We are "updating" an ALTA we did last year. The title company wants the HUD certification on the face of the plan. Of course there have been many discussions as to what cert can appear on the face of the plan.
From my interpretation, the only cert can be the one provided in Section 7 of the ALTA Regs, and I have a FAQ from ACSM that confirms this and states that "additional certifications can be completed on a seperate sheet and cross-referenced to the survey."
But item 12 on the Table A seems to allow for HUD requirements.
I'm confused.
-V
I believe Item 12 of Table A allows for the HUD certificate. That's how I handled the last one I did like that.
The option is to argue with the attorneys and piss everyone off.
> I believe Item 12 of Table A allows for the HUD certificate. That's how I handled the last one I did like that.
>
> The option is to argue with the attorneys and piss everyone off.
And pray tell what is wrong with pissing off attorneys/l@#$ers? Arguing with them is fun in small doses, thought I get tired of their stupidity after a short while.
:hi5:
Be sure to add an extra fee for the HUD cert. I've found HUD reviewers to be very picky, causing lots of correspondence, phone calls and revisions.
> We are "updating" an ALTA we did last year. The title company wants the HUD certification on the face of the plan. Of course there have been many discussions as to what cert can appear on the face of the plan.
>
> From my interpretation, the only cert can be the one provided in Section 7 of the ALTA Regs, and I have a FAQ from ACSM that confirms this and states that "additional certifications can be completed on a seperate sheet and cross-referenced to the survey."
>
> But item 12 on the Table A seems to allow for HUD requirements.
>
> I'm confused.
>
> -V
From the new ALTA Standard.
7. Certification - The plat or map of an ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey shall bear only the following certification, unaltered, except as may be required pursuant to Section 3.B. above:
That seems plain enough. A quick review of Section 3.B indicates this wording:
3.B.Other Requirements and Standards of Practice - Some Federal agencies, many states and some local jurisdictions have adopted statutes, administrative rules and/or ordinances that set out standards regulating the practice of surveying within their jurisdictions. In addition to the standards set forth herein, surveyors shall also conduct their surveys in accordance with all applicable jurisdictional requirements and standards of practice. Where conflicts between the standards set forth herein and any such jurisdictional requirements and standards of practice occur, the more stringent shall apply.
Fair enough. HUD is obviously a Federal Agency and apparently they have adopted some sort of rules or ordinances that set out standards regulating the practice of surveying.
Have the Title Company provide you with an official copy of the HUD rules that requires a specific HUD certification on your plat. I think what you will find is that all the HUD standards relate to items that should be shown as a part of your field work and that they have little or nothing to do with whether or not you have a specific certification on the plat.
Short of an official specific requirement that a particular HUD certification be on the face of the plat, do not alter the ACSM-ALTA certification. There is a reason they say that "additional certifications can be completed on a separate sheet and cross-referenced to the survey". The certification is to be unaltered for your protection. If you alter the standard certification you have not conducted an ACSM-ALTA survey.
Larry P
It should be mentioned that there is nothing to say that a survey can't be done to TWO SEPARATE STANDARDS, i.e., having more information than minimally required for either entity.
After all, the ALTA/ACSM Standards are referred to as "minimum".
From HUD Survey Instructions and Report
Certification: The survey map/plat must bear the following
certification:
“I hereby certify to HUD, (Borrower), (Sponsor), (Lender),
(Title Insurance Underwriter), (Other), and to their successors
and assigns, that:
“I made an on the ground survey per record description of the
land shown hereon located in (city or town, county, township,
etc.), on (date); and that it and this (these) map(s) was (were)
made in accordance with the HUD Survey Instructions and
Report, HUD 92457M, and the requirements for an
ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey, as defined in the 2011
Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/ACSM Land
Title Surveys.
“To the best of my knowledge, belief and information, except
as shown hereon: There are no encroachments either way across
property lines; title lines and lines of actual possession are the
same; and the premises are [free of any] [subject to a] 100/500
year return frequency flood hazard, and such [flood free] [flood]
condition is shown on the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map,
Community Panel No. ( if none, so state).”
:good:
Right Angelo, the MINIMUM standards aren't quite enough, ALL THE TIME!
I sure would insert "no visible evidence of encroachments except as shown on the survey drawing."
> From HUD Survey Instructions and Report
>
> Certification: The survey map/plat must bear the following
> certification:
> “I hereby certify to HUD, (Borrower), (Sponsor), (Lender),
> (Title Insurance Underwriter), (Other), and to their successors
> and assigns, that:
> “I made an on the ground survey per record description of the
> land shown hereon located in (city or town, county, township,
> etc.), on (date); and that it and this (these) map(s) was (were)
> made in accordance with the HUD Survey Instructions and
> Report, HUD 92457M, and the requirements for an
> ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey, as defined in the 2011
> Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/ACSM Land
> Title Surveys.
> “To the best of my knowledge, belief and information, except
> as shown hereon: There are no encroachments either way across
> property lines; title lines and lines of actual possession are the
> same; and the premises are [free of any] [subject to a] 100/500
> year return frequency flood hazard, and such [flood free] [flood]
> condition is shown on the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map,
> Community Panel No. ( if none, so state).”
It would appear there is an official certificate required by HUD. I noted that the revised date of this document is last month. All I can say is WOW. They seriously expect the surveyor to state and stand behind the fact that "There are no encroachments..."
To quote the famous line from Apollo 13, Huston, we have a problem. Check with your professional liability insurance carrier before you sign this thing guys. Your fanny will be hanging pretty far out in the breeze if you sign that.
Larry P
PS: Thank you Mr. Christopher for enlightening me as to the new regs.
> I sure would insert "no visible evidence of encroachments except as shown on the survey drawing."
Much as I like you Bruce I must disagree with the words "visible evidence". Just because you bury something 10 or 15 feet below ground does not render it invisible. I much prefer the words "readily apparent evidence of". For those who claim the TI companies will never accept language like that, I point out I have been using those exact words for more than 20 years and have never had a title company call me to question the wording.
Have a great weekend Bruce.
Larry P
I was forwarded a copy of the official HUD certificate by the title insurance company. My initial thoughts were that having the cert on the face of the plan wouldnt be an issue, since it is an optional item on the Table A.
The ALTA is on an apartment complex that we designed and built so we are pretty confident in the accuracy of the plan's contents. I do agree though, I would not enjoy signing this thing on many ALTAs that we do.
-V
> Check with your professional liability insurance carrier before you sign this thing guys. Your fanny will be hanging pretty far out in the breeze if you sign that.
It never hurts to check with your insurer, but note that it doesn't say "no encroachments," it says "To the best of my knowledge, belief and information, except as shown hereon: There are no encroachments..." To my mind, the phrase "to the best of my knowledge, belief and information" means "according to the standard of practice," i.e. the surveyor is on the hook for negligence, but not for failing to discover an encroachment that would not be discovered by any competent surveyor.
I hate doing HUD surveys, not because of the liability exposure, but because HUD is so finicky. I think the reviewers feel that they're not doing their job if they don't find reasons to reject the survey on the first pass, and I've had some of them find new things they don't like on subsequent submittals. I add a hefty markup when the acronym "HUD" appears in the scope of work.
I think I agree with Larry, and my poor old mind is churning to come up with the example I used years ago on said subject. I think it involved visible evidence of burial grounds, and I pointed out that while I would walk across a site and never spot the visible evidence, a trained archaeologist would see the pottery shards.
> I pointed out that while I would walk across a site and never spot the visible evidence, a trained archaeologist would see the pottery shards.
If you were signing as an archaeologist you might be found negligent. But surveyors aren't archaeologists, and aren't held to the standard of practice of same.
No observable encroachments at the time of the survey........
Wow! I saw the manhole right after you left...they moved the dumpster and there it was!
No observed...might be a bit better.
> Wow! I saw the manhole right after you left...they moved the dumpster and there it was!
That reminds me of a tale I've told before, but it stuck so well in my mind that I'll tell it again: a surveyor I used to work with (Frank M., RIP) once field-checked an ALTA one of his crews did. He saw a DI that was slightly out of its drainage easement, so he put a red note on the field sheet "Move DI into easement." The field sheet went to the draftsman, who duly inked MOVE DI INTO EASMT with a leader pointing to the DI. That's the way the survey went out the door, and nobody said anything about it until Frank himself pulled the map a few years later in response to a request to update it.
How about the ALTA requirement to state "I made an on the ground survey...". Can the survey be a year ago? Two years? Five years? Twenty years?