Be cautious working for the seller. The seller wants to sell the car "as is where is" and so having to "package" it (meaning survey it) seems like an imposition to them. Naturally, they will want off the stick cheap.
I warn the seller that I'll probably have to come back. The seller says, let's wait till they ask for it. They will nickel and dime you to death.
I used to do it.
If I needed car parts. There were 3 auto parts places in town. If I needed a list of parts, I'd call all 3 stores, with my list, and get prices. But the cheapest for each item.
Starter store 1
Alternator store 2
Brakes store 3
Gasket set store 1
Wheel bearings store 3
They try the same with us.
Round one, cheapest.
Round two, barely a bit more.
Money is tight. Squeezing pennies. It's a way of life, for people who "work other people, not themselves".
A Harris, post: 368655, member: 81 wrote: IMVHO, a licensed surveyor can not release a product less than the minimum requirement that your state's BOR requires.
:plumbbob:
ALTA Surveys are usually only for Financing. You must comply with the Higher Law. "just do what the Banksters ask, trust me, everything is gonna be fine"
[MEDIA=youtube]qn_dTv-PDXc[/MEDIA]
Nate The Surveyor, post: 368700, member: 291 wrote: Be cautious working for the seller. The seller wants to sell the car "as is where is" and so having to "package" it (meaning survey it) seems like an imposition to them. Naturally, they will want off the stick cheap.
I warn the seller that I'll probably have to come back. The seller says, let's wait till they ask for it. They will nickel and dime you to death.
I used to do it.
If I needed car parts. There were 3 auto parts places in town. If I needed a list of parts, I'd call all 3 stores, with my list, and get prices. But the cheapest for each item.
Starter store 1
Alternator store 2
Brakes store 3
Gasket set store 1
Wheel bearings store 3
They try the same with us.
Round one, cheapest.
Round two, barely a bit more.
Money is tight. Squeezing pennies. It's a way of life, for people who "work other people, not themselves".
When a potential client starts treating me like an auto parts supplier, we're done talking.
I usually spell out in my emails which items are automatically included in my initial quote (either by law or because I want them there) ... Then ask if they want more added.
I have given up bidding on ALTA's for the most part, bunch of wasted time. They seem to be the most shopped around surveys out there, no one cares about quality of work, professionalism, just price. I think surveyors overall do them way too cheap!
roger_LS, post: 369017, member: 11550 wrote: I have given up bidding on ALTA's for the most part, bunch of wasted time. They seem to be the most shopped around surveys out there, no one cares about quality of work, professionalism, just price. I think surveyors overall do them way too cheap!
This would be unacceptable in our line of work. Even if zero money was made on an ALTA, it is part of the larger process through which we are walking with our client. As we move from feasibility on raw ground to the final fully built product, an ALTA or many ALTA's are needed by a client. Telling my client to find another surveyor would likely result in them finding another surveyor for the whole project. Also, when a client goes to buy a parcel to develop an ALTA is often the first product that they request, meaning that it is our first step on the process. If another surveyor does that work, why wouldn't they simply use that surveyor for the whole project?
Daniel Ralph, post: 368682, member: 8817 wrote: I agree that there may not be an explicit law requiring us to set lot corners. However, if I create a map, ALTA/NSPS type or otherwise, that includes dimensions from lot lines to a wall, building, fence, etc. than I am in fact monumenting the lot line. I don't have to set corners, just locate improvements within 5' of the lot line. I don't buy that my client gets a choice in the matter of recording it no more than they get a say in what I put on it. They are not going to defend me before my peers, the board or in court.
I don't know about others here in the other Washington but the "preliminary" nature of a survey has bitten me more than once. I stake the boundary, create a preliminary plat that gets approved and then its sold and Brand X is doing the final plat. I am no longer on the payroll but am I compelled to file a map? This most recently happened with a property that I worked on in 2006.
I've said it before; I record most everything, its good business and the right thing to do.
I agree. That being said, no matter what you read here, the industry standard is to rarely record an ALTA survey. You find them in every title report, and they are almost never recorded.
There are multiple reasons for this, not least of which is that the formating of a record of survey is strictly controlled, and what is needed for an ALTA often does not conform to that standard. So, while a ROS might be recorded, the ALTA almost never is, from what I see. So, strictly speaking, I can't remember seeing an actual ALTA survey recorded in this state. There should be an associated ROS, which may be referenced in the ALTA, but what you see as the final ALTA product is generally not recorded, because it can't be (and shouldn't be) recorded in most cases.
Again, I am open to learning on this.
dmyhill, post: 372726, member: 1137 wrote: This would be unacceptable in our line of work. Even if zero money was made on an ALTA, it is part of the larger process through which we are walking with our client. As we move from feasibility on raw ground to the final fully built product, an ALTA or many ALTA's are needed by a client. Telling my client to find another surveyor would likely result in them finding another surveyor for the whole project. Also, when a client goes to buy a parcel to develop an ALTA is often the first product that they request, meaning that it is our first step on the process. If another surveyor does that work, why wouldn't they simply use that surveyor for the whole project?
Been there, done that. At one point I was totally inundated, it was not possible for me to perform... we hired another reputable local firm to do 95% of the work, with me in actual "responsible charge" (California definition) and made the client happy.
dmyhill, post: 372728, member: 1137 wrote: I agree. That being said, no matter what you read here, the industry standard is to rarely record an ALTA survey. You find them in every title report, and they are almost never recorded.
There are multiple reasons for this, not least of which is that the formating of a record of survey is strictly controlled, and what is needed for an ALTA often does not conform to that standard. So, while a ROS might be recorded, the ALTA almost never is, from what I see. So, strictly speaking, I can't remember seeing an actual ALTA survey recorded in this state. There should be an associated ROS, which may be referenced in the ALTA, but what you see as the final ALTA product is generally not recorded, because it can't be (and shouldn't be) recorded in most cases.
Again, I am open to learning on this.
agreed. Most of the actual ALTA data has no place on a Record of Survey (topo, title data, ALTA statements, etc.).
however, State Law controls, so filing a Record of Survey with the required elements is the way to go... but only IF you have triggered the RoS requirement.
dmyhill, post: 372728, member: 1137 wrote: I agree. That being said, no matter what you read here, the industry standard is to rarely record an ALTA survey. You find them in every title report, and they are almost never recorded.
There are multiple reasons for this, not least of which is that the formating of a record of survey is strictly controlled, and what is needed for an ALTA often does not conform to that standard. So, while a ROS might be recorded, the ALTA almost never is, from what I see. So, strictly speaking, I can't remember seeing an actual ALTA survey recorded in this state. There should be an associated ROS, which may be referenced in the ALTA, but what you see as the final ALTA product is generally not recorded, because it can't be (and shouldn't be) recorded in most cases.
Again, I am open to learning on this.
dmyhill, while I understand where you are coming from, I respectively disagree with your statement that it is "industry standard". A "standard of practice" by its very definition cannot be contradictory to the laws which govern the practice in that jurisdiction. Maybe it is more accurate to state that "it is common practice in our area to fail to comply with the jurisdictional requirements when providing ALTA services."
Also, while I don't disagree with you (and Peter Ehlert) that some aspects of what is required to prepare an ALTA survey map don't belong on a recorded survey map, I tend to look at these situations a little different. Whether the end result is an ALTA survey map or a Record of Survey or both, the simple fact is...that the surveyor is performing a boundary survey. And based on the client's request, that boundary survey may need to be reported in accordance with ALTA requirements. And based on local jurisdictional laws, that boundary survey may need to be reported in accordance with mandated Record of Survey filing requirements...and that surveyor may additionally be required by jurisdictional laws to set/find enough controlling monuments to allow that boundary survey to be retraced. The ALTA requirements are not about the survey, its about how to report the survey so the client's needs are met.
dmyhill, post: 372728, member: 1137 wrote: I agree. That being said, no matter what you read here, the industry standard is to rarely record an ALTA survey. You find them in every title report, and they are almost never recorded.
You are right in that we don't see many recorded ALTA type surveys. I for one create a separate record of survey for the boundary only and any other issues that may affect it. In many many cases the ALTA type survey would not meet recording standard; too small of font, color, and shading/hatching not to mention the fact that I don't like putting them out there for others to bother me with. Think about it, most everything on an ALTA type of survey will change over time, except the boundary. That is the only thing that I want recorded for ever. CAD is a wonderful thing if we use it. Creating a separate document for recording only takes an hour or so if you know what you want on it.
I'm scratching my head on this one: There are places where it's required to file an ALTA survey?
If it's required why don't they get filed?
It certainly isn't required here.
MightyMoe, post: 372754, member: 700 wrote: I'm scratching my head on this one: There are places where it's required to file an ALTA survey?
If it's required why don't they get filed?
It certainly isn't required here.
Part of the confusion is differing reads of the same laws and standards.
While the ALTA standards do not state 'you have to do a boundary survey', it is not possible to meet other explicit standards without doing one. Any other read is (IMO) grossly disingenuous and unprofessional.
All of the States i am licensed in require recording in some circumstances. None require me to record the actual ALTA and I never do. If any triggers have been met, I develop a record of survey as I'm drafting the ALTA.
dmyhill, post: 372728, member: 1137 wrote: I agree. That being said, no matter what you read here, the industry standard is to rarely record an ALTA survey. You find them in every title report, and they are almost never recorded.
There are multiple reasons for this, not least of which is that the formating of a record of survey is strictly controlled, and what is needed for an ALTA often does not conform to that standard. So, while a ROS might be recorded, the ALTA almost never is, from what I see. So, strictly speaking, I can't remember seeing an actual ALTA survey recorded in this state. There should be an associated ROS, which may be referenced in the ALTA, but what you see as the final ALTA product is generally not recorded, because it can't be (and shouldn't be) recorded in most cases.
Again, I am open to learning on this.
In my State an ALTA IS a Boundary Survey. As a matter of fact, any ALTA is a Boundary Survey, anywhere, anytime. I set my ALTA drawings up using layering standards so that I just have to freeze and thaw certain layers to produce a Record of Survey map, which I then record. Takes about 15 minutes
Jim in AZ, post: 372770, member: 249 wrote: In my State an ALTA IS a Boundary Survey
Colorado's board has also equated an ALTA Survey as a Boundary Survey and thus if the property the survey is done on meets the requirements for recording (subdivided more than 20 years prior to the time of survey) everyone just records the ALTA as it was delivered to the Client. Our public records are an even mix of Land Survey Plats and ALTA Surveys. I don't see a problem recording a survey that contains more information than is the particular State's minimum requirements for a Boundary Survey/Record of Survey/Land Survey Plat. I'm happy when doing research and run across a recorded ALTA on a property in the vicinity of where I'll be working.
How could an ALTA not be a Boundary Survey? Are they not for the specific purpose of obtaining Title Insurance? Are there States where an ALTA can not be recorded? What is on an ALTA that should not be on a recorded plat?
Jim in AZ, post: 372770, member: 249 wrote: In my State an ALTA IS a Boundary Survey. As a matter of fact, any ALTA is a Boundary Survey, anywhere, anytime. I set my ALTA drawings up using layering standards so that I just have to freeze and thaw certain layers to produce a Record of Survey map, which I then record. Takes about 15 minutes
Yes I would do the same, strip off the items on the ALTA that shouldn't be filed as a record of survey.
dmyhill, post: 372728, member: 1137 wrote: ....So, strictly speaking, I can't remember seeing an actual ALTA survey recorded in this state. There should be an associated ROS, which may be referenced in the ALTA, but what you see as the final ALTA product is generally not recorded...
I do not work in the area much anymore but there are a lot of ALTA Surveys recorded in the Tri-Cities area (don't remember which county). If I recall correctly, some of them presumably, identical to the ALTA just shrunk down to 18 x 24 with a 2" border on the left. And WITH the old school, long form, certificates on them, signed by the surveyor, including all the certify to parties.
ppm, post: 372794, member: 6808 wrote: I do not work in the area much anymore but there are a lot of ALTA Surveys recorded in the Tri-Cities area (don't remember which county). If I recall correctly, some of them presumably, identical to the ALTA just shrunk down to 18 x 24 with a 2" border on the left. And WITH the old school, long form, certificates on them, signed by the surveyor, including all the certify to parties.
Come to think of it, it may have been Yakima area. I used to work in both those areas 3 or 4 times a year, and would see ALTA's recorded a lot.
Jim in AZ, post: 372770, member: 249 wrote: In my State an ALTA IS a Boundary Survey. As a matter of fact, any ALTA is a Boundary Survey, anywhere, anytime. I set my ALTA drawings up using layering standards so that I just have to freeze and thaw certain layers to produce a Record of Survey map, which I then record. Takes about 15 minutes
I also do the same thing with the ALTA notes. I have a place for the address, flood zone, parking count (if any), etc...as well as general disclaimers.
Completing that list takes no more than 20 minutes and usually keeps you from getting questions a month later when you've already moved on to other projects.
dmyhill, post: 368489, member: 1137 wrote: But, assuming that the surveyor met the minimum standards, including ties to physical existing monuments, what law compells the setting of monuments?
I spent 8+ years surveying in King, Snohomish, and Pierce county and can count on one hand the number of times actual corner monumentation was ever set. The way it was explained to me - the Cased monuments in the intersection ARE what control the ROW lines, which in turn control the plat/lot lines. Anyone surveying the same lot will set up on the same mons to establish the centerlines/ROW lines - no individual lot corners needed.
As far as I know the county never kicked back an ALTA or ROS (SDOT is another matter entirely haha!)
Very, very few ALTA's find their way to the courthouse around here. However, many times the basic survey will be filed without all the gobbledygook that turns it into an ALTA.
Part of the issue is that the typical ALTA is drawn on a large sheet. Many courthouses do not want such large drawings unless they are something like a new subdivision with many lots and blocks. Letter size, legal size and (sometimes) ledger size are welcomed. Anything bigger is not desired. They will grudgingly take them but charge exorbitant fees to discourage such large plats.