Does Right of Way have the "Right of Way"?

This ought to be good.

Great question, and I expect to see a lot of discussion.

If I am proportioning across a right of way, and have one of the monuments at right of way, I will hold the right of way distance and proportion the excess or deficiency into the lots. However, I virtually never have that scenario.

I generally re-establish the right-of-way in a town much the way you describe, and hold the existing lines/right-of-way marks. If I have "right-of-way" monuments on either side of the road, I hold them (as long as I deem them acceptable).

It is extremely common, however, for many surveyors to get their best-fit right-of-way lines, and calculate the centerline and then hold that right-of-way width. This is a major difference.

In my opinion, if I work with existing right-of-way monuments for a certain stretch of highway and create a best-fit 100 foot strip, then next surveyor or the next time I come through with an overlapping sampling of where the evidence I examin is, my 100 foot strip will have "moved" from the last one. whereas if I hold monuments as much as possible, my right-of-way line might jog through the monuments but it stays relatively fixed and can be retraced.

Still, this is a matter of opinion of which many surveyors disagree.

Tom

It largely depends on who you are following. In one local city, the primary surveyor for many years tended to go with your plan. Street widths vary based on how he arrived at the dimension of the lots in adjoining blocks. You need to follow his work or chaos will rapidly ensue.

In a different city, a large area was platted but early development was focused only near the center. Hence, you start with monuments from the earliest days and work outward toward more recent work. This results in sizeable excesses and deficiencies at the far outer edges of the original platted area. So be it. Nearly perfect measures of everything until you hit the outer limits.

In a couple of other cities, no early surveys have been found. Hence, a county surveyor many years after the plat filing determined the outer boundary then prorated everything (including streets and alleys) to arrive at the "correct" dimesions of everything. Follow those dimensions and everyone will remain happy.

These local anomalies are why I so frequently stress the need for people to only hire local surveyors for boundary surveys. Joe Blow from Kalamazoo doesn't have a clue.

Depends on how the streets were originally mapped, doesn't it?

In Manhattan, the Commissioners Map laid out all the streets. The City owns them in fee.

Generally, the platted width of a street or avenue is held, and any shortage or excess is prorated into the block. The City Surveyors call this "Block Standard" (i.e., 100.00 feet U.S. Standard = 100.025 feet Local Standard).

Due to a variety of circumstances, each block can have a different standard, and the standards within a block may be different in the N-S and E-W directions.

This is also the case in the outer boroughs, with some exceptions. For example, in Queens, if a street is double monumented (i.e., has City monuments running along both sides) then it means that the platted width does not hold, and you cannot cross the street to determine boundary lines. This occurs whenever the original survey crews threw their errors (mapping was done at 1:20,000 at best in those days) into streets bordering the areas they were responsible for laying out.

I suspect that a ROW dedicated to the public by implication or any other means provide protection to the public for the full original width. I have seen it both ways and no-one I know has been called on it, but my preference is that no adverse claims can be made against the public. Guess it would depend on local practice, the lower court and a higher court if the decision was appealed. Bet plenty of Case Law can be found defending both.
jud

I have come across the slight discrepencies between blocks all the time over the years- personally, I end up holding the monuments that I find and accept -I could be out there tying in the world trying to get a flat 60' ROW...

Normally I would say hold the full width of the ROW and place the excess or deficiency in the private areas of the block. I was a solid student on this until one day I came upon the following situation:

In a small town one subdivision was placed south of the 1/16 section line and went south 660'. The street on the south side (3rd Street) of this subdivision was platted as 66.00'. Then another subdivision was placed north of the 1/4 section line and went 660' north toward the south side of the first subdivision. The plat for this second subdivision showed the same street (3rd Street) as 66.00'.

Surveyors have been holding the 66.00' for years and placing the excess and deficiency in the subdivisions to the north and south. I determined that the road width was never actually measured between the two subdivisions that came from different directions. If you hold the block lengths the street is actually 67.35' on the west end and tapers to nearly 70' on the east end. By doing this, everything in the subdivsions work.

Jerry,
That is a good example of what you can run into in the particular area I used as an example. The culprit R/W (shown as 60' on both plats) actually tapers from 61' to about 47' and some change.

When one actually restores the 'footsteps' of the original layout the R/W gets what it gets.

In Massachusetts the R/W width holds.

When I sat for my interview with the BOR to apply to take the tests, I was asked how I would handle a survey where a state highway went through the property and the monuments didnt fit the state layout for width and the curves weren't tangent. I sat there in a cold sweat and finally said I just didn't know. I might ask a state highway engineer what to do or I might tell my client the worst case solution. I was sure I was done but they passed me.

Here in the VI there are no highway layouts. Anything goes.

Jud,
Is finding the original roadway monuemnts reported to be set @ 60' and you measuring them at 59.7' adversely possessing highway right-of-way? Or are you finding the original 60' at which the highway was laid out?

I understand what you are saying, but I believe there is a point where you accept the boundaries as laid out and accepted for years. what if an eighty-year-old building is encroaching onto your highway that you say holds no matter what? Isn't that building itself, good evidence as to where that side of the roadway once was?

Well,

I hate to answer a question with a question ....But....

Which came first the lots or the road?

Where I am, the subdivision is approved, laid out, lots are sold, roads are built.

And once the road is finally built to town standards, then and only then are the road accepted by the town.

So which came first.

I hold the lots.

My $0.02

Jim in NH

Paden, that is a great example. I can imagine surveyors giving the street the full 60' and prorating the 13' deficiency into the lots. I often spend more time at the courthouse on some surveys, but I sleep well.

I need to know more about these 2 subs. Is the north line of the 1st sub the 1/16 line? And, is the south line of the 1st sub the north, center or south line of 3rd st?

In Texas most rows are not owned by the public in fee but are in fact an easement of a specified width. If a lot was found to be 6 feet short of the platted dimension would you prorate a 10' utility esmt. to match the actual lot dimension? The same principle should be applied to right of ways if it is platted at 60 feet wide it needs to be held at 60 feet.

In this area, it actually depends upon the town or city where the roads are located.

A very few have well established and defined information of size and width for streets and blocks.

Most are a drawing void of any dimensions and drawn on such a small piece of paper that scaled amounts are mostly a guess.

One town is in varas, the next is in feet and block size is different in most every area.

In nearly every town there is at least one street that does not fall within its own r/w.

Most towns have different width streets and roads across their limits. A main entry road may be 80ft or 1 chain. A neighborhood street could be 1/2 chain or 10 varas or 12 varas.

It really is a nightmare in some of the original townships.

I usually work within one block at a time and the width of the streets yield to block size and shape.

A few areas will practically stake just as they are on their map as to square corners, road widths and lot sizes. The trick in those places is noting which blocks have alleys and which ones do not. For some reason it usually work out best when average chaining expectations are used and accepted.

The r/w line is coincident with the block line. They are both defined by monuments, not by paper, or by dimensions written on paper.

If in 1841 the blocks were staked with wooden posts, then those were block corners, and if it was 49' between the blocks instead of 50', the horses pulling their carts would not freak out, as neither would the men.

If those original blocks today are perpetuated by building corners, then the area between the blocks is known as "the street".

Like most Surveyors I was taught that the R/W width holds.

But I think that is an erroneous teaching.

It may be true if there is no other evidence of the blocks other than the centerline PIs but if the blocks are monumented on the R/W then the R/W is just like any other lot. It has a record and measured width which are not necessarily equal.

Generally I treat boundaries that have been in long use as the same as original. I worked on a boundary recently that has 3 versions (1 about 900 feet distant and two using the same theory but coming up with two different measurements of the boundary about 15' apart). I used the newest which is the subject of a 1972 settlement of boundary litigation. I could come up with yet another version of that boundary but holy heck batman, it's time to just use the current version of the boundary and dammit quit changing the answer.

There are two basic principles that apply.

First, the public cannot take more land that what is needed for the public use, 'dimensions' are irrelevant.

Second, the rules of evidence state that, if the remeasured distance differs from the record by half the least significant digit, the record is deemed correct but the remeasured value is used by the judge. For instance, if the R/W is recorded as '3 rods', the acceptable value falls between 41.25' and 49.5' and a '4 rod' road can be anywhere between 578.75' and 66'.

In cities or developed areas, the width is whatever it is between zero lot line improvements or whatever is left after the front setback dimension that applied when the improvement was constructed is measured from the improvement toward the road.

We cannot do our work in a way that imposes different requirements than the dimensions that were required for the building permit. If an improvement is in place and there is no claimed 'encroachment', we cannot 'create' a bogus 'encroachment'.

Richard Schaut

A Rod Is Not A Significant Figure

Possibly back in the day when an actual rod was used, but later rods had 25 links as the significant figure.

I believe R.S. is streching the concept, however he is free to cite some case law to that effect.

As an aside Richard you might want to check your math.

Following your logic, what would be the allowable error on a 2.5 rod road?

Paul in PA