Easement problems...

We did a survey a few weeks back. The neighbor was building a driveway on our clients property. I was finding old corners, and he asked what I was doing. Told him, showed him roughly where the line was, and his driveway was over. He said "but the GIS shows". I showed him the old survey, the markers I was recovering. He went and grabbed his Legal, it matched the old survey. The he used the But the GIS... I told him GIS isn't a survey, but for tax purposes, documenting utilities, etc. He heard nothing I said :but the GIS" was all he could say. He got on the phone with the city, and I continued finding corners. We came back a few days later and reset the corner by his driveway (most likely knocked out by the driveway construction crew). He was pleasant and said nothing. I'm guessing the city told him GIS isn't a survey, and he should have had one before construction.
Point being people think these photos or maps show their legal boundaries, and cause more problems than good in many cases. The Cities, counties, etc., need to put disclaimers that these maps don't represent what people own, but are just a rough idea. They are great tools if used correctly.

The article doesn't seem to tell what the terms of the easement were. I expected that unless it explicitly forbids constructing anything, it would be interpreted like the neighbor's agreement that whatever they put there could be removed as necessary to maintain the gas line.

Not sure what the debate is. He's encroached into the easement. He'll have to move his pool. End of story.

Bill,
I agree to some point but being from that area it is a standard agreement. If the ZA had required a survey then this mess could have been avoided. The improvements could have been tagged (for lack of better words) and the permit not issued. I have a good friend who has a pool that was installed and the ZA required a survey. He asked me about what he needed to do and I told him. This was in Va Bch.(neighboring city) My friend had to have the easement altered as to not encompass his pool. He went thru the pen strokes and the blessing of the grantee was given.

The problem is the city and their lack of understanding/experience with regards to the public servants who work for them.

Well, Craig D. was well and ably represented in the comments, but we've yet to hear from Justin M.:-)

Don

Agreed.

The parcels that I am going to survey tomorrow show as 2 lots, each 50' x 200', but the GIS shows each roughly as 50' x 178'. There have been no R/W conveyances to the town since the 1940's. The lady is an architect by schooling, but has another little business now. She is purchasing the lots for an investment, but needs the one lot with out a structure to be 10,000 sq ft to make zoning conformity.

All of this could have been averted if the town knew how to talk to residents and realize that the GIS is a tool if used correctly, and is not gospel.

Government getting involved in stuff..

Personally, I think it is the property owner's responsibility to know where his lines are and if any easements apply.

Why should the local governments be expected regulate these agreements between a landowner and an easement holder? It's none of their business and I don't my tax dollars involved and strikes my of a big government, nanny state concept.

Anyway, looks like you could move that aboveground pool in an afternoon with a couple buddies and a 30 pack.

Government getting involved in stuff..

the realtors need to better disclose these things

my neighbors had no idea that i had 3 individual easements over their property. once they bought their house, Joe approached me about modifying my parking easement because it causes his homeowners' insurance to be more expensive. they told me they had no idea about the easements until the closing. i'd move my driveway for the right price, but i'm not going to move it for free.

a major gas line should be marked at each lot line. people are idiots and a yellow pipe every hundred feet would remind them of their obligations.

Government getting involved in stuff..

Are you serious?? Realtors are some of the dumbest stumps out there! Not to mention the last to accept blame for anything.

Government getting involved in stuff..

But on the other hand, you'd also think (or wish) the entities benefitting from the use of the easement would be much more diligent in marking them and educating the public. The affected land owners especially.

Government getting involved in stuff..

In Oklahoma the recording of the instrument that created the easement is all the "constructive notice" that the dominant estate (easement 'user') needs to notify the public (or property owner) that the easement exists.

Our real property laws generally follow the doctrine of caveat emptor. To an attorney that means "let the buyer beware"...to us laymen that means "beware of body putty".

It is the buyer's responsibility to assure themselves of the feasibility of the property's use. Realtors, brokers and sellers could care less...they are not your friend.

Government getting involved in stuff..

I partially agree with amadeus. Not that all realtors as as dumb as stumps, but mainly that even if they're intelligent, it is there job to sell you a house. It is not in their best interest if they disclose anything that might harm them making the sell, as they don't get paid for their work unless they sell the house. Some might be "honest", but a buyer should never rely on the salesman over an expert in regards to the reliance of the product.

I think That every (LAND) deal should be required to have a survey. Only a professional who is expert in his particular area should be consulted and paid for his consultation. When you make the consultation contingent on a sale, it is in the best interest for the consultant to find facts that favor him getting paid. (not saying that someone in this position would, but the report doesn't have the appearance of being unbiased. Like surveying your own property prior to selling it.)

MC

Don....CraigD is my Pseudo-name...:)

Government getting involved in stuff..

YES! make every sale come with a survey - and not those phony baloney mortgage inspections that aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

Government getting involved in stuff..

Why should the local governments be expected regulate these agreements between a landowner and an easement holder?

Perry, I don't think it's an issue of governments regulating the agreement, it's about adopting a concept of when an improvement is made. To protect the public from a disaster like described here, the city should have required a current survey for specifically the improvements in mind.

This is where the "Value" of the survey can make a big difference. The city will likely be called upon to defend their permit process. Since I spent 45 years there I kinda know a little about the history of how the local governments work.

It's sad to see this kind of problem when it could have been solved by a land survey.

All the GIS's here carry disclaimers but that makes zero difference. People think that the county maps are correct regardless. I get calls all the time from people who believe the county is gospel. Last week it was from a homeowner who was going to move his house "on to" his lot because the GIS showed the property line through the middle of his house. He really didnt believe me that the GIS was wrong, until I pointed out that the road was also not within the lines of the roadway. Its a well established subdivision, and I have surveyed a few lots over, there is no problem, except the GIS.

Just

To protect the public from a disaster like described here, the city should have required a current survey for specifically the improvements in mind.

I would not call having to move a small aboveground pool a disaster.

Just. Moving the pool

Moving the pool is probably going to cost less than the survey would have set them back!

Just

Perhaps the land owner might well call it a disaster (yes poor words on my part and I am trying as hard as I can not to laugh) since he created the problem to begin with. He was made aware of the prob in 2010. He even stated that he was expecting a lawsuit. Well, he got it.

ur point well taken....:)