It is possible have I have misunderstood the problem.
also possible that I have. The description of the problem wasn't the clearest.
I don't understand why you need an adjoining deed to set corners for a subject property. Do you have the subject property deed? Have you found enough evidence to know where the subject property is located? Can you not set corners using the subject property deed and other found evidence? Why is an adjoining property deed essential for you to reestablish the subject property corners?
You make it sound as if this adjoining property deed is a new parcel cut out of a parent parcel. If so, the parent parcel deed should be sufficient for your purposes. If they got the township wrong on this new adjoining deed, make them aware and have them correct it. If that is not the case, what evidence do you have that this adjoining parcel exists? Without a deed, what indicates it exists? Currently you only have a deed for a parcel in another county township. Something else must make you think there is an adjoining parcel.
I don't understand why you need an adjoining deed to set corners for a subject property.
In my area of practice, standards require researching adjoining properties in order to make sure the record documents align well. It is not unusual where I practice to find that adjoining deeds do conflict. So, just relying on the subject deed and using found evidence that works well for just that deed may conflict with the adjoiner's deed. One quick example is that off conveyances aren't always carried over into subsequent deeds (and there are times that this isn't obvious on the ground by occupation). Many times a neighboring deed will include the information while my subject deed has dropped an exception.
I have had individual Counties try to deny access because 'the records are too old",
The records too old. That s**t cracks me up
It could be that the deed book and page were transposed at some point. I think it would be worth looking at all the adjoiners to the property you are wanting correct info on, to see if they list a different deed ref. as that erroneous one, and I would look also on the grantee/grantor record.
@lurker I don't understand what you are saying. Has rhe sarcasm gone over my head? How can you determine where the boundary is without knowing what the boundary is?
I don't think the OP is attempting the theoretical mathematical practice of deed staking, because why would anyone ever pay for that, and most state munuum standards don't allow that.
@aliquot Maybe a bad assumption on my part, but I was assuming this adjoining parcel is a "new" parcel cut out of a parent tract. The new parcel cannot encroach any more than the parent tract. So use the parent tract deed for the same adjoining line that would be described in the new parcel's deed.
I don’t think there is such a thing as too much research. In a metes and bounds state it is better than an E&O policy. To not take in consideration the adjoining deeds would constitute negligence in my opinion. I’ve never surveyed an island.
Whether it’s construction or boundary surveyors need to look at the big picture. Conflicts occur in both and if we don’t reveal those conflicts then who will? We are the last ones before it gets put on the ground.
@aliquot The new parcel cannot encroach any more than the parent tract. So use the parent tract deed for the same adjoining line that would be described in the new parcel's deed.
Assuming your assumption is correct (how did you get that out of what the OP said?) I still can't get my head around surveying blind like that. Most boundary disputes stated out with a harmonious boundary. How do you know it still is without the deed?
There a few areas of of the country whith robust enough subdivision regulations and a good enough GIS, that it might be safe to assume a platted boundary is good enough to ignore the adjoiner, but never with a metes and bounds, or PLSS description.
The adjoining deed could also encumber the subject deed with an easement of some sort, that is not cited by the subject deed. I have encountered this scenario.
