ALTA Survey Utilities

I have handled this a few ways. If you can verify the utilities are removed don't show them. If not I would show them using a different line type, noting they are from my previous survey.

New ALTA = new survey. Certainly you can compare your results internally and follow up as necessary but I wouldn't show anythin in the new ALTA that were not able to verify or fall back on such as a painted utilitiy marking.

Is it the same utilities but in a different spot?

I would show the old lines and put a note on the plat "as located in 2015" or "as located on prior survey"

I think it's better to show something and be wrong than to not show it and be wrong.

With these ALTA's, I'd error on the side of showing or noting anything that you have even the slightest concern over. These are all about putting people on notice, let someone else figure out if it is significant or not.

WA-ID Surveyor, post: 412721, member: 6294 wrote: New ALTA = new survey. Certainly you can compare your results internally and follow up as necessary but I wouldn't show anythin in the new ALTA that were not able to verify or fall back on such as a painted utilitiy marking.

If you knew they existed and didn't show them it may bite you. Then again if you show them and they are gone you might hurt value.
I would try to find out what currently exists. You can get facility maps with an email in every State I work in. Then just tell the story..

Show them all. Decipher with linetypes / lineweights and notes.

It was an ALTA, so if things got painted the first time we were lucky. And the second time we were lucky as well.
The answer to is it the same lines being painted.... No. Different ones. But just because it was painted this time and wasn't last time, doesn't mean it is new. And painted last but not this time, doesn't mean it has been removed.
I have never really thought of this before, but I guess this is the first Pre & Post construction ALTA that I have done where Item 11 has been on both....

I would submit that you should consider only certifying that which you actually and factually know. For example, you may only actually and factually know where the paint marks and surface utilities are located. But unless you have actually observed the underground utilities, you don't factually know where those are.

When I am ask to survey something and construction is not finished, I only show what was there then and how recorded information existed the date posted on my survey documents.

Any other changes made after that date is on the client or the construction company.

They were on a deadline and wanted it then and that is what they get.

If the bank or Title Company requests that the survey be updated before closing, that is extra.

How much extra depends upon how many changes I've got to change.

Not utilities, but similar. I did an ALTA survey on dirt that had once been farmland, and there was a concrete irrigation ditch that I showed on the drawing. So far, so good. Several years later I updated the survey and the ditch wasn't there, so I erased it from the drawing. Turned out the ditch was still there, just covered over with dirt. So yes, I would show the previous utilities and note them as located in (year).

ppm, post: 412740, member: 6808 wrote: It was an ALTA, so if things got painted the first time we were lucky. And the second time we were lucky as well.
The answer to is it the same lines being painted.... No. Different ones. But just because it was painted this time and wasn't last time, doesn't mean it is new. And painted last but not this time, doesn't mean it has been removed.
I have never really thought of this before, but I guess this is the first Pre & Post construction ALTA that I have done where Item 11 has been on both....

With the random quality of utility location services we have here I'm never sure if painting is a blessing or a curse...

Most utility location services are fraudulent because those who request the services are only interested in first cost. There is absolutely no benefit to anyone to have a utility location service that trains their people for a matter of a few weeks, having only the knowledge of which OSHA approved colors to use to make a bloody mess on the streets and sidewalks. In fact people who rely on such services may be in extreme danger performing excavation. To me a paint mark on the ground only represents just what it is. I would never rely on it to represent the location of any utility ever.

not my real name, post: 412849, member: 8199 wrote: Most utility location services are fraudulent because those who request the services are only interested in first cost. There is absolutely no benefit to anyone to have a utility location service that trains their people for a matter of a few weeks, having only the knowledge of which OSHA approved colors to use to make a bloody mess on the streets and sidewalks. In fact people who rely on such services may be in extreme danger performing excavation. To me a paint mark on the ground only represents just what it is. I would never rely on it to represent the location of any utility ever.

"As marked by" takes care of that and also a YUGE warning disclaimer about excavation.

The lives that are at risk by agencies preferring the marking services rather than an actual utility location are my concern. Using the same logic I could have some boy scout map my property line using coordinates from google and a recreational grade GPS receiver. As long as we use a proper disclaimer no one would object to placing their surveyor's seal on such a plan, right? While I understand that using a disclaimer attempts to limit liability I would rather show no false indications even if it means risking one person that does not understand the marking service is merely subjective and arbitrary.

When underground utilities are requested, go with plans from the utility companies, paint marks, surface structures, markings, etc. But on the plan indicate what you're showing, what the location is based on. As others have written, unless you're actually shooting excavated pipes, you're lines are only your best guess as to where they are.

So I'll show the lines, but will definitely write that they are survey location of paint marks made by ABC Co. I'll do the same with wetlands. I never call something "wetlands", but show location of Wetland flags/lines, delineated by XYZ Co.

not my real name, post: 412865, member: 8199 wrote: The lives that are at risk by agencies preferring the marking services rather than an actual utility location are my concern. Using the same logic I could have some boy scout map my property line using coordinates from google and a recreational grade GPS receiver. As long as we use a proper disclaimer no one would object to placing their surveyor's seal on such a plan, right? While I understand that using a disclaimer attempts to limit liability I would rather show no false indications even if it means risking one person that does not understand the marking service is merely subjective and arbitrary.

I think the "disclaimer" that old2969 is talking about is a note about Dig Safe, 811, One Call, Call before you dig, agency. Stating that the utility locations shown on your plan aren't for basing excavation on. That's the excavator's responsibility and liability.

not my real name, post: 412849, member: 8199 wrote: Most utility location services are fraudulent because those who request the services are only interested in first cost. There is absolutely no benefit to anyone to have a utility location service that trains their people for a matter of a few weeks, having only the knowledge of which OSHA approved colors to use to make a bloody mess on the streets and sidewalks. In fact people who rely on such services may be in extreme danger performing excavation. To me a paint mark on the ground only represents just what it is. I would never rely on it to represent the location of any utility ever.

Our local (and State) governments require it...

Regulations and shirking responsibility for providing actual data is unprofessional. In my opinion the regulations are the result of lobbying efforts to make the process as simple and inexpensive as possible. Thus, providing potentially misleading information becomes the existing state of affairs. I consider the persons using the information to be more important than the regulators whose job appears to be making sure the proper disclaimers are in place.