So this guy emails me he wants me to give him a quote for an ALTA survey on a 4 acre industrial site. I emailed him back the 21 optional items listed in table A for him to check the items he wanted. He emailed me back just now that no items from table A are wanted. Too bad Indiana has minimum requirements. I could just send a blank paper with the invoice.
rensberger, post: 368362, member: 8002 wrote: So this guy emails me he wants me to give him a quote for an ALTA survey on a 4 acre industrial site. I emailed him back the 21 optional items listed in table A for him to check the items he wanted. He emailed me back just now that no items from table A are wanted. Too bad Indiana has minimum requirements. I could just send a blank paper with the invoice.
I've had many requests for Min Standards ALTA and generally someone down the chain needs some optional Table A added. The min standards per Section 5 actually do involve a substantial amount of work. Most clients think they will be cheap though with a Min. Stds., as the requirement to get the ALTA may only be a Checkbox in some closing documents.
Some of the Table A items are required to meet minimum state mapping standards. At least in NC they are.
The vast majority we do have no additional items.
We just include the items we did in the course of field work, which as said is actually a fair amount of work.
rensberger, post: 368362, member: 8002 wrote: Too bad Indiana has minimum requirements. I could just send a blank paper with the invoice.
Why waste paper? Just send the invoice. That way the paper actually has something on it.
Even without any table a items, there is a significant amount of work contained within the main body of the Alta standards. Additionally, (and this becomes more explicit in the 2016 standards), your state laws MUST be met, regardless of what the Alta calls out.
For example, Washington state considers a map delineating boundaries to be a boundary survey. So irregardless of table a, a surveyor is required to find, and or set corners, and very likely will be required to file a seperate record of survey.
summerprophet, post: 368487, member: 8874 wrote:
For example, Washington state considers a map delineating boundaries to be a boundary survey. So irregardless of table a, a surveyor is required to find, and or set corners, and very likely will be required to file a seperate record of survey.
Why would you need to set corners? There is no requirement for corners to be set simply because a map was created with boundary.
There are many times when the client has specific reasons for not wanting the corners set. Especially if it is for a pending sale, and they are not the owner, there can be multiple reasons to not set the corners.
In WA state, (don't care about the rest, but...flame on) what law demands that the surveyor set corners because a boundary is on a piece of paper? Is it less valuable because it has no bounds set, and no recorded survey, yes, I suppose.
But, assuming that the surveyor met the minimum standards, including ties to physical existing monuments, what law compells the setting of monuments?
My ignorance is pretty large, so I am open to learn...
rensberger, post: 368362, member: 8002 wrote: Too bad Indiana has minimum requirements. I could just send a blank paper with the invoice.
So all that other stuff in the ALTA/NSPS standards is also optional?
Jered McGrath PLS, post: 368373, member: 794 wrote: I've had many requests for Min Standards ALTA and generally someone down the chain needs some optional Table A added. The min standards per Section 5 actually do involve a substantial amount of work. Most clients think they will be cheap though with a Min. Stds., as the requirement to get the ALTA may only be a Checkbox in some closing documents.
"Down the chain" is the key point. It's very unlikely that the client is ordering an ALTA survey for his own use.
I've found it's always best to ask who the survey is for (usually a lender), and then contact them directly and ask for their survey requirements, and any certification language that they call for, in writing. Tell the client that you need to talk to the lender in order to give him an accurate quote.
The first two or three people you talk to at the lender's office probably won't know where the survey requirements/certification are, or even that they exist. That's normal. But they do exist. Once you have them in your hand, you'll know what the real scope of work is. If there is a lender's certification with liability traps in it (very common), you can deal with it ahead of time and explain what you can and can't certify to. That is also best done in writing.
summerprophet, post: 368487, member: 8874 wrote: ....irregardless of table a, a surveyor is required to find, and or set corners, and very likely will be required to file a seperate record of survey.
so, is "irregardless" the opposite of "regardless"? (okay, sorry, I like to police the spelling before Holy Cow finds it)
Dang it! Late again!
I would then fill out the Table "A" to make clear what I am providing. One person's opinion of a "Standard Survey" item may not be mine. Clearly stating what is included and exclude is the best way to prevent misunderstandings. Also in my state, all corners must be set on all surveys.
Don't worry, they will ask for half of them a day before the closing.
dmyhill, post: 368489, member: 1137 wrote: Why would you need to set corners? There is no requirement for corners to be set simply because a map was created with boundary.
There are many times when the client has specific reasons for not wanting the corners set. Especially if it is for a pending sale, and they are not the owner, there can be multiple reasons to not set the corners.
In WA state, (don't care about the rest, but...flame on) what law demands that the surveyor set corners because a boundary is on a piece of paper?
My ignorance is pretty large, so I am open to learn...
In order for a PLS to place the boundaries on a piece of paper, the boundaries must determined or retraced and a PLS is obligated to follow the guidelines of RCW: 58.09.040.
Basically, if you are a PLS, and show boundaries on a professional product, you are responsible for monumenting the boundaries in a reasonable fashion. In the event you set corners in the monumenting process, you would be required to file a record of survey.
If you doubt me, toss an email to Curt Sumner with NSPS. That is who confirmed it with me.
summerprophet, post: 368632, member: 8874 wrote: In order for a PLS to place the boundaries on a piece of paper, the boundaries must determined or retraced and a PLS is obligated to follow the guidelines of RCW: 58.09.040.
Thank you.
This is a long and active discussion in WA, and I am not real sure why there isn't a class on it taught by a member of the BOR every single year at the conference...but as you know the question lies in what "is" is.
From the AG Opinion
AGO 1989 No. 1 - Jan 20 1989
[INDENT]The answer to your question depends on what is meant by "reestablishment . . . of a corner" in RCW 58.09.040(1). The purpose of RCW 58.09.090(1)(c) seems to be to avoid unnecessary duplication in filing records of survey. If the survey is done in connection with a map to be recorded under a local subdivision or platting law, then it is exempt from filing. Also, if the [[Orig. Op. Page 8]] survey simply uses corners that appear on a map already filed under a local subdivision or platting law, then it does not need to be filed. However, when the surveyor does not simply go from the corners on a previously filed subdivision or plat map but instead "reestablishes" the corner, then the record of the survey must be filed. "Reestablish", as we view it, means to redetermine the location of the corner according to sound principles of land surveying. It may be that the corner turns out to be at the same location as on the previously filed subdivision map or plat, but so long as the surveyor makes a conscious redetermination of the location of the corner, the record of survey must be filed pursuant to RCW 58.09.040(1).
Our conclusion is supported by RCW 58.09.010, which states that the purpose of chapter 58.09 RCW is "to provide a method for preserving evidence of land surveys . . . ." Presumably, if the corner had to be reestablished, then is was not sufficiently well monumented, the existence of the previously filed subdivision map or plat notwithstanding, and the record of survey should be filed.[/INDENT]
If you put the line on the paper where the plat has it, are you establishing a corner? It depends on what a "corner" is to that surveyor. I would guess, from my experience in discussing this, that WA surveyors are about 50-50 on this.
Here is another one, from the Pages of the Spring 2013 BOR publication:
[INDENT]
Question: If a plat states that all corners of lots and/
or blocks have been set, but for either reasons of site
development or an outright lie by the engineer or
surveyor of record, no corners are found, does a record
of survey need to be filed if new corners are set from
Continues next page 9
The Courts Say
What
existing controlling monumentation that agrees with
the plat dimensions within +/- 0.05 feet and there are no
visible incursions on parcel lines?
Answer: YES. Since the scenario presents conditions
that would be answered by the following provisions of
the SRA
[/INDENT]
All perfectly clear, right? But why doesn't the answer take the opportunity to address what happens if no corners are set? If it is just a paper boundary...
And this...it makes no reference at all to the marking of corners at all.
[INDENT=1]RCW 58.09.090
When record of survey not required.[/INDENT]
[INDENT=2]
(1) A record of survey is not required of any survey:[/INDENT]
[INDENT=2](d) When it is a retracement or resurvey of boundaries of platted lots, tracts, or parcels shown on a filed or recorded and surveyed subdivision plat or filed or recorded and surveyed short subdivision plat in which monuments have been set to mark all corners of the block or street centerline intersections, provided that no discrepancy is found as compared to said recorded information or information revealed on other subsequent public survey map records, such as a record of survey or city or county engineer's map. If a discrepancy is found, that discrepancy must be clearly shown on the face of the required new record of survey. For purposes of this exemption, the term discrepancy shall include:[/INDENT]
