Deed and map don't match

> Sigh...time for more digging..

I feel your pain,

yep, dig for & find the original monuments, for a good first step.

Do the lots adjoining match their description with the map? Have fun digging!

I forgot to mention...there were no pins set in this subdvision....the surveyor never got paid..

I'd be sure to check for a deed to a post-subdivision 20 foot strip coming into the chain of title but being only poorly referenced (i.e. by new dimensions) in the subsequent deeds.

Saw this in a deed the other day. It references an original city plat made in 1901.
Block on plat had lots 9-16, all 192x48, like this, 16' alley down the middle:

______________Oak St_____________
|______16______| |_____12_______|
|______15______| |_____11_______|
|______14______| |_____10_______|
|______13______| |_____ 9_______|

At some point the same owner bought all the lots, then sold off Lots 9 and 10. Statement in the deed says, since owner owns all the lots and desires that they all front on Oak street, he closes the alley, makes all the lots 192x50, all fronting on Oak St, Lot 9 on the east end and lot 16 on the west. Current deeds for 9 and 10 just say according to the original plat, with Lots 9 and 10 fronting on Oak St..

And that's why the deed don't match the map.

It is always a challenge to reconstruct an entire subdivision to be able to stake one lot.

Has always been hard for me to understand that something like that can be called a subdivision when no monuments were set.

Since it has been a subdivision that only on paper, you could be considered the original surveyor on site.

I remember having a similar project put on my desk back in the mid 70's. Client came to us having bought his land sight unseen from a group that was taking boundary surveys and producing paper subdivision and selling lots for $24 down and $24/month per 3 acre tract. He was wanting us to stake the corners of 3 tracts falling near the middle of a 300± acre subdivision. No roads, no corner monuments and the few that had been staked so far were along the north boundary which was a county road.

Days like that were meant for GPS and there was none in sight.

Was the plat officially recorded and were the streets dedicated?

Have any of the lots been resurveyed (or should I say surveyed) or even conveyed from the original owner?

Is the parcel you're surveying in the same subdivision or outside the subd. adjoining Lot 22 that lies on the perimeter of the subdivision? If the latter, is the perimeter of the subd. monumented? If so, I'm not saying you shouldn't care about the adjoiner's ambiguous description, but how would it affect the boundaries of the parcel you're surveying? Or am I completely thinking about it wrong?

As another colonial guy, the first thing I see is the six or eight. I'd rather be searching for .45 than 20.45. Hand drawn plans?(six looks like eight) Also, here in MA even the worst subs were tied into a county/state layout in someway, you had to re-survey the entire sub just for one lot, but that's what you had to do.

I caught my math error. The point remains.

Map is a recorded map in the town clerks office...
All streets are dedicated and accepted.

Steve,

This is my main concern.
According to the GIS...it reflects the subdivision map, and of course the engineer has already laid out a small 5 lot subdivision based on the GIS data.

If the deed is correct, it could turn into a 4 lot subdivision, which means a loss of about $200,000 for a lot...so its a big deal.

I don't know or have the answers yet, we just started the research..

Bob,

You should see the map...it looks like a 3rd grader did it....I take that back..its an insult to the third graders out there..

That's what I was wondering - whether the size of the Lot 22 adjoiner actually makes any difference as to the size of the parcel you're working on. Sounds like it does because the width of Lot 22 might define the line between it and you? Kind of hard for me to picture that situation where I work but I don't know how your parcel and the underlying deed description of the subdivision fit together.

I did get involved in a survey here in CA where a subdivision was recorded dividing a parcel that was a portion of a section and the subd map showed certain dimensions for lots but the lots were actually sold by aliquot descriptions that didn't match the lot dimensions. This was in the early days of our Subdivision Map Act when the procedure wasn't real well-defined. A mess, for sure, but since the outside boundary of the subdivision was not in question, a survey for a parcel adjoining the subdivision would not be affected by the interior problems within the subd.

I just read your post again and I don't get the GIS factor. Around here, the GIS's that I've seen just show some kind of guess as to the area and location of parcels. I've had several calls from property owners that somehow have found the County GIS website and are in a panic because their property lines are going through their house. I've talked myself out of some jobs when I tell them that the GIS is the least reliable resource available for relating physical features to property lines. Google Earth and the little ruler function are far more useful in the areas I work in.

Sorry Steve...The GIS data is taken from the subdivision map, the GIS data and the map agree to the hundredth..that subdivison was on file in the clerks office.

So the engineer took the GIS data, and did a preliminary design based on the GIS data (subdivision map). However, since that GIS data is based on the subdivision map, the new 5 lot subdivision we are laying out conflicts with the adjoiners deed description.

So if I hold the adjoiners deed description we end up with approximately 20x300 (6000 sq. ft) less than what we thought we had....so we lose a lot..