I found this article written by First American Title:
Many surveyors will argue that the State Board, the issuer of their license, will penalize them for not maintaining a certain level or professionalism calling a Survey an ALTA 2011 Survey without adhering to the prescribed standards. It is likely that if you shop around you will find a Surveyor who will certify to most any language you desire. Similarly it is highly probably that you will find an underwriter somewhere who will provide extended coverage without an ALTA compliant survey. Keep in mind that ALTA is a voluntary organization and as such does not have the power or desire to police whether or not their members (Title Companies) require that all surveys meet the standards. The question remains what happens if and when you change Lenders or Underwriters. The whole purpose of the standards is to make certain that everyone agrees to what is acceptable for a Title Insurance transaction regardlesss of Insurer or Lender.
It is very true the ALTA Standards are not 'law'. At the same time false certification comes under the heading 'law' in most States.
Those who short-cut ALTA surveys are lying about what they provide, and generally for the sole purpose of under-cutting the competition. While I am somewhat pragmatic regarding minor or common errors, liars make me angry. If you certify it as an ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey you should at least try to meet the standards...
My .02, Tom
It is likely that if you shop around you will find a Surveyor who will certify to most any language you desire.
Well if that doesn't just piss you off!
I am one of those that will not alter my ALTA/ACSM certification. If a lender (HUD) requires specific verbiage, I will add that verbiage as a second certification.
The standards are pretty clear. No other certifications are allowed. What you are doing might be a great product, but it's not an ALTA...
I'll re-read the standards and adjust my way of thinking, if necessary. My original interpretation is that the ALTA certification SHALL not be altered. I didn't read it as that additional certification cannot be added to the Plat of Survey. Thanks for your interpretation. Now I have a different view to investigate.
Yes, as soon as I read that paragraph I knew my peers would be thrilled at the "solution": shop around until you find a surveyor that will sign just about anything. Heaven knows they exist. Gag.
> It is likely that if you shop around you will find a Surveyor who will certify to most any language you desire.
>
> Well if that doesn't just piss you off!
I agree Mr. Billings that this is troublesome and irritating. The question remains. At whom should be be mad?
I don't think it correct to be mad at the person who wrote the article nor at the Title Insurance Company. Seems to me the fault lies with those so called professionals who will certify that a particular standard has been met when it has not.
Larry P
When I get (rightfully) named "Emperor of All Surveying" 😀 my first royal decree will eliminate the ALTA survey.
I'm a big boy; I can negotiate scope, deliverables, and certification with my clients to fit their individual project and site specific needs. It's easy, I do it all the time.
The more a product is standardized the more it is likely to become commoditized and that doesn't benefit anyone.
> The standards are pretty clear. No other certifications are allowed. What you are doing might be a great product, but it's not an ALTA...
The solution is to use the verbage they want but don't call it an ALTA. It is a Record of Survey
My understanding is that Optional Table A Item #12 allows for the addition of the HUD Certification.
I don't recall the specific verbage, but anything I sign and seal must meet minimum standards put forth by the TBPLS. And, if I say that it has been done to additional standard such as TSPS or ALTA, it must also meet those standards or I am in violation. I don't think the TBPLS actively checks ALTA surveys but if it winds up before the board it better be up to the additional standard that you certified to.
> It is likely that if you shop around you will find a Surveyor who will certify to most any language you desire.
>
> Well if that doesn't just piss you off!
Sad thing is, we all know it's true.
I think what I have done in the past stays with the standards. Between Item 3B of the instruction and Item 12 of Table A, certification for other Federal Agencies are allowed.
It is likely that if you shop around you will find a Surveyor who will certify to most any language you desire.
That appears to be the universal statement when it comes to attorneys and title companies.
When by law and thru disclaimers they never assume any liability, they can just about say anything and get away with it.
Item 3B requires state standards to be followed. In Kentucky our standards of practice are very clear that they are the minimum required and that more may be required due to the following:
(c) Shall not limit the establishment of more stringent standards of practice for a
professional land surveyor by:
1. An agency;
2. An owner;
3. A contract; or
4. The professional land surveyor.
So the question then becomes which are the more stringent standards - adding a certification as requested (and negotiated by the licensee) by an agency, owner, contract, or professional or leaving the ALTA certification as the only acceptable certification on the drawing.
Seems to me it would be acceptable to add additional certifications on the ALTA drawing.