Has anyone ever had a request to conduct a topo survey on a portion of a large property (not to include the boundaries) and certify it to ALTA standards?
Yep. I will then give them a little schooling and end up with a job to do a topo for design purposes.
Some people just need a little enlightenment.
SD
You would be surprised how many business people think survey and ALTA are synonymous.
Probaby due to limited surveying vocabularies since they know nothing about surveying.
What's to know? Surveying, ALTA, SCHMALTA; it's all the same, right?
It has been my experience that most knowledgeable clients know exactly what they need. Therefore, I would only consider the request to be strange to the extent that the survey is limited to planimetric and topographic features.
The proof of the pudding, so to speak, will be whether you will need to locate the exceptions in a title commitment/policy. The non-boundary requirement could be the result of the client being able to safely make assumptions for the project at hand that is driving the need for the survey. But, even so, the relative location of the site to the nearest boundary would have to be suitably addressed by the survey from an ALTA perspective.
Hey, I Could Use A Copy Of The SCHMALTA Standards
Heck, I may be following them already.
Paul in PA
Sorta like meats and bones for metes and bounds. That was a realtor, by the way.
"Meats and Bones" - Truly a classic!!! My favorite from a realtor was the one who told me he knew how to run a "transom." I asked him if he worked on outboard engines also...
Can't be done
An ALTA is first and foremost a boundary survey. Without the boundary, properly surveyed, it is impossible to meet the basic requirements of the ALTA certification.
Find out what the purpose of the survey is and then advise them as to what survey service they really need and propose an appropriate certification to the work that will actually be performed to meet those needs.
Oh, yes it can!
I generally disagree with your assertions. While boundaries are certainly an integral part of an ALTA Survey, they are not first and foremost. If they were, then monuments would not be an Optional Item. Furthermore, I believe application of Sect. 6.B.v. of the standards provides for the possibility of a survey of an interior part of a property not having to include “properly surveyed” boundaries.
Oh, yes it can!
> I generally disagree with your assertions. While boundaries are certainly an integral part of an ALTA Survey, they are not first and foremost. If they were, then monuments would not be an Optional Item. Furthermore, I believe application of Sect. 6.B.v. of the standards provides for the possibility of a survey of an interior part of a property not having to include “properly surveyed” boundaries.
From the 2011 Standards.
"1 Purpose - Members of the American Land Title Association (ALTA) have specific needs, unique to title insurance matters, when asked to insure title to land without exception as to the many matters which might be discoverable from survey and inspection, and which are not evidenced by the public records.
For a survey of real property, and the plat, map or record of such survey, to be acceptable to a title insurance company for the purpose of insuring title to said real property free and clear of survey matters (except those matters disclosed by the survey and indicated on the plat or map), certain specific and pertinent information must be presented for the distinct and clear understanding between the insured, the client (if different from the insured), the title insurance company (insurer), the lender, and the surveyor professionally responsible for the survey.
In order to meet such needs, clients, insurers, insureds, and lenders are entitled to rely on surveyors to conduct surveys and prepare associated plats or maps that are of a professional quality and appropriately uniform, complete and accurate. To that end, and in the interests of the general public, the surveying profession, title insurers and abstracters, the ALTA and the National Society of Professional Surveyors, Inc. (NSPS) jointly promulgate the within details and criteria setting forth a minimum standard of performance for ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys. A complete 2011 ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey includes the on-site fieldwork required under Section 5 herein, the preparation of a plat or map showing the results of the fieldwork and its relationship to record documents as required under Section 6 herein, any information in Table A herein that may have been negotiated with the client, and the certification outlined in Section 7 herein."
An ALTA is a title survey plain and simple. You can not meet any of the basic requirements if you do not provide a boundary. While it is true that 6.B.v does not require that the entire parent property boundary be resolved and shown on the map, you still need to do so for the portion being surveyed. This is very common on communication sites. You can not purport to have compiled an ALTA/ASCM Land Title Survey without delineating some form of property line. As for the setting of monuments being a basic requirement to calling a survey boundary survey, you must not live in a state with recording laws. Add a minimum of $1000 for recording fees and mapping. I have done countless boundary surveys for commercial, industrial and infrastructure projects were no monuments were set.
Oh No It Can't
Feel free to disagree all you want. You're the one who would need to justify failing to meet basic requirements if one of your surveys is challenged.
Lets look at a couple of those basic requirements:
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.
That's any property, which would include the situation where that property is only an interior portion of an existing legal parcel. When that is the case, there is still a description, or given parameters for the definition of that interior portion, which most often will end up being a lease parcel within a shopping center or some other retail/commercial development.
And let's look at the paragraph you say allows you to not determine a boundary:
6. Plat or Map
B. Boundary, Descriptions, Dimensions and Closures
v. The remainder of any recorded lot or existing parcel, when the surveyed property is composed of only a portion of such lot or parcel, shall be graphically depicted. Such remainder does not need to be included as part of the actual survey, except to the extent necessary to locate the lines and corners of the surveyed property, and it need not be fully dimensioned or drawn at the same scale as the surveyed property.
You did catch the title of subsection B of section 6, didn't you? The portion of item v that I highlighted for you makes it pretty clear that the "surveyed property", when it is merely a portion of a larger parcel, thus leaving a remainder, will have "lines and corners". In clearer terms, even that portion has a boundary. And that boundary needs to have a definite tie to the exterior boundary of the parent parcel, meaning that you need to properly establish at least one line, including the corners at either end of the line of the exterior boundary to provide the tie to your properly determined part-parcel boundary that defines the extent of your "surveyed property".
Unless I missed it, there is no provision in the ALTA/ACSM Standards that specifically provides an exceptionto the basic requirement that a properly identified boundary of the surveyed property be shown.
A properly determined and depicted boundary is not dependent upon whether or not you are required to set monuments. You still have the responsibility to properly depict the improvements, easements, other features and encumbrances to be shown relative to a correctly determined boundary.
Other than the contour option of the ALTA Table A checklist, an ALTA really does not address topographic mapping. There's no mention of contour accuracy (it's not the same as positional accuracy, you know.)
Matter of fact, if the client wants an accuracy statement, the normal State Minimum Technical Standards would be tighter and thus would supersede the ALTA specs.
You could also follow the NSPS standards and certify to that.
And if you want to, you can certify to the National Map Accuracy Standards.
The rule is to go with which ever one is the most strident.
Can too!
I must have really struck a nerve with both you and John Putnam when I associated corner monuments with boundary surveys. I sure am disappointed to learn that they are not a basic requirement of boundary surveys in Colorado and Oregon.
I am well aware of the current standards for ALTA surveys, but only from the perspective of ordering and/or reviewing them. For what it is worth, the last ALTA survey that I made was in the late 70’s and, as I recall, was based upon the 1963 standards. And, since I left private practice in 1979 and do not intend to return, I should not have to worry about justifying my surveys.
I have ordered surveys in both of your states and can only say that I am glad that the consultants I used showed no reluctance to setting corner monuments. And, while it should be irrelevant to the current discussion, I do in fact live in a state that does not require recording of boundary surveys.
It will be of little interest to you, but as far as I am concerned, an ALTA survey sans corner monuments has not been ”properly surveyed” no matter how good the math. And, if you can justify making one without them, dependent upon circumstances a clever client should be able to justify one that does not include what you would consider a proper boundary. For instance imagine a five acre tract located within a ¼ section roughly 500 feet east and 1000 feet north of its West and South boundaries. All it takes is a cooperative client, lender and title company; and an affirmative statement/note by the surveyor as to the relative location of the site with regard to the nearest boundary of the ¼ section/property. I’ve been there and done that, or some variant thereof. And, it would apparently be easier in your states than those that require corner monuments as an integral part of a boundary survey, as all that would be required is box in the site with some line work and geometic definition. It would even be easier if this definition was tied to a GPS derived grid and basis of bearings.
Larry
Can too!
> ...It will be of little interest to you, but as far as I am concerned, an ALTA survey sans corner monuments has not been ”properly surveyed” no matter how good the math...
I agree.
When you set monuments in Oregon, you have to file a Record of Survey. A quite separate and distinct map from the ALTA. When you file a Record of Survey, particularly in the Portland tri-county area, the County Surveyor is going to be really very demanding about that map before agreeing to file it. So demanding that it can easily add a couple thousand dollars to the cost of even a simple survey. I understand that the situation is similar in California and other places.
If the Oregon Surveyor bids an ALTA with monuments, and another bidder manages to negotiate to bid without, the numbers are going to be significantly different. The client will often not understand the difference and simply select the lower price. So the pressure is always there to try to leave monuments off the bid. Also, the ALTA usually has a deadline well in advance of the County Surveyors schedule. If the client really wants corner monuments one option is to leave set monuments off the ALTA and later document them in a ROS.
The Oregon State Board has made statements that it considers an ALTA to be a boundary survey. The requirement to file a Record of Survey is triggered by the setting of monuments and not by the performance of a boundary survey.
Well, after discussing with the client what all I would have to do (in my opinion apparently), they were still saying they wanted an ALTA (certified to 1988 minimum standards I might add). I told them that I would not certify to 1988 standards but I could indeed provide an ALTA certified to 2011 standards, and gave them a price. I also gave them a written description of what I would provide in a topographic survey, along with a price for it. Turns out they did not want an ALTA after all.
Correcting your misperceptions
#1: I attained my 1st license in OR, but have not practiced there in over 15 years. I currently practice in CA.
#2: I have no aversion to setting monuments. What I do have an aversion to is providing a survey with a certification that states that I met a certain set of minimal requirements when I did not, and had no intention of meeting all of them.
The setting of monuments does not make the survey and a surveyor establishes one's opinion of the correct location of the boundary either 1) monumenting it, 2) depicting it on a map showing it's relationship to identifiable features or other established lines or points, or 3) both. Providing that opinion and properly performing the work to determine the boundary location is not dependent upon the later action of setting monuments.
The laws of my state, and of many others do not require that monuments be set in all cases when a boundary location is determined. Indeed, a client may have good reasons for not wanting a boundary monumented initially. Those reasons can range from expectation that monuments will be destroyed during construction activities (necessitating paying for an additional set of permanent monuments later), to wanting to ensure that no unnecessary potential contoversies are created by monuments set where landowners may not expect them to be.
In CA, it is not the setting of monuments that triggers the requirement to file a map, but by 1) the discovery of material evidence not shown on any previous record map, 2) the discovery of any material discrepancies between one's survey and the dimensions of the surveyed lines as shown on previous record maps, 3) finding evidence that might reasonably lead to materially alternate boundary positions, 4) the establishment of lines or points not ascertainable by the inspection of previous record maps without requiring calculations, and 5) the establishment of lines or points that are described in a deed but do not appear on any previous record map.
Note that 1, 2, and 3 all occur prior to setting any monuments. The Board has clearly answered the question of whether "establishment" occurs only when monumented or if can occur in other ways.
The short answer to that is that once the surveyor makes one's conclusions of the proper boundary location known to another person (or more practically, to anyone outside of one's own organization), he has established that boundary location.
That is a far more stringent requirement for a filed map, or for what is to be considered a properly established boundary than is a standard that depends upon the setting of monuments.
As a general rule, I include the setting of monuments in the scope of any boundary survey I do unless specifically requested to not set them. The opinion of the boundary location is mine, but the boundary itself belongs to the client and adjoiners. If the client does not want his or her boundary marked on the ground, it is not within my authority to mark it against their wishes. If an adjoiner then wants it marked when my client has directed me not to, the adjoiner can hire someone to do so.
(Don't misconstrue that last statement with any idea that the client gets to determine where I mark the boundaries. They only get to direct whether I will or won't monument them. If I set monuments, I and I alone determine where they will be set.)
Rather than present a reasonable argument as to the interpretation of the actual Standards, including the section you first cited and which I specifically addressed, you have chosen to misrepresent what I and what John have posted and then proceeded to attack us based upon that misrepresentation.
I'm not really ticked, partially because the misperception is easily set aside by properly addressing the actual standards and basing my discussion in the actual language of the standards and CA law. The only nerve hit is that some reading your comments and not knowing any better might accept them as a reasonable interpretation if no arguments which stick to a basis in the standards is presented. So that's what I've done: present an interpretation based on an analysis of the standards and, to address your unfounded comments on my supposed avoidance of professional responsibility, clarifications on professional responsibility for filing maps when establishing boundary locations based upon an analysis of the applicable CA statute.
Whether the misrepresentation was unintentional due to your misunderstanding of what I had posted, or you intentionally attempted to create a false perception doesn't really matter.
What matters is whether or not you are going to try to support your assertion that a properly established boundary of the surveyed property being the subject of a Land Title Survey is not required by basing it on the actual content of the standards or if you are going to stick with straw-man arguments to attempt to attack John's and my professional credibility on the matter.
As to the standard for professional conduct, I've just described a much higher bar, which I believe to be intended and described by the ALTA Standards and by the applicable laws that I practice under, than you have described. You started out by asserting that no proper boundary location is required when assessing quality of title. do you stand by that assertion? If so, please discuss the pertinent portion(s) of the ALTA/ACSM LTS Standards that allow for an exception to that basic requirement. Please also explain how you are able to assess the potential effect of encroachments or easement/other encumbrance locations on the subject parcel if you do not have a well defined and reasonably certain location of its boundaries.
Huh uh
Wow, you certainly read more into my post than I thought I wrote, even between the lines. I sure am glad you are not ticked off because I shudder to think what your reaction would have been if you were. Before going further, I want to say that I suppose I should be glad to learn that I mistook Colorado to be your home state. I also want to say that I am somewhat painfully aware of the pitfalls in obtaining boundary and ALTA surveys in California. I seem to owe the brethren in Colorado an apology, but only to the extent that corner monuments are a basic requirement of a boundary survey in that state.
Most of your response is in defense of the practice of setting monuments in California and I must say that you did a very good job in your explanation. And, I am glad to learn that you have no aversion to setting monuments. However, you make several unfounded accusations in your response concerning my posts, which beg for rebuttal; to wit,
Rather than present a reasonable argument … you have chosen to misrepresent what I and what John have posted and then proceeded to attack us based upon that misrepresentation.
So that's what I've done: present an interpretation based on an analysis of the standards and, to address your unfounded comments on my supposed avoidance of professional responsibility
Whether the misrepresentation was unintentional … you intentionally attempted to create a false perception doesn't really matter.
What matters is whether … you are going to stick with straw-man arguments to attempt to attack John's and my professional credibility on the matter.
Nowhere in my posts on this subject have I misrepresented what you and John have posted; nor did I make any comments regarding your professional responsibility, nor did I attempt to create a false perception, and I have not attacked the professional credibility of either of you. All I did was express my opinion, which differs from yours, that an ALTA survey sans corner monuments has not been ”properly surveyed”, disagree with your assertion that an ALTA survey is first and foremost a boundary survey, and express my belief that, dependent upon circumstances, it is possible to make an ALTA survey without having to include “properly surveyed” boundaries. As to the last matter and your question, I did not start out by asserting that no proper boundary location is required when assessing quality of title. If you would care to read my first post, you will see that it concludes with “the relative location of the site to the nearest boundary would have to be suitably addressed by the survey from an ALTA perspective.”
As to your last question, I would only be able to assess the location of those encroachments, easements and encumbrances, whose location is not a function of geometric definition, such as an easement for electrical distribution/transmission. Or, one that is clearly located off-site, such as one that was picked by name of the grantor that is in a different ¼ section than the site of the survey.
I trust that I have addressed all of the salient matters in your post. If not, I am sure you will let me know.
Larry
Huh-uh (Redux)
Please disregard the earlier post, which I accidently sent at 02:13 before I was finished with its formatting
Wow, you certainly read more into my post than I thought I wrote, even between the lines. I sure am glad you are not ticked off because I shudder to think what your reaction would have been if you were. Before going further, I want to say that I suppose I should be glad to learn that I mistook Colorado to be your home state. I also want to say that I am somewhat painfully aware of the pitfalls in obtaining boundary and ALTA surveys in California. I seem to owe the brethren in Colorado an apology, but only to the extent that corner monuments are a basic requirement of a boundary survey in that state.
Most of your response is in defense of the practice of setting monuments in California and I must say that you did a very good job in your explanation. And, I am glad to learn that you have no aversion to setting monuments. However, you make several unfounded accusations in your response concerning my posts, which beg for rebuttal; to wit,
(Rather than present a reasonable argument … you have chosen to misrepresent what I and what John have posted and then proceeded to attack us based upon that misrepresentation.)
(So that's what I've done: present an interpretation based on an analysis of the standards and, to address your unfounded comments on my supposed avoidance of professional responsibility)
(Whether the misrepresentation was unintentional … you intentionally attempted to create a false perception doesn't really matter.)
(What matters is whether … you are going to stick with straw-man arguments to attempt to attack John's and my professional credibility on the matter.)
Nowhere in my posts on this subject have I misrepresented what you and John have posted; nor did I make any comments regarding your professional responsibility, nor did I attempt to create a false perception, and I have not attacked the professional credibility of either of you. All I did was express my opinion, which differs from yours, that an ALTA survey sans corner monuments has not been ”properly surveyed”, disagree with your assertion that an ALTA survey is first and foremost a boundary survey, and express my belief that, dependent upon circumstances, it is possible to make an ALTA survey without having to include “properly surveyed” boundaries. As to the last matter and your question, I did not start out by asserting that no proper boundary location is required when assessing quality of title. If you would care to read my first post, you will see that it concludes with “the relative location of the site to the nearest boundary would have to be suitably addressed by the survey from an ALTA perspective.”
As to your last question, I would only be able to assess the location of those encroachments, easements and encumbrances, whose location is not a function of geometric definition, such as an easement for electrical distribution/transmission. Or, one that is clearly located off-site, such as one that was picked by name of the grantor that is in a different ¼ section than the site of the survey.
I trust that I have addressed all of the salient matters in your post. If not, I am sure you will let me know.
Larry