Yes, $350 would be a pretty standard price for a mortgage inspection "survey" or mortgage location report or whatever you want to call it. But it's really just a retracing of the original survey and accomplishes nothing, except to satisfy the terms of purchase. IMHO, they are pretty scammy and shouldn't be allowed.
I wasn't trying to imply that the first map posted wasn't a true survey. It appears to be the original plat.
Joanie, post: 381397, member: 11920 wrote: Thank you again for all of your wisdom and advice on land surveys. My husband is anxious to read all of your responses (he worked all day today). I know the laws vary from state to state, and I did brief myself yesterday by reading what the surveyor's responsibilities are by law in the Commonwealth of VA, and I don't feel they've been met in our situation.
You all have definitely helped to lead us in the direction of contacting our own surveyor. Now I just need to find a way to get the builder to pay for it. Somebody messed up here, and we want them to be held responsible. We are also going to consult a lawyer who specializes in this field and who was referred by our realtor. We should get a lot of questions answered about our legal rights during that consult.
This forum was such a great starting point. I am grateful to all of you who took time out of your Friday night and Saturday to weigh in on the situation. I appreciate all of your responses. If you're interested, I can keep you informed of what happens going forward. There are definitely some mysteries that will be uncovered!
Hope everyone has a great night!
If it were me, I would hold off on an attorney for now. This is a question of location, a survey issue, not a legal one.
I can see how this would be frustrating, and would not seem fair that you are the ones that have to deal with this, but at the same time, I'm not sure that much of any damage has been done yet. Just for speaking, even if the line does turn out to be 1 foot closer than you thought, these newly planted trees would still be on your property, you wouldn't be completely "losing them" as you mentioned, but we don't yet even know that this is the case. And, if the purpose of hiring an attorney is to recoup the cost of your own survey, this may turn out to be a losing proposition as attorney's fees can add up pretty quick:)
roger_LS, post: 381409, member: 11550 wrote: If it were me, I would hold off on an attorney for now. This is a question of location, a survey issue, not a legal one.
I can see how this would be frustrating, and would not seem fair that you are the ones that have to deal with this, but at the same time, I'm not sure that much of any damage has been done yet. Just for speaking, even if the line does turn out to be 1 foot closer than you thought, these newly planted trees would still be on your property, you wouldn't be completely "losing them" as you mentioned, but we don't yet even know that this is the case. And, if the purpose of hiring an attorney is to recoup the cost of your own survey, this may turn out to be a losing proposition as attorney's fees can add up pretty quick:)
I agree
I want to see the neighbor's plat.
But, i have seen, and heard statements, from surveyors, like "its just for the planning commission, so it just has to be right in concept, we'll fix it later, after field work".
Anyway, lets see this next plat....
roger_LS, post: 381409, member: 11550 wrote: If it were me, I would hold off on an attorney for now. This is a question of location, a survey issue, not a legal one.
And, if the purpose of hiring an attorney is to recoup the cost of your own survey, this may turn out to be a losing proposition as attorney's fees can add up pretty quick.
Yes, Step One is to hire a reputable forensic surveyor to actually figure out what the situation really is, i.e. where the various surveyors' markers are in relation to the common lot line as shown upon the record plat, and to advise their client as to (a) who is wrong, (b) what the most practical remedy will be. This will cost much less than hiring an attorney and will have a much greater likelihood of bringing things to a conclusion.
It is a safe bet that one of the recent surveys made for the adjoining landowners is incorrect, but it may well be that both are, which is why an outside expert surveyor is the best option.
joanie:
I also agree with roger_LS. I would further suggest contacting the original surveyor, the one that platted and laid out the subdivision for the first time, (if he or she is still in business), and have them not only mark your corners, but stake the line in question. Since they are the original surveyor, they would know what control points were used and whether or not they are still in place and they would have all the calculated information already. Generally speaking, since they are the ones that first laid out the lots, where they first put those markers is where the boundary lines are, unless VA law differs significantly from the rest of the country. In short, the original surveyor should be the "authority" of where your corners are and from what I've read on this thread it appears it would be most cost effective for you to hire the original surveyor and be done with it.
HTH,
Kent McMillan, post: 381416, member: 3 wrote: Yes, Step One is to hire a reputable forensic surveyor to actually figure out what the situation really is, i.e. where the various surveyors' markers are in relation to the common lot line as shown upon the record plat, and to advise their client as to (a) who is wrong, (b) what the most practical remedy will be. This will cost much less than hiring an attorney and will have a much greater likelihood of bringing things to a conclusion.
It is a safe bet that one of the recent surveys made for the adjoining landowners is incorrect, but it may well be that both are, which is why an outside expert surveyor is the best option.
This is where I (being a young surveyor always still learning) gets much confused.
I always get the feeling through various posts that the 2nd surveyor should just accept the rod set by the first. I have always argued though, if it's in a real old subdivision and the rod is new, maybe even set the day before, why do I now yield to a rod that could have been set by a worthless mortgage survey. I'm not saying when I don't agree by an inch or two, but when I feel it may be wrong by 6, 8" or more...and now my measured survey distance will be 49.2' or 50.8' and by definition that Rod has been 'controlling' in my survey, which probably should not be the case.
If we are to 'accept' monuments previously set, to suggest that a 3rd surveyor might come in and say BOTH are wrong and make a 3rd "correct" position does nothing more than do what we hate most, create a pincushion.
And in this situation the route which is 'correct' (hiring a 3rd surveyor) seems to be no more than what most surveyors are blamed to be doing wrong in the first place.
That being said, after speaking to both surveyors, they should be able to talk to each other and maybe one has more or better evidence than the other and this can easily be hashed out. If not, then I do agree a 3rd surveyor may be needed to come in and get another outside opinion.
If anyone wants to look this up, it's in Frederick County, Virginia - near Winchester.
The Frederick County GIS tax map parcel number is 55-L-2-5-156
The address is 138 Merlot Drive
Joanie,
I've been looking at this thread for a few days and thought that I'd finally jump in. I am licensed and practice in Virginia, but have NEVER once set up my instrument north of Roanoke County or City, so I have nothing... ZERO to do with any of these plats. AND, I won't be part of any litigation, I just won't. I think you're somewhere up along the I-66 corridor or maybe Rte. 7 (maybe Loudoun County), but I'm not sure. That being said, here's what I think has happened.
First, the subdivision plat (or neighborhood plat).
This is a fairly common looking plat for my area/region/state/commonwealth. The solid balls at the corners are not called out individually because somewhere in the notes there is probably a generalized note stating "(size?) Iron (Rod/Pipe) Set at all lot corners, PC's/PT's, Points of Street Deflection, unless otherwise noted". The "0.5' S/W easement " is a new one on me, but like a previous poster said, it very likely a sidewalk. S/W is probably shown in the notes. These are small lots. I just dealt with this recently in my town. A A/E/S design company did a whole subdivision, and probably set all of their lot monumentation BEFORE all of the utilities and drainage structures were in place. Well, developers don't like to pay for stuff twice, and (probably) in both of these situations, the monuments were put in, and the dirt movers couldn't avoid hitting ALL of them trying to shoehorn in everything that has to go into the easement. But then, most, if not all of the front corners are lost. The locality (at least here doesn't) doesn't make anybody go back and make sure that the lot corners are in place when the soil and utility and drainage structures are done being installed. No locality that I know of makes anybody set centerline PC/PT/Intersection monuments after asphalt has been laid either... NONE. So, now you have a great looking paper survey, where things may have been put into the ground perfect at the outset, but nothing remains after because the developer is cheap, the design firm bid low and the locality has no standards in place to make sure things are done RIGHT and stuff is in the ground in the end. And this is before the first house it built.
Now, what is probably happening, or while this is going on, the developer is selling lots to contractors, or may be one themself and is having the design firm come back and set foundation stakes for individual lots. The design firm has secret (internal/non-published) traverse control to set everything by, but they've already set things once, why spend the time to set things again? Who's going to pay for it? So, they set what the contractor asks for: Foundations and stakes for fences on these postage stamp lots. And, that's what they'll get, but not much else. But anyway, let's move on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And now you have this thing:
I have no idea what this thing is. It looks like some sort of grading/topo plan that the community requires. These are not common in my area. This is not a real survey in my opinion. Notice the House Data (elevations), this is a vertical survey, not a horizontal one. Notice that there are no corners called out, it only refers to boundary information in the notes. "Building dimensions are for permit only", doesn't say it's an actual structure. The notes also seem to indicate that a third party (Clifford & Associates) also provided some information. Since the drafting style is different that the subdivision plat, I think it's still another firm involved. I took the time to look up Lavelle & Associates and they had this on their link:
"Offering the following professional land surveying services to the five state area (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, & Delaware).
ALTA / ACSM Land Title Surveys, As-Built Surveys, Boundary Surveys, Cell Tower Site Plans, Condominium Plats, Construction Stake-Out Surveys, Easement Plans,Existing Conditions Surveys,FAA 1-A & 2-C Survey Certifications, FEMA Elevation Certificates, FEMA Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA), GPS Surveying, Health Department Site Plans, Location Surveys, Metes and Bounds Descriptions, Mortgage Surveys, Photo-Topographic Surveys, Plats of Survey, Subdivision Plats, Wall Check Surveys"
And then they even have this special PAGE as a disclaimer for "LOCATION SURVEYS". I will tell you that Mortgage Loan Inspections/Drive-by's/ETC. are not legal in Virginia, but I'm not familiar with the practices of professionals in other areas of the Commonwealth. I will say that I don't know of ANYONE doing drive-by's in my area. We do "Physical Surveys" and they can be on the quick side, but, they are a real survey in my eyes.
Also, where somebody mentioned that they thought it was weird that all the lines on the smaller lot plats were exactly the same as the subdivision plat, that is SOP in all areas that I work. If irons and such are within certain (personal or local) tolerance, you just take it and go. I'm talking within a 0.1'å± or so. In fact, on our regs for "Physical Surveys" can be found here. Take special notice of this entry:
C. The plat reflecting the work product shall be drawn to scale and shall show the following, unless requested otherwise by the client and so noted on the plat:
1. The bearings and distances for the boundaries and the area of the lot or parcel of land shall be shown in accordance with record data, unless a current, new land boundary survey has been performed in conjunction with the physical improvements survey. If needed to produce a closed polygon, the meander lines necessary to verify locations of streams, tidelands, lakes and swamps shall be shown. All bearings shall be shown in a clockwise direction, unless otherwise indicated.
A lot of surveyors, including me, will find a way to make is all fit within tolerance. It promotes harmony in the neighborhood. Does it always happen? NO, but it's best to try.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, on to this last thing:
This thing is THREADBARE, and I'll leave it at that.
Now, as to the issue of the planted pines, be happy that they are 1' off at a minimum. Next thing is to try to deal with your neighbor as calmly and friendly as you can. I don't think you need a lawyer or real estate agent at this point. You need a surveyor that will work with you AND your neighbor to find out what the true status of the property lines are. DON'T start flinging bad words and insults and threats around, you might need them in the near future.
Find a surveyor that you both trust (that might take a couple of tries), and it might be the original subdivision surveyor (see below) . Explain to the surveyor your concerns. Show him this message board thread. BE STRAIGHT UP WITH THEM! Because, once you find out what the actual situation is, you and your neighbor can assess what's next. They can build the fence, you can do what you need to do with your pine trees, etc. But, you might need to adjust a property line, in which case you'll need your neighbor to agree. At that point a lawyer might need to be consulted for a deed, but maybe not until then.
Original Subdivision Surveyor explanation: I mention the original surveyor, because maybe they have some of that super secret hidden control that they can work off of, but, maybe not. But, you need to know if there also might be two sets of corners in the ground or sidewalk. I probably should have inserted that earlier. If there are two sets of marks on the sidewalk, then yes, another surveyor might need to be found. T
There's no real good answers here at this point. BUT, THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!!! Good Luck!!
~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, as an aside, here's what one of my "Physical Survey" plats looks like for comparative reasons. I called it a "Plat Of Survey" because I had to call a line different that what was of record on the subdivision plat, because the S/D plat did't close mathematically. I did find all of the lot corners, so from that aspect, it was a slam dunk.
Rich., post: 381421, member: 10450 wrote: This is where I (being a young surveyor always still learning) gets much confused.
I always get the feeling through various posts that the 2nd surveyor should just accept the rod set by the first. I have always argued though, if it's in a real old subdivision and the rod is new, maybe even set the day before, why do I now yield to a rod that could have been set by a worthless mortgage survey. I'm not saying when I don't agree by an inch or two, but when I feel it may be wrong by 6, 8" or more...and now my measured survey distance will be 49.2' or 50.8' and by definition that Rod has been 'controlling' in my survey, which probably should not be the case.
If we are to 'accept' monuments previously set, to suggest that a 3rd surveyor might come in and say BOTH are wrong and make a 3rd "correct" position does nothing more than do what we hate most, create a pincushion.
And in this situation the route which is 'correct' (hiring a 3rd surveyor) seems to be no more than what most surveyors are blamed to be doing wrong in the first place.
That being said, after speaking to both surveyors, they should be able to talk to each other and maybe one has more or better evidence than the other and this can easily be hashed out. If not, then I do agree a 3rd surveyor may be needed to come in and get another outside opinion.
Well, to begin with there are a number of missing facts that really only a survey expert in that jurisdiction would be able to easily answer. The obvious first question is whether the dark circles on the subdivision plat represent markers set in the course of the survey that the plat represents. If the lot was marked upon the ground at the time of platting and both of the adjoining lots were sold by reference to that plat, then one would think that the natural question would be where the common boundary as originally located (i.e. at the time of platting) was.
I'd ordinarily assume that the construction of streets and sidewalks followed the recordation of the plat, but I'm unfamiliar with the practices of the jurisdiction. If my assumption is good, though, that means that the present "+" marks on the sidewalk are merely replacements of the original lot corner stakes and so are subject to review as to correctness. That is, neither "+" mark is an original monument shown upon record subdivision plat. I would assume that original monuments do exist somewhere nearby, however, from which the positions in which the common lot corners were originally marked can be determined with relative certainty.
On the other hand, if the subdivision plat was nearly entirely protracted on paper, then another set of facts comes into play. If a lot has been improved and presented to a purchaser in a grossly erroneous position (an error of a foot in a small lot subdivision is a gross error), then the questions include whether the same person or entity owned the adjoining lots to either side of the erroneously located lot and what the basis in equity for claiming that the erroneous position was equitably established might be. That boils down to what the cost of fixing the mistake would be - what is gained and what is lost, and by whom?
In short, the real reason to hire a forensic surveyor is to discover what the evidence really means and to give advice as to what should be done to resolve the dispute that exists.
I find it rather ironic how this thread follows the ethics discussion about sharing the results of surveys, which morph'd into a discussion of the virtues of recording.
And setting pins for a mortgage survey!! What are we talking about there? What is the difference between a mortgage survey where pins are set and a boundary survey which also shows improvement locations? Is there, in fact, a difference?
Kent McMillan, post: 381427, member: 3 wrote: Well, to begin with there are a number of missing facts that really only a survey expert in that jurisdiction would be able to easily answer. The obvious first question is whether the dark circles on the subdivision plat represent markers set in the course of the survey that the plat represents. If the lot was marked upon the ground at the time of platting and both of the adjoining lots were sold by reference to that plat, then one would think that the natural question would be where the common boundary as originally located (i.e. at the time of platting) was.
I'd ordinarily assume that the construction of streets and sidewalks followed the recordation of the plat, but I'm unfamiliar with the practices of the jurisdiction. If my assumption is good, though, that means that the present "+" marks on the sidewalk are merely replacements of the original lot corner stakes and so are subject to review as to correctness. That is, neither "+" mark is an original monument shown upon record subdivision plat. I would assume that original monuments do exist somewhere nearby, however, from which the positions in which the common lot corners were originally marked can be determined with relative certainty.
On the other hand, if the subdivision plat was nearly entirely protracted on paper, then another set of facts comes into play. If a lot has been improved and presented to a purchaser in a grossly erroneous position (an error of a foot in a small lot subdivision is a gross error), then the questions include whether the same person or entity owned the adjoining lots to either side of the erroneously located lot and what the basis in equity for claiming that the erroneous position was equitably established might be. That boils down to what the cost of fixing the mistake would be - what is gained and what is lost, and by whom?
In short, the real reason to hire a forensic surveyor is to discover what the evidence really means and to give advice as to what should be done to resolve the dispute that exists.
Thanks Kent. Makes sense to me
I'm ASSUMING (just assuming) the plat is all protracted lines. We will hopefully find out bc this is getting interesting.
Around here all plats are protracted. Maybe an old old subdivision at one time was layed out at the time, but all newer ones are all protracted bc there is no local laws saying they must be all set at the time, and no developer wants to pay for the corners to all be set.
I'm also assuming this may be the case here since it's only 6 years later and no corners still existed at the time the 'mortgage survey' was performed and all corners had to be set. I would think a single corner would have survived 9 years if they had been set during the subdivision.
I'm betting the far exterior corners of the subdivision are the only "original" corners. Also agree that someone has the super secret control points from which everything can be laid out. Lackadaisical requirements for subdivision creation and similar nonexistent checks create havoc. Big money for one company only. This is not in the best interest of the public and should be corrected by those responsible.
My husband went out this morning and found two sets of pins in the back of our lot and found the same for our two neighbors' lots to the right of us. There are the ones that were set originally and the new ones set in June from the new surveyor, which are both 8" to the left of the originals. This affects everyone's lots on our street, as well as our neighbor's behind us. We still cannot find any pins in the front, only the original sidewalk etch on both front corners and now the new etch marks 9" to the left.
roger_LS, post: 381409, member: 11550 wrote: If it were me, I would hold off on an attorney for now. This is a question of location, a survey issue, not a legal one.
I can see how this would be frustrating, and would not seem fair that you are the ones that have to deal with this, but at the same time, I'm not sure that much of any damage has been done yet. Just for speaking, even if the line does turn out to be 1 foot closer than you thought, these newly planted trees would still be on your property, you wouldn't be completely "losing them" as you mentioned, but we don't yet even know that this is the case. And, if the purpose of hiring an attorney is to recoup the cost of your own survey, this may turn out to be a losing proposition as attorney's fees can add up pretty quick:)
We are consulting with an attorney to find out answers to questions that only an attorney can answer. We are not hiring him...yet. If this comes down to unethical, illegal practices on the part of the builder or his surveyor, then we will consider hiring him. Our neighbors and their neighbors to the right, and everyone to the right of them (as well as our back neighbors) could potentially be affected by the latest surveyor who set new pins in the backs of our lots.
Joanie, post: 381434, member: 11920 wrote: My husband went out this morning and found two sets of pins in the back of our lot and found the same for our two neighbors' lots to the right of us. There are the ones that were set originally and the new ones set in June from the new surveyor, which are both 8" to the left of the originals. This affects everyone's lots on our street, as well as our neighbor's behind us. We still cannot find any pins in the front, only the original sidewalk etch on both front corners and now the new etch marks 9" to the left.
If there are two sets of corners, then there are at least two opinions on where the original subdivision was established. I agree with Kent, that a real expert should get out there and try to resolve the issue. It would be awesome if an HOA or large group of owners could get together and share the cost of unravelling the worms in your can of worms. (don't look any further or you might find three or four sets of corners.)
Joanie, post: 381434, member: 11920 wrote: My husband went out this morning and found two sets of pins in the back of our lot and found the same for our two neighbors' lots to the right of us. There are the ones that were set originally and the new ones set in June from the new surveyor, which are both 8" to the left of the originals. This affects everyone's lots on our street, as well as our neighbor's behind us. We still cannot find any pins in the front, only the original sidewalk etch on both front corners and now the new etch marks 9" to the left.
Are the cross cuts roughly a 1/2 foot from the sidewalk edge. It maybe the IRS and the sidewalk was constructed over them. You need to hire a surveyor to get this conflict of monumentation resolved. Beware, an attorney may just start a hostile confrontation vs. another attorney. Two surveys disagreeing with each other is nothing new.
Tom Adams, post: 381438, member: 7285 wrote: If there are two sets of corners, then there are at least two opinions on where the original subdivision was established. I agree with Kent, that a real expert should get out there and try to resolve the issue. It would be awesome if an HOA or large group of owners could get together and share the cost of unravelling the worms in your can of worms. (don't look any further or you might find three or four sets of corners.)
And, in particular, a survey expert needs to get out there to DOCUMENT conditions as they presently exist. Once cages get rattled, it would not be outside the realm of possibility that some of the markers would be REMOVED by some interested party.
The big problem I see here is that Joanie wants to be compensated, and only wants free advice... she does not sound likeshe is really interested in solving the problems.
No offense Joanie.
Unfortunately it is a situation we all deal with.
Ring ring goes the phone again.
Joanie, post: 381437, member: 11920 wrote: We are consulting with an attorney to find out answers to questions that only an attorney can answer. We are not hiring him...yet. If this comes down to unethical, illegal practices on the part of the builder or his surveyor, then we will consider hiring him. Our neighbors and their neighbors to the right, and everyone to the right of them (as well as our back neighbors) could potentially be affected by the latest surveyor who set new pins in the backs of our lots.
I'm not sure what those questions would be that only an attorney could answer, none have been brought up here. Without being too disparaging towards attorneys, there are many excellent ones out there, I will say this; if you are talking to someone who is not encouraging you to immediately contact a surveyor, take caution, they are either incompetent in real property law or ethical as they are not attempting to solve a problem but just churning things up.
It is great that your husband found monuments, but my advice still stands, hire a surveyor!
