"Unless there is something in City code to support this ..."?ÿ
For the purpose of compliance with zoning code the area exclusive of right of way is used. It may be different in other places, IDK. But I don't think so. It also makes a difference for allowable above ground intrusions (upper floor balconies, eaves, signs, awnings, etc.) into the right of way.?ÿ
This is an issue that confuses municipalities all across the country. In Portland's case, unfortunately, it appears they are right.
This pertains to Washington state, but may be similar where you are:
typical county right of ways are not owned in fee simple, and therefore are not complete ownership, but fall just shy of ownership. A county right of way is often considered a ??super-easement? where underlying owner does not pay taxes on the land, or has any remaining rights to the land EXCEPT right of reversion.?ÿ
Honestly, this legal interpretation creates as many problems as it fixes, and particularly creates a mess when put in the hands of those with a poor grasp of the law. In practical aspects, the right of way is owned by the county, but in legal terms, right of way often remain easements.
As far as surveying, I would Certainly exclude the lands encumbered by right of way, as you wouldn??t be damaging your clients claim in ownership Post-vacation by doing so.
This is how it is in most of the country, but there always are exceptions.
There is more to the underlying fee ownership than the right of reversion though, for example; mineral rights, the right to cut and collect timber, the right to pick berries, the right to kick out people trying to camp, ect.
"I felt that it was transferring an easement only, they insisted that it was right of way."
A Right of Way is an easement!
Yes, a right of way is (usually) an easement. But rights of way and easements are not exactly the same things.