I'm currently working on a survey for a boatyard. The 2 sidelines are easy to find based on map and record, however the 'rear' line is where I have a question as to how you would handle the situation.
The land was part of an old plat from around the 1910. (I'm on vacation so I don't have the exact year in front of me) the plat shows the 'boundary' along the rear of the lots as metes and bounds along the high water line.
Deed of the property also calls for along the high water line and recites the bearings and distances from the filed map.
Obviously since then much has changed when it comes to the high water line. But we aren't talking anything slow and imperceptible. We are talking man made bulkheads with filled in land and other lands just filled in with stone banks. It seems most of the changes occurred around 1940-1960 (according to historical imagery on google)
The waterway is a harbor basin and has is regulated by new York state and the federal channel is obv regulated by the army cor of engineers. I highly doubt even at this time they were able to build bulkheads in the water and fill in without having the required permissions. Although back in that time I'm not quite sure the particulars of the requirements.
An old survey done just showed the property lines as per metes and bounds (ignoring call for high water, but this is expected around this area as almost every survey just slaps the record)
If I was to hold the record because I wasn't sure of the legality of the filled in lands it would look quite silly as the lines would cut through the property and show half the buildings off the property. (As the old survey does)
The survey is being used for building department use, so either way the setback would be from the hwl. The old survey was too so the building dept obviously ignored the "property line" running through the land. So this leads me to believe those lines would be fictional at this point and the true line would follow the bulkhead and current hwl along the filled in land where the bulkhead doesn't exist.
Sometimes municipalities legislate how upland lines are to be treated as they approach and exceed the mean high water line in case you haven't checked for that. Sometimes people in New York State acquired Lands Under Water Grants from the Office of General Services but I find those to be quite rare. I think a lot of times this comes down to the conventions that have been used on that particular body of water. In the absence of anything like those I would likely show and label the record high water line as tie lines along said record high water line. Unfortunately, many of the old time maps used a high water line that might be quite a bit further off the water than the version of a mean high water line that may be regulated to today.
I also might not extend my sidelines beyond that record HWL. I might also show the current high water line, particularly if it is a municipal setback line. I just think you need to tread carefully here (obviously you are by virtue of your post) because title beyond that archaic high water line (or possibly the low water line, again depending upon the body of water and the title documents) can be tenuous and less than straight forward.
I guess to put it another way: How confident are you that they have good title to all of the land that they are occupying?
Licensed Land Surveyor
Finger Lakes Region, Upstate New York
dms330, post: 393532, member: 2118 wrote: Sometimes municipalities legislate how upland lines are to be treated as they approach and exceed the mean high water line in case you haven't checked for that. Sometimes people in New York State acquired Lands Under Water Grants from the Office of General Services but I find those to be quite rare. I think a lot of times this comes down to the conventions that have been used on that particular body of water. In the absence of anything like those I would likely show and label the record high water line as tie lines along said record high water line. Unfortunately, many of the old time maps used a high water line that might be quite a bit further off the water than the version of a mean high water line that may be regulated to today.
I also might not extend my sidelines beyond that record HWL. I might also show the current high water line, particularly if it is a municipal setback line. I just think you need to tread carefully here (obviously you are by virtue of your post) because title beyond that archaic high water line (or possibly the low water line, again depending upon the body of water and the title documents) can be tenuous and less than straight forward.
I guess to put it another way: How confident are you that they have good title to all of the land that they are occupying?
Thanks for the reply. They do have a grant to the lands under water, that I do know and was shown on said old survey and we have seen the documents.
Ok so I will maybe do the same as said old survey and show the old title record lines and then show the hwl as well. I was planning to do both but was thinking of dashing in the record hwl and bolding the current hwl. But maybe I'll just avoid that for now.
I can't speak to the protocols for those grants over the decades but my experience with them has involved an instrument survey and a deed for which they paid by the square foot. Do you have any thing specific like that to fortify your placement of the current title line? Is that grant beyond the old surveyed high water line?
Licensed Land Surveyor
Finger Lakes Region, Upstate New York
If I was in your shoes, I would first send an email out to the Office of General Services; Lands Underwater. Send them the information you already know.
The office responds quickly within a day or so to inquiries, and it is staffed by professional surveyors. These are the guys that can really help you out. They have always been of great help to me with my requests. There is very likely a bunch of research already done in your project area.
Good luck Rich, and report back if you find anything interesting!
Rich., post: 393515, member: 10450 wrote: I'm currently working on a survey for a boatyard. The 2 sidelines are easy to find based on map and record, however the 'rear' line is where I have a question as to how you would handle the situation.
The land was part of an old plat from around the 1910. (I'm on vacation so I don't have the exact year in front of me) the plat shows the 'boundary' along the rear of the lots as metes and bounds along the high water line.
Deed of the property also calls for along the high water line and recites the bearings and distances from the filed map.
Obviously since then much has changed when it comes to the high water line. But we aren't talking anything slow and imperceptible. We are talking man made bulkheads with filled in land and other lands just filled in with stone banks. It seems most of the changes occurred around 1940-1960 (according to historical imagery on google)
The waterway is a harbor basin and has is regulated by new York state and the federal channel is obv regulated by the army cor of engineers. I highly doubt even at this time they were able to build bulkheads in the water and fill in without having the required permissions. Although back in that time I'm not quite sure the particulars of the requirements.
An old survey done just showed the property lines as per metes and bounds (ignoring call for high water, but this is expected around this area as almost every survey just slaps the record)
If I was to hold the record because I wasn't sure of the legality of the filled in lands it would look quite silly as the lines would cut through the property and show half the buildings off the property. (As the old survey does)
The survey is being used for building department use, so either way the setback would be from the hwl. The old survey was too so the building dept obviously ignored the "property line" running through the land. So this leads me to believe those lines would be fictional at this point and the true line would follow the bulkhead and current hwl along the filled in land where the bulkhead doesn't exist.
It's important to show the full extent of any grants to lands under water. Improvements outside those grants can be taken without compensation by either regulating body. When the harbor dredging project comes to town your client will thank you. Anything built relying merely on riparian rights (permit or not) is subject to taking without compensation. Several marinas and large freight docking operations have found this out, much to their disgust and significant economic loss.
This may not apply to your location but along the three main rivers in the Pittsburgh area the Corps established Harbor Lines in the late 1800's/early 1900's. They created a series of harbor line maps that show these lines mathematically. A note on each map says: "The Harbor Lines shown hereon are combined pierhead and bulkhead line indicated thus and define the limit to which either solid filling or open pile structures may be built from the adjacent shore". These lines were abrogated in 1964, BUT many deeds go to the lines and then follow the lines along the river, even if not called out as such. The lines were NOT monumented, however a triangulation network of monumented stations was established along both sides of the river, and these stations can be used to reproduce the geometry. The lines were typically at the approximate high water line. Anything built riverward of those lines had to have a permit of some kind.
So, the Corps office covering the area MAY have a set of harbor line maps that will show this information.
Rich., post: 393534, member: 10450 wrote: Thanks for the reply. They do have a grant to the lands under water, that I do know and was shown on said old survey and we have seen the documents.
Ok so I will maybe do the same as said old survey and show the old title record lines and then show the hwl as well. I was planning to do both but was thinking of dashing in the record hwl and bolding the current hwl. But maybe I'll just avoid that for now.
I don't know what the right solution is because I have no experience with New York law, but make sure you completely understand it before you complete your survey. This may take an inordinate amount of time since this is new to you, but the knowledge you gain will be worth it on future projects.
I strongly urge you to not do something because it is local practice . Local practice can be wrong. Water boundaries are always difficult, but if you learn them you will have a marketable speciality.
John Hamilton, post: 393554, member: 640 wrote: This may not apply to your location but along the three main rivers in the Pittsburgh area the Corps established Harbor Lines in the late 1800's/early 1900's. They created a series of harbor line maps that show these lines mathematically. A note on each map says: "The Harbor Lines shown hereon are combined pierhead and bulkhead line indicated thus and define the limit to which either solid filling or open pile structures may be built from the adjacent shore". These lines were abrogated in 1964, BUT many deeds go to the lines and then follow the lines along the river, even if not called out as such. The lines were NOT monumented, however a triangulation network of monumented stations was established along both sides of the river, and these stations can be used to reproduce the geometry. The lines were typically at the approximate high water line. Anything built riverward of those lines had to have a permit of some kind.
So, the Corps office covering the area MAY have a set of harbor line maps that will show this information.
We do have stations here and maps for the federal channel and 'pier and bulkhead' lines. I have tied into these as well.
kjypls, post: 393541, member: 9749 wrote: If I was in your shoes, I would first send an email out to the Office of General Services; Lands Underwater. Send them the information you already know.
The office responds quickly within a day or so to inquiries, and it is staffed by professional surveyors. These are the guys that can really help you out. They have always been of great help to me with my requests. There is very likely a bunch of research already done in your project area.
Good luck Rich, and report back if you find anything interesting!
Thank you. I will do just that and shoot them an email.
dms330, post: 393535, member: 2118 wrote: I can't speak to the protocols for those grants over the decades but my experience with them has involved an instrument survey and a deed for which they paid by the square foot. Do you have any thing specific like that to fortify your placement of the current title line? Is that grant beyond the old surveyed high water line?
So I just pulled the grant. It was to lands under water that extend beyond the configuration of the current bulkhead.
I always thought these grants 'gave permission' for use. I was never quite sure if they gave title or not but in reading this grant it seems to have passed all rights and title to the land under water described.
The land grant was in 1887 prior to the subdivision of the land. The subdivision doesn't mention the grant just shows the individual lots. But I was mistaken, the map does not label nor give measurements along the rear (hwl) the deed description does. But that still doesn't help me with if the 'filling in' was permitted.
I have emailed OGS to ask them if this grant would pass title to the lands described. If so I would see no reason that the upland described 'boudary' would be the boundary at all if they were given title to the lands passed and described in the grant. Or at the very least there should be no reason they wouldn't have title to the uplands within the granted boundary described.
Btw... the deed also does include this clause. And if they truly do have all rights and title extending to the grant line then I would assume the true boundary would be the grant line and not the hwl or the boundary as described in the description.
I will post what OGS replies with
Rich., post: 393578, member: 10450 wrote: So I just pulled the grant. It was to lands under water that extend beyond the configuration of the current bulkhead.
I always thought these grants 'gave permission' for use. I was never quite sure if they gave title or not but in reading this grant it seems to have passed all rights and title to the land under water described.
The land grant was in 1887 prior to the subdivision of the land. The subdivision doesn't mention the grant just shows the individual lots. But I was mistaken, the map does not label nor give measurements along the rear (hwl) the deed description does. But that still doesn't help me with if the 'filling in' was permitted.
I have emailed OGS to ask them if this grant would pass title to the lands described. If so I would see no reason that the upland described 'boudary' would be the boundary at all if they were given title to the lands passed and described in the grant. Or at the very least there should be no reason they wouldn't have title to the uplands within the granted boundary described.
Great, that email will pay off I am sure.
Sometimes things get interesting with lands underwater. In my experience, lands underwater in fee (mentioned in deed) could have actually changed to an easement, or, could have been released back to the people of the state altogether. You never know until you dig a bit more:)
Please, keep me (us) updated on how your search pans out!
kjypls, post: 393594, member: 9749 wrote: Great, that email will pay off I am sure.
Sometimes things get interesting with lands underwater. In my experience, lands underwater in fee (mentioned in deed) could have actually changed to an easement, or, could have been released back to the people of the state altogether. You never know until you dig a bit more:)
Please, keep me (us) updated on how your search pans out!
Thank you. I explained everything in my email and attached plat, deed and grant. Grant is one of those hard to read, old scriptive type. I was actually able to read it relatively well. Probably the best of any I've ran into lately.
Hopefully with all this information they can tell me the nature of the grant as it currently stands and should be applied.
That deed call for the prolongation of the sidelines is helpful although keep an eye out for conflicting information.
Licensed Land Surveyor
Finger Lakes Region, Upstate New York
This is the response I got from OGS.....
The Rushmore grant was also for the ÛÏbeneficial enjoymentÛ of the adjacent land owner, being Rushmore. Courts have said this was a fee interest grant in the bed of the waterbody. The grant did allow for the filling in of the granted area. Of course now days it would be extremely difficult to fill previously granted lands under water do to the environmental laws. Any lands unfilled are subject to the public right of navigation. The boundary of the grant becomes the boundary between State owned lands and private lands.
Any subdivision of the upland automatically subdivides the grant even without mention. The only time this may not be true is if the subdivision intentionally separates the lots from having water access or littoral rights. If the lots get to the water then a portion of the grant is also conveyed. The portion depends on how the littoral lines are established going through the grant.
Like you said the deed does mention the lands under water grant but a lot of time they donÛªt. If the deeds donÛªt mention the grant the grant is still conveyed because the grant is an appurtenance to the deed and is conveyed when the deed says ÛÏTogether with the appurtenances and all the estateÛ?Û.
I hope I answered a few of your questions. If you have any more do not hesitate to contact me."
I cannot believe the speed that they replied to me. That was super helpful and thank you for suggesting it. This will help a lot in the future.
So it seems that the bulkhead was perfectly allowed to be filled in at the time it was and that they do own fee out to the granted line. Pretty straight forward on that front. Gonna put a bunch of notes on the plat though to relay this
Super!
Happy surveying 🙂
