can be downloaded and saved/printed free. No need to go into any project blind anymore.
I think we are talking about the same thing. The distinction between filing and recording only exists in some states. Many states’ recording process for a survey is similar to what you describe for filing. The import thing is to create a permanent record available to the public. I don’t advocate any kind of review of a surveors work for a survey that does not create or move any boundaries or any fee beyond a minimal fee to cover basic immediate costs (like the fee to record a deed).
Maybe I should start calling it mandatory filing.
The other argument I’ve heard against recording or filing is that it lowers the value of the proprietary interest of the surveyor whether they produced the work or purchased the records.
I hope I’ve never violated surveyor/client privilege by freely sharing information with other surveyors.
Log in to reply.