What is the status of the Bill Board? Is it in a preliminary stage? Is it approved? Is it scheduled for construction?
Make sure status makes it into your report...
We do ALTAs all of the time for builders taking down lots in a future subdivision. We will often show proposed lot lines and easements per to-be-recorded plats from CAD files provided by the design engineer. We put all of the notes and disclaimers on there and clearly differentiate proposed vs existing conditions. I found it a little weird at first, but there’s nothing in the ALTA standards that suggest to me that it’s not allowed and it’s a big money maker for the company.
I have nothing but admiration for those willing to do ALTAs routinely, like Bruce Small. Find your preferred niche and let it work for you. This reduces the level of competition and generally improves the final product.
Thoughts so nice, I posted them twice. Sorry.
I’d just clearly label it “proposed” with a dashed outline and maybe include a note explaining it’s not existing. That way there’s no confusion for anyone looking at the survey.
I heard a story once of a legal description with a scriveners error - a bearing that was shown NW when it should have been NE. When interpreted as NE the figure closed perfectly and matched occupation. There were earlier deeds in the chain that had it NE. There was plenty of evidence that it was just a scriveners error by the title company in the preparation of the title report.
The surveyor went ahead and showed the correct NE boundary on the ALTA and that was fine. But he also showed the NW line dashed and labelled as in error. The improvement "encroached" on that non-line line. Well, somebody who wasn't map savvy got eyes on that line that wasn't really a line at all and the multi million dollar real estate deal blew up. The seller sued the surveyor over it, won, and put the surveyor out of the business.
No, I'm not putting proposed stuff on an ALTA. Proposed stuff is of no interest to the lender and title company and that is who you are really doing these things for.
I'd have no problem with producing a separate drawing using the ALTA survey as a base, showing the proposed works. Just not on the ALTA itself.
Oh - that surveyor who discovered the scriveners error? He should have contacted the title officer and had the title report corrected and reissued.
Some proposed items are of interest to the title company and lender. Item 17 of Table A specifically addresses proposed changes in street right of way lines. Proposed items shouldn't be excluded simply because they are proposed.
Oh - that surveyor who discovered the scriveners error? He should have contacted the title officer and had the title report corrected and reissued.
So the error was in the title company's transcription of the deed description?
I never trust those title report descriptions and always request a copy of the deed. In fact it makes no sense to me why title companies don't just hyperlink the deed in the first place.
I wonder if the billboard was build in a location other than that shown as proposed on the ALTA. And a later ALTA, after the site was built out, was completed and shows the error, who would the Title Company go after?
In fact it makes no sense to me why title companies don't just hyperlink the deed in the first place.
THe TRs I've seen lately usually do have the vesting deed linked, but the title company description is not always a copy of the vesting deed description.
I wonder if the billboard was build in a location other than that shown as proposed on the ALTA.
Bingo. Your ALTA would show a billboard in in the "wrong" location. Too many people just are not going to clue into your "proposed" location notes.
If the client (the only entity certified on the face of the ALTA plat) requests the addition, then it should be ok. However, make a forceful note that the structure doesn't exist at the time of the survey and is only proposed. Also, just where is this plat going to be available?
Normally an ALTA is considered a private transaction. It's not filed and "certified" to the public. If it is, then that's on the surveyor for doing something like that. I've recently seen two official plats filed that were in the ALTA format. The surveyor needs to understand that the certification no longer applies only to the single entity when it's filed to the public. That is how ROS and COS plats are filed: "TO THE PUBLIC". A higher level of survey than an ALTA.
THe TRs I've seen lately usually do have the vesting deed linked, but the title company description is not always a copy of the vesting deed description.
Yeah, they're all pretty good now, but several years ago it seemed like half the commitments didn't link a deed and I'd have to request it separately.
I've recently seen two official plats filed that were in the ALTA format. The surveyor needs to understand that the certification no longer applies only to the single entity when it's filed to the public.
I've worked with a couple guys that had polar opposite views on that. One guy didn't even like the idea of deleting the ALTA stuff off the survey and recording it as a simple ROS and the other guy would record the actual ALTA. Both approaches seemed extreme to me. 🤷♂️
If the client (the only entity certified on the face of the ALTA plat) requests the addition, then it should be ok.
Every ALTA I've ever done has been certified to the client, the lender, and the title company. It's in the standard.
ALTAs may not be public record but they do get circulated.
I’d just clearly label it “proposed” with a dashed outline and maybe include a note explaining it’s not existing. That way there’s no confusion for anyone looking at the survey.
If the zoning info wasn’t checked on Table A and isn’t officially recorded, it’s usually best to leave it off the survey to avoid any confusion. Had a project once where an <a href=" removed link " target="_blank" rel="noopener">advertising truck was part of the plan—definitely added a cool marketing twist to the site! Small teams like yours, juggling these unusual requests, really show how flexible surveying can be.
@jph You are not understand my point, if there is a site plan prepared by a qualified professional that has been approved, sure, show it as proposed by plan entitled.......if not, we are not licensed as surveyors to propose construction and doing so would be practicing professional planning or engineering.
@chris-bouffard So if your client selected item 17 on Table A you would tell him, "Sorry. Can't do it. I would be practicing either engineering or planning and I'm not licensed to do that?" The people who put together the ALTA specs just made a little mistake in including item 17 since that would be asking surveyors to do something they are not licensed for? I would say your idea of the concept is in left field but I don't even think you're in the ball park.
The phrase 'by the controlling jurisdiction' is paramount in Table A item 17 'Proposed changes to street right-of-way lines, if such information is made available to surveyor by the controlling jurisdiction.'. These are facts in the public record and imminent.
As to the original, albeit dated, question. If requested by the client to show proposed improvements I would outline the request as a roll your own Table A item 20. I would then make damn sure the source of information was noted as a callout to the drawing and in my general notes both referencing the agreed upon item 20. I would also make it clear that the depicted position is a rough location.
I have actually done this on a couple of ALTAs over the last several decades.
So if your client selected item 17 on Table A you would tell him, "Sorry. Can't do it.
Item 17 may allow you to put oddball stuff on the ALTA and still call it an ALTA. That doesn't mean it will always be a good idea to put whatever the client asks for on your map. I'm pretty sure that, in a majority of cases, the client's needs regarding showing proposed works can be satisfied in other ways - ie/with a separate drawing. And that is what I would propose to do.
After all, very often the client's real need isn't for an ALTA in the first place. It is just how they have learned to request a standard survey. If the title company and lender also demanded that proposed works be shown on the ALTA I might be prevailed upon. I can't see that happening. Not on an ALTA.
Thinking about it ....if I was prevailed upon to show proposed works ... I'd probably circle the area and label it "SEE DETAIL A FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS" and on another sheet show the detail.