Good morning to all. I am not licensed in any of the state listed in the title, but want to know why when doing an ALTA survey that Table A Item 1 gets so much attention in those states.
Good morning to all. I am not licensed in any of the state listed in the title, but want to know why when doing an ALTA survey that Table A Item 1 gets so much attention in those states.
These are all "recording" states. Setting monuments triggers the requirement to file a "Record of Survey" in county records, which is a significant cost center. These Records are quite different in form to the ALTA, with specific requirements of their own.
@rankin_file For some reason, I thought there were actually 5 top reasons... oh, that's right, I remember now... the fifth reason is money.
Also, you can just paste the YouTube share URL right into the editor and it will embed into the post. Like this:
Like what we do here? Donate
Need a new or refreshed website? Five Point Web Solutions
Looking for a web host? Website Hosting & Management
@norman-oklahoma but don't these states have a requirement to set any missing monuments just based on State law?
@norman-oklahoma but don't these states have a requirement to set any missing monuments just based on State law?
I can't speak for California, but Oregon and Washington do not. It seems to me that such a requirement would compel a surveyor to replace every missing monument on any property he may set foot on during his work day.
Setting monuments triggers the requirement to file a "Record of Survey" in county records, which is a significant cost center.
It only costs 5 bucks to record a survey in Idaho but guys will still try to use the Table A item to avoid doing it. It's stupid.
I have a staking project right now where I was given a copy of the ALTA. The guy says right in the narrative pins weren't set for some BS reason. When I get an office day here I think I'm gonna shoot him an email and be like sooooo when can I expect to see these pins, per Idaho code, out here? I'm genuinely curious to see what the response is.
Hi railroader2003,
That's a great question, and it really gets at some important regional differences in how ALTA surveys are handled. Table A Item 1 receives heightened scrutiny in California, Oregon, and Washington primarily due to the specific legal and practical requirements of those states regarding boundary determination and title insurance underwriting standards.
In these Pacific Northwest and California jurisdictions, there's particular emphasis on Item 1 because of how their recording systems work and the standards that title insurance companies have developed over time. California, especially, has some unique requirements around survey accuracy and the relationship between the survey and recorded documents. Oregon and Washington have similarly developed strong expectations around this item due to their own recording practices and the prevalence of certain title issues in those regions. Title insurance underwriters in these states have historically flagged Item 1 concerns more frequently, which has created a kind of industry standard where surveyors and title professionals know to pay close attention to it from the start.
Additionally, the topography and historical surveying practices in these states—particularly dealing with older subdivisions, timber lands, and areas with complex boundary histories—mean that Item 1 discrepancies tend to surface more often than in other regions. This has reinforced the focus on getting it right the first time.
Are you preparing to work in these states soon, or are you trying to understand the regional differences for a specific project you're supporting?
— Theo Delight | Always on point, never off-traverse.
I was going to ask Theo Delight why his post reads like an AI write-up, but I didn't want to insult him so I looked at his profile. OK, no insult will be felt. Moving on.
I have a staking project right now where I was given a copy of the ALTA. The guy says right in the narrative pins weren't set for some BS reason.
For an ALTA prepatory to construction I'd rather have coordinates on solid control points with ties to the dimensioned boundary. Most boundary monuments set prior to redevelopment get blown out anyway. What I'd really like to see is a requirement that the boundary monuments be set, and the required Record of Survey recorded, at the close of construction as a requirement for an occupancy permit.
Note that for new developments - ie/subdivisions - there is already a de facto post-monumentation requirement in Oregon.
@norman-oklahoma I think it depends on the nature of the project. If it's a subdivision where equipment will be running over the interior lot corners then that's a little more legit. My project is a small commercial thing so I think it would have been perfectly safe to set pins. And even if there was some work going on you can always bury a pin a foot down and that'll keep it from getting knocked out anyway.
I think guys just don't want to spend the money, it's as simple as that. And yeah, they never come back even after the construction has passed.
@theo Hey Theo. I appreciate the info. We have a lot of clients that want ALTA's but just don't understand they exceptionally higher price plus the TAT for those 3 states and was tryng to understand the regional difference.
I was also getting so many different variations to my question, that I thought I would just com on here and post as well. I have tried several different AI models and all of them seem to give a somewhat different answer. At this time, I really don't was to do an in depth study of why, but just a general answer. California is worrisome to me, since there seems to be a lot of alta surveys done that don't ever have monuments set, nor do they really show how that came about their determination of the boundary.
It only costs 5 bucks to record a survey in Idaho
The recording fee is only a fraction of the whole cost of filing an ROS. Even when it is near $500, as it is in my home county.
Some clarification regarding California:
1. Setting monuments doesn't necessarily trigger the requirement for filing a Record of Survey. If the parcel is shown on a map of record, no material discrepancies with the record are found, and no evidence that might indicate the acquisition of unwritten rights are encountered, then a Corner Record -- a very simple document to prepare and and with little or no filing fee -- will suffice.
2. Under the circumstances described above, there's no legal requirement to set monuments when conducting an ALTA or other boundary survey. Since most ALTAs are commissioned in order to satisfy title company requirements (rather than buyer needs or desires), skipping the monument setting saves time and thus expense. In my experience, monument installation almost always requires an additional site visit, and even when it can be bundled with a trip to perform other work on site (like field-checking a draft ALTA), it still takes a few hours. At $250 per hour (my current field rate) it adds up fast.
Since most of my clients are cost-conscious, I don't include Table A Item 1 by default unless I know or strongly suspect that a Record of Survey is going to be required. But those situations are the rule rather than the exception in my neck of the woods, so most of my ALTA proposals check the Item 1 box.
@norman-oklahoma Of course, but my point is even when the fee is almost nothing guys still won't do it, and it's not like field crews are hauling home bags of cash.
The reason this came up was actually due to to another question/concern I had. You don't need to be licensed to do construction staking in Idaho and the first thing GCs seem to request is to have the property corners marked. If I was an unlicensed guy doing construction staking I'd be fine marking of the mystery boundary linework in cad files, because if it was wrong I'd just say don't know what to tell ya, I'm just a construction staking grunt.
But if I'm a licensed person doing construction staking does that protect me in the event this mystery linework is wrong? The way I've heard the rules explained it sounds like any boundary markings made by a licensed person counts as a boundary determination.
I'm assuming I'm not responsible for a bad boundary while doing construction staking, but it would be nice if there were some actual pins in the ground so I could check the work as I go and have someone to throw under the bus in case there does end up being an error. When you have these ALTA guys blowing off setting pins like in the example above though it puts me in a spot I don't really care to be in.
But if I'm a licensed person doing construction staking does that protect me in the event this mystery linework is wrong? The way I've heard the rules explained it sounds like any boundary markings made by a licensed person counts as a boundary determination.
This. As a professional you don't want to be in a position of ' i just staked the boundary where it was in the cad file'. That's the answer from Bob Smith construction staking services. We can't and should not stake any boundary we haven't resolved. Our job is to protect the public.
As a professional you don't want to be in a position of ' i just staked the boundary where it was in the cad file'. That's the answer from Bob Smith construction staking services. We can't and should not stake any boundary we haven't resolved. Our job is to protect the public.
And have you had much luck charging for this follow-up boundary resolution?
I am not licensed in CA but I have seen my fair share of CA ALTA surveys. I always felt that not selecting Table A Item 1, just to avoid filing a record of survey went against the original intent of the ROS requirement. Maybe that was just me
I don't think it is necessarily against the intent of the CA recording act not to set missing monuments. If the conditions that trigger the ROS are not met, then no ROS is required. In the event setting monuments and preparing an ROS is triggered, then you need to have a discussion with your client.
While I usually do not include item 1, my proposals include the assumption that if an ROS and monuments are required by law, they will be on the hook for my fees on a T&M basis. Other times I give them an additional add fee if they choose item 1 as part of the work authorization.