Boundary question

Unless there's some ambiguity in the map dimensions that require extrinsic evidence to resolve, I'd hold the map monuments and  dimensions.  It's *probably* not a coincidence that the streams appear to align with the lot boundaries, but if the subdivider intended the stream locations to be paramount he would/should have stated as much on the plat.  Stay within the four corners of the plat unless conditions necessitate going outside.

Agree with Jim's opinion.

Thanks!

Does the plat have a written description and Certificate of Owners? If that description uses the same dimensions and calls it the river you have your answer. You can also go to the deed for the parcel being subdivided. If this is a riparian state then it's likely 'once riparian, always riparian'. The owner cannot separate the lands from the river without an express reservation.

I agree with the general principle of staying within a document. The coincidence of being nearly the same location is not ambiguity in and of itself. Tracing the source deed for the subdivision is not out of line, especially if the actions of the owners introduce ambiguity.

Does the plat have a written description and Certificate of Owners? If that description uses the same dimensions and calls it the river you have your answer. You can also go to the deed for the parcel being subdivided. If this is a riparian state then it's likely 'once riparian, always riparian'. The owner cannot separate the lands from the river without an express reservation.

I agree with the general principle of staying within a document. The coincidence of being nearly the same location is not ambiguity in and of itself. Tracing the source deed for the subdivision is not out of line, especially if the actions of the owners introduce ambiguity.

Need to do more work than just compare a couple documents.  Are there monuments out there?  Are people occupying to the stream?  Do the people think they own to the stream?  Is the stream even there anymore?

These are streams,  or more commonly branches in local parlance.  My guess is the North and West end are springs, or used to be.  Field work to come. 

It certainly looks like the streams influenced the lot layout, but nothing says whether they intended to split the stream or to follow a meander along the bank on one side or the other and for all or just part of the line.

That's what I saw, Bill93.  Abiguity.  What we try not to create....

I wonder what the conversation would be without the original plat ?

The subdivision plat actually does call out "branch" further down the channel, away from my area of interest.  If not for that, I probably wouldn't have asked the question....

Thanks all for the input!

The subdivision plat actually does call out "branch" further down the channel, away from my area of interest. 

Could you post a pic of that section of the plat?

That note seems to be going back to Jim's statement of

but if the subdivider intended the stream locations to be paramount he would/should have stated as much on the plat.

That note, the way the lines (Lot 3/4 and Lot 5/6) appear to run with the older map branch before becoming a straight line to the road, and what appears to be a witness pin set at the eastern end of the Lot 4/5 line all look like the intention was center of the branch to me.

Here you go.  There is no linework that looks like a stream, and no differentiation from other lot lines on the plat.  The c/l branch label is split on two line segments that are both over seventy feet in length.  Natural channels in this neck of the woods are very rarely straight for that length.

Based on the subdivision lines being monumented and defined by bearings and distances with the streamlines being totally ignored on the subdivision plan I would completely ignore them.  If the streamlines were meant to be held, they would have been shown with a notation to indicate the original intent to follow those lines as natural movements.

Where it says centerline of branch, I would think the intent in that area (at a minimum) is the center of the creek.  The bearings and distances would be considered a meander line to obtain a mathematical closure and determine an approximate area.  A surveyor certainly would not waste time mapping every bend in the branch to obtain a closure and calculate an area. 

I know having access to springs and streams was very valuable for older parcels.  

I'd obtain the original conveyance deeds for the parcels.  

Where it says centerline of branch, I would think the intent in that area (at a minimum) is the center of the creek.  The bearings and distances would be considered a meander line to obtain a mathematical closure and determine an approximate area.  A surveyor certainly would not waste time mapping every bend in the branch to obtain a closure and calculate an area. 

I know having access to springs and streams was very valuable for older parcels.  

I'd obtain the original conveyance deeds for the parcels.  

Natural channels in this neck of the woods are very rarely straight for that length.

Depending on the time frame of a survey in my home area, the defined stream could be from where the sideline comes into a creek with only one bearing/distance to where the other sideline leaves the creek even if there were 100 bends in between.  As it became easier to measure those bends in the creek, descriptions started to more precisely define the creeks with several calls along the bends.  Even as short of a time ago (its all relative) as the 1990s, it wasn't unusual for smaller, but obvious, changes in direction to not be included.

Looks like potentially another witness pin between lots 3 and ?2? near the branch.  Of course you still have to see what is actually on the ground, but if those two monuments are in and measure about 25 feet to the center of the branch, I would probably be using the center of the branch up until it intersects with the bearing coming from the iron pins at the roadway.  The way CL Branch is labeled on the plat is fairly common (in my home area and back in the day) to indicate the intent was the center of branch even beyond only where those words appear.  In current times, a different linetype is more likely to be used to more clearly indicate the intent.

This is definitely not a river under any definition.  It appears that there are two springs, not far apart, that both feed to a common water course, which may be smaller than a common roadside ditch along its length.  In an area of grassland, attempting to define that thread starting at the spring would be futile.  At low flow, you can barely tell there is any water moving.  At high flow, it has spread out so far that taking the centerline between the alleged shorelines (25 feet apart) would produce a series of lines that resembles in no way the sinuousity of the true thread of the flow.

Now, in canyon country, a completely different scenario would occur.

These are lots of small area.  No one should be attempting to build a fence or any other permanent structure along the series of crooked lines depicted.

Looked like a consensus at first, but now the replies almost seem to indicate a 50/50 split.  As noted in the original post, the deeds all refer to "Lot X as shown on plat...", so no additional information there.  At the end of the day, the differences on the ground will be small, but the principle seems pretty important.  One thing I haven't seen in the replies is any reference to professional publications.  I figured that would pop up.  At any rate, the replies are much appreciated.