Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Business, Finance & Legal › Old Surveys
@aliquot in my opinion you are right, boundaries don??t change but additional improvements and encroachments do change. We provide a service with a deliverable based on the facts at the time we performed the survey. Why would we give it away to others or stop working on a current project, pull a file, review it, and then give away a copy for free?
Improvements have no place on a boundary survey, but your right there could be now be encroachments that weren’t shown on your old survey. That’s why your old survey has a date on it.
This is where you have an opportunity to get a new client, instead of pissing them off by charging them closenti the full price for a brand new survey.
The review should have been done before you signed it. There shouldn’t be a need to second guess your decisions that you made while the job was fresh years latter. Any liability you have for any mistakes you made already exists, you cant go back in time.
I am not suggesting you need to drop what you are doing and immediately respond. Your clients should be your priority, these new people may have to wait, but if you have a halfway decent filing system it should only take a minute to attach it to an email, one you have time.
I guess in recording states this is a service the goverment provides for us. I only have done a few surveys in non recording states, so I don’t have this problem.
@aliquot we have both have a different opinion for what constitutes a boundary survey. Why shouldn??t the public? We do 1000 plus surveys a year, doesn??t make us better, we??ve have records that date back to the 1950??s. People want them to save money. I don??t blame them for asking. Why should we burn time for free so someone can get something for free to sell a property?
To most people a survey is a survey. Example-We could give them a copy of an old survey Of parcel A, changes are are made on adjoiner Parcel B, after initial survey, new buyer of parcel A decides to build a fence based on his/her not so expert knowledge of surveying. Fued starts. You speak with multiple parties explaining to them out of the kindness of your heart you provided a copy of a survey from 1995 and you have no professional opinion as to what??s affected the property since then, by the way, none of this time is billable or should be because none of it should be according to the public (laughing)
Always curious what the surveyors in NON-recording states argue about. OR WA CA, Hey well that is public record ##### and you can get a copy from the County Auditor, surveyor, etc…..
I’m working on a survey now and starting off with information from three different surveyors between 1920 and 1990 that was readily available at the courthouse for various lots in blocks near our project. Have stumbled onto two other surveys along the way conducted since 2000 that were not on file. Our requirements are for new tracts to be recorded. Simply finding the boundaries of existing tracts is not a mandate. However, most surveyors go ahead and file everything. The reason we do it willingly is because we are dependent on the surveys that have been filed. It is our turn to benefit future surveyors.
- Posted by: @jered-mcgrath-pls
Always curious what the surveyors in NON-recording states argue about.
I think we argue less then you guys in recording states. Also, plenty of plats get recorded. The real difference is that we are not compelled by law to aid in an uncompensated government takings (aka mandatory recording of retracement plats).
Why is it against the law for a land owner to hire someone to provide him, and only him, with knowledge about his private property (if it can even be called that in recording states)? Encourage recording by eliminating the fees or providing tax credits if it is such an enormous value to the public.
The worst argument for mandatory recording I’ve heard is also the most oft-repeated: “Only dishonest landowners would want to hide the result of a survey, if you don’t have anything to hide, why wouldn’t you want it recorded.” If you value freedom you have to value privacy. Looking around at the world, I fully appreciate that I am in the minority on this.
I used to live in a country that understood the importance of a presumption of innocence in both broad and specific applications. Being concerned about the Big-Brother aspects of mandatory recording may seem silly in a post Edward Snowden America. I wouldn’t even mention it except that I’m appalled that there are people who celebrate it and act as if it some marvelous invention that we should all adopt. Even if mandatory recording seems right because it hasn’t yet been abused, it’s entirely wrong when owners are not compensated, and only slightly more tolerable if issues of a de facto regulatory takings are addressed.
Murphy – you say “Why is it against the law for a land owner to hire someone to provide him, and only him, with knowledge about his private property”.
Where is this against the law, and what does the law say?
Thanks
The takings argument fails as the government has not deprived the owner of a tangible thing. Further, boundary information is a part of our public infrastructure. Regardless of the survey system employed, nearly every line and corner has the potential to change the treatment of other lines and corners. A private boundary is only a thing on the interior of ones property. Even those move to the public once they define a common line in a conveyance.
While I agree some jurisdictions charge ridiculous fees, we charge $5. If that is an appreciable number, the surveyor should consider raising thier rates.
Your final argument mixes the presumption of innocence related to criminal law with the civil laws related to boundaries. They have no such relationship, except in cases where the fight escalates to criminal acts.
Where the surveyor assists the owner in hiding evidence of correct boundary location they have abandoned thier duty to protect the public. They have moved to the position of advocate, an entirely different profession.
I’ve been blessed by only working in recording States so when the rare phone call asks me for my records I’ll quote Book & Page or ROS # and direct them to the courthouse for the particulars. OTOH if it’s a subdivider or Grantee looking for a new survey concerning record work I’ve done I’ll tell them I’m your man, let’s talk.
I’ll concede that the regulatory takings is a specious argument. It does not meet the current bar set for regulatory takings. Similar to opportunity costs, it is difficult to assign monetary value to data sets. If knowledge could be quantified, I believe a takings argument could be made.
Your boogeyman argument that PLSs in non-recording states are “hiding” boundary evidence is farcical and unsubstantiated. So the Pope didn’t bless your plat, does this mean that a monument in the ground at the end of a thousand feet of blazed trees is not public notice? Do you think we run around with night vision goggles setting corners five feet underground? The public is put on notice by the conspicuos marking of corners. This whole plat thing arose many centuries after the common law was settled. Perhaps our disagreement is on just how much public notice we need to give. I don’t shed tears for landowners that can’t be bothered to walk their boundaries so perhaps I am a bully by present day standards.
“Your final argument mixes the presumption of innocence related to criminal law”
That is not the point I was making. We have the Fourth Amendment for well thought out reasons. Privacy is a cornerstone of freedom. Our country was founded on sets of principles, one of which is that we assume innocence until the contrary is established. This view used to be a part of the spirit of America and not reserved solely for court proceedings. If your instinct is to assume that someone who wants privacy must be doing something bad, then you and I will never agree on this issue or many others.
@jim-in-az
I think you know what I was getting at, but you are correct, there is no such law. The conditions of licensing effectively prevent a PLS from performing his duties in a way contrary to the rules set forth by the licensing comity.
So let me rephrase it:
Why should we assume that anyone wishing to obtain private knowledge regarding their real property is doing so for malicious reasons?
(Sarcastically, he said) I bet no PLS working in a recording state has ever purposely kept a plat “Preliminary” at the request of a client.
(More sarcasm) Why not require a timing element to mandated recording? There is no reason that an honest PLS would need to hold a preliminary plat for more than one month. If you object to this proposal I will assume that you are immoral and vehemently insist that you be banned from this forum in perpetuity.
Of course you need to draw the line somewhere in what you will do for free, that’s of the reasons recording works so well. You can send them to the recorder’s (or clerk’s) office and be done with them.
Being reluctant to do free work is not what I frustrated with. It is the instance that a new owner needs a new full price survey, and the associated beliefs that you can somehow be liable for something that happened after you signed the survey, that you are only liable for damages to your client, and that boundary surveys are confidential information.
Your business may be more focused of volume, so I don’t know how this translates, but I always saw those calls looking for copies as an opportunity to educate and cultivate new clients for the future.
Interesting outlook, that “improvements have no place on a boundary survey”. I suppose that depends on the market you’re serving. I can’t imagine much work at all in my area that is pure perimeter boundary without improvements. The main focus of the survey (for my clients) IS the Improvements as they relate to the boundary. Most don’t care about the monument type or the measurement minutia about the record/field data that consumes most of our time. They want to make sure there are no impediments to closing or to future construction plans.
(In Florida, if I want to provide you with just the boundary without any improvements, I would call that a “specific purpose” survey and clearly denote that there are improvements that are not shown due to client request)
So, if I have a survey map from 20 years ago, indeed the actual boundary may not have changed legally. But I’ve seen neighbors pull up and move boundary markers, or not have ANY idea where they are to begin with and do all kinds of things that have real world, monetary implications. If I give out the 20 year old survey map, but 2 years ago the neighbor moved the pins so that he could fit his new garage in, by just handing it out without at least advising my client to get it fully updated, I could easily be exposing myself to legal risk. Even if I am able to get untangled without paying for half of a garage, the legal fees and time spent are huge. So that’s why I generally do not give out old maps. I have NO IDEA what the conditions look like or how a lay person might interpret that map.
I tell people that if they want something from my office, it will be current and updated. If they find an old scrap of a copy of a copy from someone else, that’s their business. I’m not trying to hold anything hostage, I’m trying to protect them. We are the professionals, not the clients.
Improvements don’t usually make it onto my boundary surveys, unless they impact the boundary. The interior of a property is only of concern to the owner (and perhaps regulators), the boundary is if interest to the public.
I am not very interested in surveying buildings, but when do, there would be a separate survey with the improvements, for my client only that wouldn’t have boundary details. The boundary survey would not have improvements and would be available to the public.
You are liable, till any statute of limitations have run, from the date you sign the survey, you are not liable for a neighbor who changes things after your signature. How could that even be possible? I guess if you sent an email along with the survey, saying there is no need to check because you know nothing has changed? It is really far fetched. Recording states would be a professional death sentence if that was the case.
ALTA and basic plot plans are the only drawings around here that show more than the boundaries of the tract with the exception of express easements for ingress and egress for an island tract. Easements are rarely shown. ALTA drawings normally are not filed, but another plat showing only the boundaries may be filed.
I was at an educational program over 20 years ago with Knud Hermansen as the presenter. He was talking about showing overhead lines and the location of the mailbox (especially if it was not on the subject tract) to show possible easements in both directions. Nearly everyone in the room turned and looked at one another in amazement. That was so foreign to our standard boundary plats that some people sort of tuned him out after that.
After some more thought about your example I am even more confused. If the neighbor moved the monument you set or recovered, your only protection from liablity is your survey. That is by far the best proof you have that is was moved after your survey.
Someone who doesn’t have your survey and finds the monument out of place would first assume that you screwed up. Someone who has your survey would first assume that it was moved, unless the rest of your work was full of blown measurements.
I cant picture how withholding your survey in this situation could offer any protection.
There is no requirment anywhere to record a private boundary. That would be an interior boundary.
Nothing is being taken so I dont understand the taking argument.
A exterior boundary survey effects your neighbors and their heirs and assigns, and often a whole neighborhood of boundaries. I guess I can understand your annoyance at being told you must do something, but surely you see why it is a good idea. Just like there is no law that requires you to record your deed, but 99% of the time it would be silly not to.
Recording laws are part of the regulation of our professional practice, just an addition to the minimum standards for professional land surveying, they don’t require the land owner to do anything, and the land owner can’t be punished for a survey not being recorded.
Every recording law I have seen has a timing element.
The reason recording laws exist is not becasue of an epidemic of malicious boundary determinations. It is is becasue by definition, a boundary can never be the property of one person. A boundary determination that is only known to one person is much more likely to lead to misunderstandings that end up in the hands of lawyers and/or result in the unilateral transfer of unwritten rights.
A blazed tree or a monument certainly can act to notify a neighbor, but they don’t explain what they mean, or how the determination for the position of that monument or blaze was arrived at. To do that the neighbor would have to ask for a copy of the survey, and as this thread has illustrated it might not be forthcoming.
This also betrays short term thinking. What happens 100 years from now when a new land owner finds your monument? It very difficult for a surveyor to find 100 year old unrecorded surveys, much less a land owner.
Log in to reply.