ALTA without a Title Commitment?

No and no

Nope, no, and heck no! From the Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys.

Agree with others. Can't be an ALTA ACSM Land Title Survey without the title commitment.

I also agree. I told "them" that "they" could probably cut my fee in half by taking the ALTA out of it, but, no, they wanted an ALTA survey.
I suppose I can put a note that I performed the survey to ALTA specifications as per "their" (pretty detailed) table A, without the benifit of a title commitment.
I don't feel that I can label it as an ALTA survey, however. Seems like I'm getting more requests for ALTAs lately without the client understanding what it is, or even needing one. Some just think since it's the Cadillac of surveys, they want one.

I too have been dealing with folks that have been ordering ALTA'S for a long time and it is my conclusion that they have never read the ALTA minimum req's. I have been dealing with them the same way Cyril did here. Send them the standards and cite the specific sections, They don't understand that they have to do some things on their end for us to be able to do our job.

Many clients believe an ALTA is an upgraded survey. When preparing an agreement for an ALTA Survey, we include the ALTA Standards and Table A Options upon which our fee is based.. We also specify that final delivery will be in so many days provided that we receive the Title Commitment so many days before the final delivery date. When we believe the Client is just not getting it, we try our best to educate the Client as to the process.

Upon given notice to proceed, we will ask by email when we should receive the Commitment and who is preparing it. When the absence of the Commitment starts affecting the delivery date, we let the client know. At that point, sometimes the Client says why do I need a commitment if we are not getting Title Insurance at which point I will state you don't need an ALTA if you are not getting Title Insurance. When the Client decides they do not need an ALTA, the price does not go down. On some occasions, it has gone up. We really don't charge more for an ALTA. Our research is the same with or without a Title Commitment. I like another set of eyes doing the research.

In the days of the so-called "long form certification" (the chain letter of survey certifications, where every lawyer and banker in the country added a little each time it passed around), I despised ALTA/ACSM surveys. With stricter rules about the certification, I actually prefer doing them. I also have no problem providing Cadillac services - it's really what our business model is about anyway.

By the way (not to get off topic too far) I have started making it a point to refer to it as an "ALTA/ACSM" survey in all of my correspondences, not just an "ALTA". I don't have any particular affinity to ACSM or NSPS, but that's our part, as surveyors, in those standards. Calling it an ALTA seems like it's just relegating the whole thing to Title Industry's preference. We had/have a voice in this too, let's make sure we don't minimize that voice by dismissing our part. ALTA/ACSM (or ALTA/NSPS in the future).

J. T. Strickland, post: 339222, member: 246 wrote: What say ye? Ever done an ALTA without the benefit of a title commitment, deed description alone?

I very rarely do an ALTA with a title commitment in hand -- it's almost always a preliminary title report. (But deed alone? No.)

The requirement for the client, not the surveyor, to provide title work / documents has been in the Standards since 1962, that I know of. It's most likely in the original Standards, which I believe came out in 1946. You would be exposing yourself to a lot of liability by using the term ALTA in any way, for example if easements turned up later.

Sometimes a land purchase agreement will call for the seller to provide an ALTA survey, and it's common for the seller to have only a vague idea of what that is. That might be the case here. Where the pseudo Table A came from is a mystery, but whoever you're dealing with is seriously misinformed.

Send them the Standards, as Adam says, and prepare for some whining and wheedling phone calls. They will probably go on for about three days if my experience is any guide. After that the prospective client will most likely check other sources of information and find out that you're right.

Last one we did went forward in two steps. First, a survey providing virtually everything requested on an ALTA survey but with no such certification. That provided the potential buyer the opportunity to have his architect play around with things until they could find a way to make their goals fit on the site. If that could not happen there would be no going further. The second step came during the actual sale process and it was a true ALTA survey based on the title commitment and, thus, received the ALTA certification. I am so accustomed to doing title research that there was no information of consequence provided by the title commitment. There could have been some, such as a court case that somehow involved the property, that I would have missed. BTW, the ALTA survey was easy money and plenty of it.

This morning I'm working on finishing up a topographic map that originally was requested, by an architect, as an ALTA. It's just a word they have heard and have been told is good. By doing only the topo now I think I have guaranteed myself the job of upgrading this topo to an ALTA when the time is right.

Typically the No and No answer is correct, but there is one exception I am aware of, and that is the state of Iowa(by statute, title companies cannot operate from within the state of Iowa but title insurance can be purchased out of state). Was asked to perform an ALTA without a certified title commitment on property located in Iowa. The same question asked to start this post was asked of Gary Kent(he is on the ALTA standard committee). The abbreviated response is ‰ÛÏin Iowa you can use an abstract of title and an attorney‰Ûªs opinion as to the condition of title‰Û. You could rely on the record descriptions which should be the same used for the attorney‰Ûªs opinion. They are aware there is an issue with the wording in the 2011 standards. They are going to address this in the 2016 standards with something like "The surveyor must be provided a copy of the most recent title commitment or other title documents acceptable to the title company..." That would allow for the surveyor to review an abstract of title and attorney's opinion in lieu of a title commitment.

With all the complaining about how useless title insurance is, I'm very glad to live in Iowa.

We have had this request, I price it and make it as if it was an ALTA, but inform the clients that without title, I cannot put the ALTA Surveyors certificate on the map, nor will we use a similar certification created by some attorney to make a pseudo alta, without the title.

Realistically, alta or not, the alta requirements are a great standard if someone was looking for a detailed boundary and topo survey.