Additional Services?

Just off the top of my head, I think it would be included.
Because (in Fla.) we are to identify the gaps and gores.

It could come down to what your definition of identify is.

I hope you can get it.

Identifying a potential gap would be part of the original service. Preparing a legal description of the gap would generate an additional fee in our office.

I'd probably charge a little extra for it. Maybe not as much as someone just walking in and wanting just a description and nothing more. But I'd still want to charge something for it. Maybe 50% of a standalone description.

But I also stamp and sign every description that goes out the door, without exception. Of course, if your state doesn't require that, then the client could have his neighbor's dog write it. But I'd still charge for it.

Edit: Yes, what Gene said.

Ditto Gene's response. To me, "identify" means by general location, graphically on the plat, in the surveyor's report, and possibly exact dimensions, but not by a new metes and bounds legal description.
To assume that any new legal descriptions should be included in an ALTA survey is another area for surveyors to operate at risk for going over-budget. What if the property was a mess and there were 23 new legal descriptions needed for gaps and overlaps?
In our office, we specifically spell out that exclusion in our proposal letters, and charge our standard or slightly reduced fee for a legal description (reduced because we already have the CAD linework).

One thing you want to avoid is giving the client the impression that you are willing to nickle and dime on fees. On one hand, preparing that description is beyond the scope of the contract. On the other hand, the fee for preparing it is probably piddly compared to the cost of a 28-acre apartment complex survey. If it were me, I'd prepare the description and not charge for it, but be on the alert for any extras they may want. If you find you have mission creep, then let them know you will be invoicing the extras.

To write a description, you will need to do the research to discover why the gap or gore exists in order to describe it properly.

From what you find, there may or may not actually be a gap or gore.

😉

Why not incorporate the description writing into a proposal for additional services to assist or facilitate cleaning the matter up?

Like Bruce said, the description is a minimal effort, an hour or two, tops, including review. The work involved to fix the issue may be pretty significant.

> During the course of the survey I have found a boundary gap between the subject tract and an adjoiner.
>
"Boundary gap"... Just what is a "boundary gap?" Oh, you mean a parcel of land which lies between two adjoining parcels of land? No? Then you are talking about a conflict in evidence which places "the" existing boundary between two adjoining parcels in two different possible locations? Sounds to me like you've got an unresolved conflict in the boundary location, not a "third parcel."

Can't have it both ways. It's either a parcel of land or it isn't.

JBS

Yep, it's additional. You were contracted to survey X. You found a gap between X and Y. Y or the gap was never part of the scope of work.

Charge them accordingly.

So who owns the gap?

I agree with JBS that a "boundary gap" would mean there is a third parcel nestled between the ALTA property and the adjoiner which is rarely really the case. So, easy solution: just resolve it right? Not usually that easy to do, especially in the condensed time-frame world of ALTA Survey deadlines. Let's say the west line of the ALTA property is well-described and defined by original, called-for, undisturbed monuments accepted and relied upon for far beyond any statute of limitations. The westerly neighbor's east line is also monumented with highly reputable monuments from a recorded land division, also relied upon for substantial improvements. It could be that the west line of the ALTA property is the correct line but wait, the guy that divided his land to the west failed to subdivide everything he owned by causing his east line to fall short of the "true" line. Is this something the surveyor can just "resolve" to eliminate this apparent gap, or is it something that will require the co-operation of the adjoiners and/or intervention of a court of law? How do you convince all the parties involved, the seller, the buyer, the lenders, the realtors, the lawyers, that they should all care enough about this gap to stop the transaction process in its tracks while the "gap" is "resolved" when the surveyor is the only party involved in the process that really gives a rip about it?

Back to the original question, I think identifying the gap would be part of the ALTA work, but "resolving" it could end up costing more than the original contract and there was no way to estimate the cost, and maybe no way to even know there was something to resolve at the initial contract stage of the ALTA job.

Not necessarily. I've seen lots of gaps where I had the original corners and the strips in the middle are simply residues of the original parent tract. Some as narrow as a few feet and some as wide as a road way for access left. The CAD doesn't always pick them up. He very well could have "found a gap". Since we don't know how wide, and I'm sure snoop knows what he's doing, I'm going to take it on the face that there is in fact a gap between the parcels and it's a residue tract of some sort. Snoop isn't the call distance kind of cat.

Your comments are right on the money, Steve. Seems like the parties are always in a hurry and the first presumptions are that it will take too long and cost too much to "resolve."

In reality, however, the ALTA survey still needs to meet the standards:

>3. Surveying Standards and Standards of Care
>D. Boundary Resolution - The boundary lines and corners of any property being surveyed as part of an ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey shall be established and/or retraced in accordance with appropriate boundary law principles governed by the set of facts and evidence found in the course of performing the research and survey.
>
>6. Plat or Map - A plat or map of an ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey shall show the following information. Where dimensioning is appropriate, dimensions shall be in accordance with the appropriate standard of care.
>B. Boundary, Descriptions, Dimensions and Closures
>vii. The relationship of the boundaries of the surveyed property (i.e. contiguity, gaps, or overlaps) with its adjoiners, where ascertainable from Record Documents and/or from field evidence gathered during the process of conducting the survey of the property being surveyed. If the surveyed property is composed of multiple parcels, the extent of any gaps or overlaps between those parcels shall be identified. Where gaps or overlaps are identified, the surveyor shall, prior to preparation of the final plat or map, disclose this to the insurer and client for determination of a course of action concerning junior/senior rights.
>
The reality of two separate boundaries intentionally created, surveyed, monumented and described with the intent of creating a separate adjoining parcel of land (which likely violates subdivision and development regulations) isn't likely. What is most often true is that there is simply a conflict in the distances called for in the two adjoining properties. Conflicts in evidence are resolvable by surveyors without resorting to "courses of action" which involve a call to the "insurer and client." I usually don't call the client or the insurer to ask them where a boundary is located.

I would definitely call them to negotiate the additional fee that is needed to gather sufficient evidence to make the boundary determination, however.

JBS

I can certainly see your point Steve. I don't do ALTA's but have been involved a bit in the past. Maybe I don't understand what an ALTA survey is but if it doesn't resolve the boundary or locate the boundary line between adjoining parcels, just what does an ALTA survey do, grease the gears of some transaction? I suppose that is why I don't do ALTA survey's! Is ALTA just another way to spell MATH?

I suppose if you have two monumented lines with space between you can say well there must be a gap. But maybe one of the lines was monumented incorrectly by some previous surveyor that couldn't find the line between two adjoining parcels. Maybe adjoining doesn't mean adjoining.

I suppose there is positive gaps and negative gaps (overlaps). I'm just glad you can't fall into the gaps or crash into the overlaps. The title records I deal with are so full of gaps/overlaps I could never make it to the next small town 7 miles away without falling into a dozen of them or more. Does the gap close at the center of the earth?

Things are so warped out of reality that the paper records are the reality and the physical world is the fiction, at least that appears to be where the surveying industry has found its self after the last several decades of technology advancements. I personally think it's a tragedy that surveyors can't locate boundaries these days due to all the gaps and overlaps. What's the point of even contracting a land surveyor? Your problems are not going to get resolved but only multiply. We've lost our way, sad!

I don't do very many ALTA's either and for the most part, I think they waste a lot of effort, time and money measuring and mapping features that no reasonable party to the transaction could care less about. The boundary of the subject property is one thing that should be of concern to a buyer, at least, and maybe a lender if there's a big enough boundary issue to matter.

This excerpt from the ALTA Standards would seem to indicate that the "boundaries" that the ALTA Standards contemplate are the record boundaries:Where gaps or overlaps are identified, the surveyor shall, prior to preparation of the final plat or map, disclose this to the insurer and client for determination of a course of action concerning junior/senior rights.If one is hired to actually determine a boundary, as it seems should be part of a ALTA request, you wouldn't go running to the insurer and client for determination of a course of action concerning junior/senior rights, would you?

1. What services are identified in the contract?

2. What is professional fee for the 'extra' work?

3. How does the proposed extra fee balance/compare with future 'good will'?

And, finally, a possible solution may be found by checking Georgia law (assuming the property is in Georgia) to see how their courts have applied the Strips and Gores doctrine.

DA Wahlstrom PE LS FASCE
UH Professor Emeritus

I'd agree. Most (but maybe not all) gap/overlap problems (with the records) probably resolve by proper application of junior/senior rights or application of original intent to grant all a grantors land without keeping worthless slivers by poor description writing.

What ALTA's are requesting is a patsy to sign off on feel good paper for some transaction. Some of the stuff you see that they request a surveyor to sign off on is clear out there. You'd think a surveyor was god or something. Actually I doubt most surveyors have deep enough pockets to cover some of the ridiculous requests (if they ever materialized). Heck E&O wouldn't cover most of it either.

So the bankers feel good about making a several million dollar loan because a surveyor said everything was OK. It's just a joke from my view. Then the ALTA seems to make the true boundary resolution some optional thing which you need to ask the client and insurer permission to resolve. Why, because resolution takes time and money and gets in the way of their pending deal. So they want a no problem survey, so why even get it surveyed at all?

What everybody can do these days is math (bankers, lawyers, clients, bureaucrats, title insurers, etc). So when the math doesn't add out they all go berserk and decide there is some big problem. Well I think most of the time there isn't a problem other than accepting that the paper description isn't exactly perfect. The courts say the same thing but most don't seem to understand the common law but everyone can do the math. So even if the surveyor properly resolves the problem it many times won't be accepted. So I suppose you just got to let em waste their money fixing all the math. Then they can fix it again next time.

Additional Services?> Y'all need

to start using bounding descriptions, or at least abutters calls, and do away with gaps and gores...

Additional Services?> Y'all need

That would depend greatly on the level of concern about that gap. If one is merely attempting to follow the boundary description provided in the title report, they could claim zero interest in said tract. However, we are supposed to be more than that. We are professionals who should be expected to guide our clients in matters that may help or hurt them in the long run. Determining the potential help or hurt should be included as a part of what we do while performing the ALTA. Assisting the client in resolving any issues relative to that parcel is a separate, billable issue. Should your client declare a complete lack of interest in the gap parcel, explain that you will then contact the adjoiner to alert him to the situation and will be offering your services to him. Then your client will need to decide if he still has zero interest in the issue.