Surveying a large parcel with 5 borders. The parcel borders an old county road on the south, a town road on the east, a major state highway on the north, state parkland on the northwest and a private way on the west.
The layout of each roadway are defined by their own monuments. Rotating the parcel to fit the monuments will create gaps/overlaps along the other bordering sides.
Should the roadway layouts define the parcel’s property boundaries or should rotating the parcel itself for best fit defines the parcel’s property boundaries? This is in Massachusetts which is a metes and bounds state.
What kind of “gaps” are we talking? Minimal or major? If major, sounds like a deed issue…The bounds and monuments of the other parcels should hold (assuming good/original/undisturbed) , simple rotation of the deed doesn’t prove much, too many variables with datum’s and projections and whatever for it to just fit perfectly when rotated.
Does the parcel description call for the roads as bounding on all sides? Some of those gaps could be other parcels, either in the same ownership as your survey, or owned by others. You should make yourself familiar with M.G.L. Chapter 183, Section 58 if the private road is called for as a boundary. You need to review the history of the parcel to determine how and where each boundary line was created.
You also need to look at the history of the road layouts vs. the history of your parcel. Were there any realignments, widenings, discontinuances? How would these actions relate to your parcel description?
As an example from a survey I did years ago: a road was called as bounding the parcel on the south. The road was laid out by the county in the middle of the 1800's. It became a state highway with a 50' width and bounds set about 1920. The road was widened to 60' in 1950 and widened again by another 15' on the north side of the highway (adjacent to my parcel) in 1985. The parcel description was originally written in 1890, so the lot sideline distances called out were relative to the street sideline from when it was a county road.
Since you are in Mass. - is the parcel you are surveying registered land?
The question you ask does not have a concise yes or no answer. I will say that courts in my state of Oregon have consistently ruled that there is no intention to retain little miniscule gaps or gores. And the earliest cases cite cases from eastern states. I'd bet similar rulings could be found in Massachusetts case law. So I have to ask if the gaps you are seeing are large enough to be useful patches of ground.
From the original post this seems that the gaps are just math and not real.
Are there two sets of monuments one the ground that mark these independently and do not agree ?
From the original post this seems that the gaps are just math and not real.
Are there two sets of monuments one the ground that mark these independently and do not agree ?
Standard findings for every retracement of an old deed. If I find one without gaps created by only the metes, it will be the first one.