lmbrls, post: 388862, member: 6823 wrote: So am I to understand that there are geographic regions where the Standard of Care is that a surveyor is not responsible for research? My understanding was that this was a basic and not an elevated requirement. The Title Company is not our Client. We are providing the survey to our Client. I had a Title attorney demand that I remove a railroad right of way from a plat, because they had a 2 million dollar budget to defend it. Flames were coming out of the phone when I demanded a signed hold harmless and defense agreement. Our duty is to the Client and not the title company.
This is what ALTA says:
4. Records Research - It is recognized that for the performance of an ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey, the surveyor will be provided with appropriate and, when possible, legible data which can be relied upon in the preparation of the survey. The request for an ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey shall set forth the current record description of the property to be surveyed or, in the case of an original survey prepared for purposes of locating and describing real property that has not been previously separately described in documents conveying an interest in the real property, the current record description of the parent parcel that contains the property to be surveyed.
In order to complete an ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey, the surveyor must be provided with complete copies of the most recent title commitment or, if a title commitment is not available, other title evidence satisfactory to the title insurer. In addition, the surveyor must be provided with the following:
(i) The following records established under state statutes for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property (public records):
(a) The current record descriptions of any adjoiners to the property to be surveyed, except where such adjoiners are lots in platted, recorded subdivisions;
(b) Any recorded easements benefitting the property;
(c) Any recorded easements, servitudes, or covenants burdening the property;
(ii) Any unrecorded documents affecting the property being surveyed and containing information to which the survey shall make reference, if desired by the client.Except, however, if the documents outlined above in (i) and (ii) of this section are not provided to the surveyor or if non-public or quasi-public documents are required to complete the survey, the surveyor shall be required to conduct only that research which is required pursuant to the statutory or administrative requirements of the jurisdiction where the property being surveyed is located and that research (if any) which is negotiated and outlined in the terms of the contract between the surveyor and the client.
Are there States that relieve the Surveyor from any documents that were not in the title package?
The question isn't does the State relieve us, it is does the State require it. The standard specifically says 'unless required by Statute or administrative rule'. That is a big difference.
If easement research is not required by law or contract you will be hard pressed to demand it. I do perform research on my own, but I will never accept responsibility for things beyond the law and my scope. I know lawyers can make cases out of crap and judges do wierd stuff. I simply don't live life worrying about it....
The question was never does the State relieve us. The statement is that ALTA does not relieve us. Once again. So am I to understand that there are geographic regions where the Standard of Care is that a surveyor is not responsible for research. Are there states where research is not required? I don't worry much about the lawyers, because I make a major effort to perform research, carry P&L and charge the Client accordingly.
lmbrls, post: 388919, member: 6823 wrote: The question was never does the State relieve us. The statement is that ALTA does not relieve us. Once again. So am I to understand that there are geographic regions where the Standard of Care is that a surveyor is not responsible for research. Are there states where research is not required? I don't worry much about the lawyers, because I make a major effort to perform research, carry P&L and charge the Client accordingly.
Your closing sentence that I replied to literally said 'does the State relieve us'. That is why I replied to it as a reversal.
Yes there are States where we are not required to perform EASEMENT research. In fact I can't recall performing an ALTA in one that does. Some places it is all but impossible to get fairly complete easement information without using a Title Company as they have the most complete indexes.
To do a complete abstract in California would take months because all we have are geographically large counties with name indexes only. God help you if you encounter a Smith in the chain of title. It just isn't practical to expect surveyors to hunt down every easement that may exist. Title companies are supposed to do that.
A lot of good discussion on here. I have decided to contact the client and the engineer since this ALTA is being used for design and may affect the design.
I will let the client handle the title, I don't think they have closed yet, so it may not be a further issue past updating the ALTA.
I bet Smith's in California are like Boudreaux's in Louisiana. One parish has a book of Vendee/Vendor just with the name Boudreaux.
Ron Lang, post: 388955, member: 6445 wrote: A lot of good discussion on here. I have decided to contact the client and the engineer since this ALTA is being used for design and may affect the design.
I will let the client handle the title, I don't think they have closed yet, so it may not be a further issue past updating the ALTA.
good choice.
perhaps you should put the tittle company on notice too, it could be that they have a better handle on the situation than the adjoiner's title company (or maybe they will scramble to revise their policy)
lmbrls, post: 388919, member: 6823 wrote: So am I to understand that there are geographic regions where the Standard of Care is that a surveyor is not responsible for research. Are there states where research is not required?
As Dave indicated above, California is one such state.
Lamon Miller, post: 388961, member: 553 wrote: I bet Smith's in California are like Boudreaux's in Louisiana. One parish has a book of Vendee/Vendor just with the name Boudreaux.
A common scheme in the old grantor/grantee index books is to have a page dedicated to common last name or company name.
In Tennessee, we are not required to conduct a title search to look for easements. However, if we are aware of an easement due to visible usage, we can be held liable if we don't show that usage. In other words, if there is a gravel drive running completely through our tract, we better show it. However, if there is no gravel drive, we are not responsible to go digging for an ingress/egress easement.
So in some states, it is perfectly acceptable for a person to buy property with a survey not showing the recorded easements that affect the property? Once again, notice that I said recorded. Is it required that easements and exceptions be listed on the most recent Warranty Deed? Yes we are also responsible for "easement due to visible usage" as Tommy indicated. Obviously, a person would be a fool not to have title insurance in any state. Seems like it should be required in these states. I guess we all have our specific sets of challenges in our geographic area of practice. Thanks for the insight.
Easements MAY be shown or excluded here. The norm for a standard boundary survey is to only show the boundaries. No easements, no structures, no driveways, no sidewalks, no power lines, no mail boxes, no.........................
An ALTA, however, is a horse of a different color entirely.
lmbrls, post: 389073, member: 6823 wrote: So in some states, it is perfectly acceptable for a person to buy property with a survey not showing the recorded easements that affect the property?
Survey for a residential property? Very rare, almost "unheard of". Lenders may require a survey (ALTA), out West very few ever do. ...so the answer is NO.
most depend on title reports to list encumbrances, usually without even a compiled sketch of the record data.
lmbrls, post: 389073, member: 6823 wrote: Is it required that easements and exceptions be listed on the most recent Warranty Deed?
No, not required. Consider a property (existing deed) that gains easements at a later time. The vesting deed obviously would not include those easements. Easements flow with the land, omission of recital on transfer is not a fatal flaw.
those are just two examples of vastly different practices in other parts of the nation
lmbrls, post: 389073, member: 6823 wrote: So in some states, it is perfectly acceptable for a person to buy property with a survey not showing the recorded easements that affect the property? Once again, notice that I said recorded. Is it required that easements and exceptions be listed on the most recent Warranty Deed? Yes we are also responsible for "easement due to visible usage" as Tommy indicated. Obviously, a person would be a fool not to have title insurance in any state. Seems like it should be required in these states. I guess we all have our specific sets of challenges in our geographic area of practice. Thanks for the insight.
Illinois Minimum Standards for a Boundary Survey...
4) Information Research Required. Sufficient information to perform the survey shall be either furnished by the client and/or his/her agent or obtained by the surveyor by agreement with the client. The following appropriate factors must be evaluated by the surveyor:
A) A property description describing the subject parcel. If, in the opinion of the surveyor, the description furnished or obtained is insufficient to fully define the extent or location of the parcel to be surveyed due to ambiguity or calls for adjoining deeds, prior recorded survey plats, etc., it is the duty of the client (unless agreed upon otherwise) to furnish the additional information requested by the surveyor. This is not to be construed to indicate that the surveyor has an obligation to research the title of record.
B) A reproduction of the recorded subdivision plat that created the subject lot, block or parcel.
C) A reproduction of the Government Township Plat and pertinent Monument Records if the survey is of a section or aliquot part of a section.
D) Relevant data provided by the client regarding special circumstances, such as unrecorded easements, judgements or Court decrees that may influence the location of boundaries of the survey.
lmbrls, post: 389073, member: 6823 wrote: So in some states, it is perfectly acceptable for a person to buy property with a survey not showing the recorded easements that affect the property? Once again, notice that I said recorded. Is it required that easements and exceptions be listed on the most recent Warranty Deed? Yes we are also responsible for "easement due to visible usage" as Tommy indicated. Obviously, a person would be a fool not to have title insurance in any state. Seems like it should be required in these states. I guess we all have our specific sets of challenges in our geographic area of practice. Thanks for the insight.
There are NO requirement for a survey of any type to be performed in association with a sale here. No requirement exists for easements to be shown on Warranty Deeds either. There must be a lot of fools here, many parcels exchange hands without Title Insurance - no requirement for that either. Title Insurance is actually illegal in one of the midwestern states because it was considered to be fraud by that state.
Does the State of Georgia have all these requirements?
Jim in AZ, post: 389169, member: 249 wrote: There are NO requirement for a survey of any type to be performed in association with a sale here. No requirement exists for easements to be shown on Warranty Deeds either. There must be a lot of fools here, many parcels exchange hands without Title Insurance - no requirement for that either. Title Insurance is actually illegal in one of the midwestern states because it was considered to be fraud by that state.
Does the State of Georgia have all these requirements?
I have not found anything that specifically addresses easements in the survey requirements. Easements are sometimes called out on the Warranty Deed, but not always. I believe that showing the easements would be consistent with the Standard of Care for the better Surveyors in this area. I am in the Metro Atlanta Area and property values are fairly high. I just could not imagine how much trouble would be caused by not showing a recorded or visible easements. Most of the surveys I do are for people looking to development, redevelop or have a specific use for the property. Being a Metes and Bounds State may be influencing my perspective.
lmbrls, post: 389200, member: 6823 wrote: I have not found anything that specifically addresses easements in the survey requirements. Easements are sometimes called out on the Warranty Deed, but not always. I believe that showing the easements would be consistent with the Standard of Care for the better Surveyors in this area. I am in the Metro Atlanta Area and property values are fairly high. I just could not imagine how much trouble would be caused by not showing a recorded or visible easements. Most of the surveys I do are for people looking to development, redevelop or have a specific use for the property. Being a Metes and Bounds State may be influencing my perspective.
Metes and Bounds here too... I think it must be a local practice issue...
18VAC10-20-370. Minimum Standards and Procedures for Land Boundary Surveying Practice.
A. The minimum standards and procedures set forth in this section are to be used for land boundary surveys performed in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The application of the professional's seal, signature and date as required by these regulations shall be evidence that the land boundary survey is correct to the best of the professional's knowledge, information, and belief, and complies with the minimum standards and procedures set forth in this chapter.
B. Research procedure. The professional shall search the land records for the proper description of the land to be surveyed and obtain the description of adjoining land(s) as it pertains to the common boundaries. The professional shall have the additional responsibility to utilize such other available data pertinent to the survey being performed from any other known sources. Evidence found, from all known sources, including evidence found in the field, shall be carefully compared in order to aid in the establishment of the correct boundaries of the land being surveyed. The professional shall clearly identify on the plats, maps, and reports inconsistencies found in the research of common boundaries between the land being surveyed and the adjoining land(s). It is not the intent of this regulation to require the professional to research the question of title or encumbrances on the land involved.
If you are referring to the PTR (date, order #) from the title company that is void of said easment(s)on your original wet sealed ALTA survey/drawing, it should have been called out on that said MAP. If new (old) easements surface on a different TR, you released yourself based on the info you signed off on.
However, if you are doing the adjacent parcel and you already have the CAD file drawings, why would you NOT on your own time do them a favor and update it with the new TR, order # and easements??? IF they fall within 5' you have to show them anyway. You should have had all surrounding TRs as well for reasons as such. Just my .02
Surveypro Chad, post: 389209, member: 12063 wrote: You should have had all surrounding TRs as well for reasons as such.
Who pays for the "TRs" on the adjacent parcels?
