I have for many years, described easements as “Proposed 60′ access and utility easement” or “Existing 60′ ingress-egress easement”. Within the last two years or so we surveyed a parcel that was accessed by a “60 ingress-egress easement” that crossed two other properties and is shown on the client’s plat. Client’s deed describes the easement as depicted on the plat. The problem is that there was never an easement conveyed from one of the two properties crossed. The easement should have been labeled “proposed” on the client’s plat, in my opinion. Most surveyors in the area do not label the easements existing or proposed. I was taught that “proposed” and “existing” are important pieces of information. I was also taught that on a plat, unless described as “proposed” the presumption is that the feature exists.. In that circumstance, I’m not sure who would be responsible and it doesn’t matter now. Today, we were asked by the head of real estate in a large organization (not our client) to change the title of an easement survey from “plat of proposed 20′ utility easement” to “plat of easement area”. After the usual back and forth and “all the other surveyors do it that way”, the title was changed but the easement was labeled “proposed” in bold letters on the drawing itself. I’m not the signing surveyor on this one but feel that was a fair compromise although I likely would have told them to pound sand if it were my project. It seems a novel concept for us to tell the truth with clarity.. Can anyone explain to me why they wanted the word “proposed” removed? Am I missing something?
Log in to reply.