I did not do the survey. I have not seen the survey. I was only asked the following:
?ÿ
Would you have shown the fence post??ÿ
Would you have called out the apparent encroachment?
Is it an encroachment?
?ÿ
The inquirer wishes that the ALTA survey didn't show the possible encroachment.?ÿ
Old broken down fence, and a large corporate buyer. The seller cannot believe that this fence post is holding things up, and he was looking to see if I could provide him with my professional opinion that this was not an encroachment. That is beyond my expertise. I only provide the evidence on that one.?ÿ
Thought it might be an interesting topic.
I answered "Yes" "Yes" and "Not for me to say"
The inquirer wishes that the ALTA survey didn't show the possible encroachment.
It's out of their hands. From the current 2021 standards, section 5(C)(ii):
The fieldwork shall include the following:
...the character and location of all walls, buildings, fences, and other improvements within five feet of each side of the boundary lines observed in the process of conducting the fieldwork...
I answered "Yes" "Yes" and "Not for me to say"
I will not use the word encroach on any survey. It's not up to me to determine whether something is an encroachment, or even label it as a "possible encroachment". At what point is something like a fence line an encroachment? Within that five feet denoted above? One foot? Five hundredths? Who built that fence anyways? Why label it as an encroachment on the subject side, but not as an encroachment on the adjoiner?
If we point to a certain feature as being a "potential encroachment" but not others, for instance due to an arbitrary dimension distance or depending on what side it's on, that could be construed as expressing an opinion.
Sure, it's not likely, but there is nothing in the standards that say we have to do anything other than show those features. Just putting the e-word on an ALTA can trigger all sorts of angst.
There's always a review process with ALTAs. Let the attorneys, who get paid a lot more than us, do their review, make that determination and then fight it out if there's an issue.
Sounds contentious.?ÿ Saying as little as possible without obvious omission seems prudent.?ÿ
By "call out apparent encroachment", I meant to annotate the distance off the pline.?ÿ
It is interesting that many are asking for a list of encroachments now. That has always caused me a bit of a problem, for the reasons you described.
BTW that is exactly the question he asked me, "At what point is something like a fence line an encroachment?"
I do not determine that. I basically didn't have an answer.
?ÿ
Agreed, dimensioning a feature is perfectly adequate to call attention to it. I just wasn't sure if the ALTA had that text on it, in my experience we could be sticking our neck out there with a note like that...
ALTAs are weird - surveyor responsibilities are spelled out in great detail, there is an established method for adding any additional items, and yet tend to get more strange and/or legally questionable requests than other survey types. In the mid-2000s I did a lot of them, and back then we used to get the most outrageous certifications that the banks wanted us to use, with enough language to fill a 8.5x11 page single-spaced. I still like doing them, but they're a different beast.
Well, I definitely wouldn't remove the fence from the drawing.?ÿ Dimensioning between the fence and boundary seems appropriate, so maybe at each end and at the 0.3' spot.?ÿ Agree with eliminating encroachment talk.
That fence looks generally along the line to me.
encroachment is a legal term- ain't my job to say what one is.?ÿ how the hell do i know who owns a fence, or a wall, or a dumpster??ÿ lawyers can call it an encroachment if they want.?ÿ i'll happily call an improvement constructed on or over a line a protrusion, but you couldn't pay me enough to decide what constitutes an encroachment.
That was my first comment. I cant quite get my head around the concern over the 0.3 foot "encroachment", but the buyer gets to care about what they want to care about.?ÿ
Yup an ALTA is an existing conditions survey concerning physical features with no warranty as to their effects on the boundary or ownership.?ÿ What I disliked about them is sometimes the client demands us to warranty underground invisible features, easement/prescriptive rights, access and setback strictures not of record,?ÿ et. al.?ÿ Sorry, I'll not do that.
They're essentially done for banks who are mortgaging commercial property and want no surprises concerning valuation.?ÿ If I find significant discrepancies in the boundary record in the field I'll back off and say an ROS has to be filed before the ALTA work which is typically over triple the price of the ALTA.?ÿ Most banks will acquiesce because if mortgaging a multimillion dollar commercial site?ÿ the ROS costs are peanuts to nail down the boundary and transfer that liability to the surveyor.
That being said back in the 80's our main breadwinner was ALTAs, bing-bang-boom survey the boundary, do a accurate structures topo on the property and collect the dough.?ÿ Since they're not of record your liability is limited to the requestor, not the public.?ÿ Could be it's different nowadays though.
I cant quite get my head around the concern over the 0.3 foot "encroachment"
It isn't the 0.3' feet that gets them, it's the use of the word "encroachment". If it was 0.0003' it would be all the same.
I will not use the word "encroachment" on an ALTA Survey. I will label things "Point of Interest" or something similar. Let somebody else decide it those things are encroachments or not. Things that are over the line aren't necessarily encroachments. In this case who is to say which property the fence is over the line into??ÿ?ÿ
I would not consider 0.3' of a post in a fence that is not particularly straight and is probably 0.5' wide to be a significant thing. Probably I could find another point on that same post that is clear of the line. Show me the case law where somebody made a successful claim on a 0.3' wide by a few few feet long triangle of occupation and maybe I'll change my mind.?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
Even way back before I ever heard of an ALTA survey it was policy to show the fences.
But not decide if they encroached.
Show them, label the dimensions from the line. That's all. Which is plenty.?ÿ
Be careful with words you use.?ÿ?ÿ
I haven't seen the survey, but I do not think that anyone called it an "encroachment" on the survey. I am not sure where it came from. It does have a notation of distance, from what I understand.
?ÿ
And what you said is almost exactly what I said to start off. But, the question remained as to whether there was any possibility of a surveyor somewhere being willing to say it WASNT an encroachment. I am pretty sure the answer is "No".
Encroachment is NOT A DISTANCE. It is the status of being somewhere that interferes with somebody elses right without aurhority.
I can build a barn in the middle of your field and not be encroaching on you. If you don't put in the work to find out if it belongs there you cannot call it an encroachment.?ÿ
Saw an ALTA today for 240 acres of cattle pasture with county roads on two sides.?ÿ A couple of 100 year old sheds, a few ponds, some standing water locations and fences.?ÿ Fence lines with adjoiners were shown to be from four feet outside the property boundary to about?ÿ six feet inside the property boundary (Statement on plat, not a few thousands check shots showing in and out)?ÿ I don't recall seeing anything about the width of the county road ROW's anywhere and whether or not fences were over those lines.?ÿ No buried utilities because there are no buried utilities on that farm land, not even a rural water district line.
It's one of my issues with ALTA's.?ÿ It's supposedly a collaboration between ALTA and NSPS, but yet I always feel like someone's trying to slip something past me, or trying to get me to commit to, or say something, or certify to something that relieves another party of responsibility while shifting it and the liability to me.
Maybe I'm just paranoid
You are correct, that's exactly what they are doing.?ÿ
I've related this before, one of my first ALTA surveys was requested by an out of town insurer. They insisted that I put a statement on the plat about building codes.?ÿ
I refused, even with my limited experience I knew that wasn't a legitimate statement to sign off on.?ÿ
Then they told me that:
1.Other surveyors are fine with it.
2.We have lots of work coming up in the area.
#1 was probably BS, #2 was clearly BS.
?ÿ
Years later chatting with an engineer who does some rough road design for Federal crossings.
One of the last items to finish the projects is he needs to sign off on the road that it was built to his designs.
I asked him what he says and he always says no, the road was not built to the design. Of course it wasn't, these roads are slope staked once and a dozer and blade finish from those stakes. It's not like a paved highway or airport runway. More of an eyeball construction process.
I asked what happens when they get that statement and he said nothing from what he could tell. He knows it's a way of transferring liability to him and he's not accepting it.?ÿ
?ÿ
yes, no, it??s not your call.
NEVER show the word encroachment on a survey unless you have documentation to substantiate the claim. ?????ÿ
If it's a broken down fence, and the buyer is a corporation, tell the seller the easiest thing to do would be to hook the post to his truck and pull it down.