-
What to do with calls for off line monuments along a senior line?
A retracement survey makes a single call from monument to monument along a long common line between two parcels. That line is not in question, the original descriptions of the two parcels are in harmony and fit the evidence.
However, on one side of the line, outsold lots have rear corners that were to have adjoined the common line, but were found to be ‘off line’, by as much as a 3 feet. The retracing surveyor noted this as shown on the attached map. My subject parcel is the undivided parcel to the south (Map is oriented to West).
This is just an example of a practice I see with some regularity. I’m not sure I know what to do with it. Right or wrong, those monuments are where they are; holding them would result in small gaps and gores that are not addressed on the retracement survey. In this particular instance the ‘off line’ monuments happen to fall outside my subject parcel, yet, often times they are inside. In my mind, this is a clear and obvious description overlap that I feel couldn’t go unaddressed on a survey. A surveyor retracing one of the lots who doesn’t run the longer back line would find those rear pins and would likely hold them as corners. On their own, both surveys would appear to show no issue, but compared together there is an obvious conflict.
It happens I am retracing the larger parcel for development and I am not sure how best to address the issue. I could show various ‘gaps’ along that line, but does that obligate me to set new corners along that line for all those existing lots?
I realize much more information might be required to answer some of the questions specific to this scenario, but my question is more of a general one.
Surveyors who call out ‘off-line’ monuments like this, what is your intention? How should the rest of us interpret the location of those boundaries?
-
62 Replies
-
Just at a glance, if your line between the two larger tracts was monumented and the line is harmonious, it would seem to me that those markers that came later in time should be shown for informational purposes but rejected in your retracement resolution.
There may be more factors or other information that has not been shared but, if you are confident in your resolution and that matches with the adjoining parent lot, why would you meander the line to match the outliers and create a new description that essentially modifies the line?
-
Ditto what chris said.
Offset monument references don’t cause as much angst amongst surveyors in my area (eastern Mass.) that they seem to for the more rural or PLSS surveyors on this board. If I tweaked a well-defined boundary line every time I found a pipe or rod with no provenance, I would be causing more problems than solving.
That said, I am plenty comfortable with holding my measurements when they differ from the record if the evidence so dictates. Case in point, often times surveys with boundary lines following stone walls from earlier in the 1900’s would show a long continuous line when actually the wall meanders quite a bit. If the wall is the monument, then I show the meanders as measured.
-
IMO, the retracing surveyor is acknowledging the existence of those off line monuments but calling them garbage.
Many would like to hold all the monuments and put angle points in the line. I can point to a number of cases which say that the mere presence of iron rods is not notorious enough to constitute an occupation line. Now, if there were long standing fences running between those “off-line” monuments that might be different.
-
IMO, the retracing surveyor is acknowledging the existence of those off line monuments but calling them garbage.
Garbage or not, they are there, and their presence creates an area that is either a gap in two described parcels, or a conflict in description. How do I reconcile acknowledging their existence without acknowledging the possible issues they potentially create?
-
If you are retracing a boundary that was monumented and documented and in complete harmony over a period of time before the newer pins were set, other than show that they exist, how would it be that they create any sort of alteration to the record?
-
“How do I reconcile acknowledging their existence without acknowledging the possible issues they potentially create?”
You don’t. These monuments may be “issues”. Life is like that.
-
You don’t. These monuments may be “issues”. Life is like that.
But is it not my responsibility to report findings like this? Not arguing, genuinely want to be convinced I am making something out of nothing.
-
You don’t. These monuments may be “issues”. Life is like that.
But what is the point of my survey if not to reveal “issues”?
-
Do the deeds for the adjoiners call for those monuments, the bounds of the larger lot, or both?
-
In this situation, the descriptions of the adjoining parcels are actually out of a plat, albeit one from the 1940s. In my area, it was common in the era for only ‘control corners’ of a large map to be monumented, expected that surveyors later would monument the individual lots as it was needed.
The map shows that lots are to adjoin the ‘good’ line. The monuments, though most are likely decades old, came later and were not set by the original surveyor.
-
HUH?
-
I deal with this situation on a case by case basis, but I always begin from the position that humans create boundaries then use maps as a proxy. I don’t disagree that senior and junior title exists, but I question it’s relevance when the “garbage” boundaries have existed for numerous decades AND the owners of those parcels have openly used their parcels to their full extent.
It’s important to note that boundary resolutions require time, patience, and follow-up. I’m not a judge and can only provide an opinion. The exchange of quit claim deeds after the survey has been completed is often necessary to prevent clouds on title. If you’re a turn and burn type survey shop, just hold the senior line and be done with it and continue to tell yourselves that the kind-hearted altruistic attorneys will straighten things out.
My results are often mixed. I might put a bend in the senior boundary line because an abutter has her fifty year old shed resting on her off-senior-line monument, and I might ignore something similar on an undeveloped lot. Again, the actions of humans make boundaries not math or drafters. We’ve also established on this forum that the ownership of property, real or otherwise, requires defense, meaning you might have to walk your boundary every 19.99 years of risk losing a small portion of it. Think of the millions of humans who would love to have the problem of owning so much land that they can’t be bothered to inspect it more than once every generation.
The other part of the equation that is grossly overlooked by many PLSs, is the input of the owner or developer of the large tract. I generally like my clients and my business model is heavily client focused. I’ll explain the pros and cons of holding the senior line absolute vs a more nuanced approach that could include holding all or some of the junior monuments and the subsequent exchange of quit claim deeds. When you remove ego and the human desire for symmetry from the equation, it often makes sense to hold the junior monuments and keep peace in the neighborhood.
The management of expectations and feelings is an important component in land development. In one instance, I prepared an exhibit for my client, a suburban developer, so he could “magnanimously” quite claim his interest in the overlaps to the abutters. Unlike the engineer mind, the developer didn’t care one iota that the long straight line was now rife with unsightly bends. Nor did he view it as wise to create the potential for dozens of lawsuits that would be necessary to flesh out the legitimacy of adverse claims to his title. He was, however, grateful to have an inexpensive bone to toss to a group of abutters who weren’t exactly thrilled over the idea of a new development.
-
If the ‘junior’ monuments have been relied on for the statutory period, they will control in many cases. The truth we miss is that establishment occurs when the fact pattern is met, not when blessed by a surveyor or (gasp) the courts. If my survey uncovers evidence the line is now bent, I say so. I also document it in the best way allowed by the jurisdiction. That is almost never a plain Jane quit claim. If I don’t get the whole story in the record the fight may reignite down the road. Get the owners to agree and memorialize it. Burying it under a QCD just covers the cat poop with another slice of bread…
-
You don’t need to find issues to validate your work product.
-
“If my survey uncovers evidence the line is now bent, I say so.”
Under what authority to you alter respected title lines that have long standing harmony to bend lines to Jr. points found?
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks, 3 days ago by chris-bouffard.
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks, 3 days ago by
-
I don’t bend the lines, I report them as recovered. That includes explaining the evidence on my recorded map and walking the owners through correcting the record to reflect the established lines..
-
the original descriptions of the two parcels are in harmony and fit the evidence.The (1940) map shows that lots are to adjoin the ‘good’ line.
If this is your professional opinion how do you get from that to this?
their presence (off line monuments) creates an area that is either a gap in two described parcels, or a conflict in description.
If you really believe what you state in the first quote you can’t believe what you state in the second. Retracement surveys by definition never change a legal description. They give the legally described course and the as measured course. The “good” line either passes through existing monuments or it doesn’t. Nothing is created. I do question on what basis the rerod at the NW corner of the south parcel was set on the survey shown. It seems the general line of existing monuments would be six or seven feet north. Why ignore the general line of existing monuments and set a new monument? I imagine there is a reason, we just can’t see it. There are two directions a professional survey might take here and neither one creates a new issue or leaves behind an old issue. The surveyor should suggest all parties involved to agree that the existing monuments are not on the good line and place new marks on it or if they would rather bend the common line through the existing monuments do what is required to make that happen. Document the agreement as part of the survey. If they won’t agree there is no survey completed.
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks, 2 days ago by Norm.
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks, 2 days ago by
-
I think this is a situation where occupation would carry a lot of weight. If the adjoiners are occupying to these random pipes then maybe you have a headache brewing, but if the occupation is closer to the original line then I think I’d be pretty comfortable holding that line and rejecting the pipes.
Surveyors who call out ‘off-line’ monuments like this, what is your intention?
Their intention is to dodge responsibility.
-
“Their intention is to dodge responsibility.”
“Dodge” carries a certain connotation. “Avoid” is a more appropriate word. The surveyor – presumably – was tasked with resolving the northerly parcel and not with solving all the world’s boundary problems. He determined that the intermediate found monuments did not control the lines of the parcel he was surveying. He went the extra step of showing where they fall in relation to the controlling line. He is not obliged to resolve all the boundaries of the adjoiners as well. That would be making the perfect the enemy of the good.
-
He is not obliged to resolve all the boundaries of the adjoiners as well.
No, and you’re right. My comment was intended more so for paper pincushioners and that doesn’t really apply here.
Log in to reply.