I was envisioning a series of sequential conveyances where the deed description of the original parent parcel was used and the others excepted out in the order they occured.
While there is value in getting current monuments and measurements in the record it is imperative that we preserve the manner title was created and maintained. Relying on the next guy to find and use a roll book properly is risky business.?ÿ?ÿ
Yes, I prepared that type of description, the owner (and owner's attorney) was not satisfied with it.?ÿ
In Oregon, if Table A item 1 is checked and monuments need to be set...Record of Survey time
In Washington State, if any conditions are found to be substantially different from those in the record. A substantial difference in dimensions or even monuments of record that are not found would qualify. Under those conditions it is unlikely you could do an ALTA in Washington and not file a ROS - Table A checked or not. Although it seems that a lot of people choose to read that law differently than I do.
California has a similar problem.?ÿ There's a substantial contingent of licensed land surveyors who persist in the belief that if monuments aren't set no ROS is required, and there are ALTA mills churning out surveys for ridiculously low fees without ever setting any monuments.
There is no such thing as a private boundary
True, but what about all the other details in a survey that provide valuable information.?ÿ Google has shown the world just how valuable data can be.?ÿ Why should our clients pay thousands of dollars to give municipalities free information??ÿ I would agree with mandatory recording if municipalities compensated land owners or if plats showed nothing but common boundaries.?ÿ
When I worked in a recording state, while I appreciated the availability of plats, it was quite obvious that municipalities were using regulations to get data for free.?ÿ The best example was the town of Conway, NH.?ÿ Conway had to review and stamp plats before they could be recorded at the county RoD.?ÿ Their approval required us to show all structures within something like a hundred feet of all boundaries.?ÿ That information was given to the tax department and used to supplement and sometimes replace costly site visits by the assessor.?ÿ Mandating the recording of retracement surveys creates the opportunity for uncompensated takings.?ÿ?ÿ
I wonder what legal basis gave a town control over a county function.
As noted before, if clients want to protect their private information the ALTA itself doesn't need to be recorded, a separate plat with only information relevant to the boundary need be recorded.?ÿ
If you are tying to turn this into a general rant against recording requirements, don't. I won't comment on a specifics towns requirments that I have no experience with. The overwhelming majority if surveyors in recording jurisdictions approve of recording requirements, many of those that don't use a specific?ÿ personal experience to rent about the whole concept. Not recording keeps land surveying fees down, and redirects income from land surveyors to title companies and attorneys,resulting in higher land ownership costs, and belittles our profession.?ÿ
The takings argument doesn't appear to apply here. Any loss of value to the owner is related to a condition that exists, not the requirement to record.?ÿ
Gave the same feeling i get when?ÿ I send an email and forget the attachment...lol
