Gap??

There is no gap. The intent of the subdivision would have been to your line (line between the stones). The side lines of the subdivision should extend to that line. The pins found at the rear of the subdivision would then just be on the side property lines and not on the corner.

Just my 0.02

Matt

> I was contacted by a friend who only gave me the info below. This is in Texas and I would like to see others opinions
>
> Gotta a question for you. We bought property 13 years ago which referenced a survey abstract line and the boundary of an adjacent subdivision (the plat also showed going to the survey abstract line and the pipeline easement that is along our boundary) as our property line in the description. Now we are selling a portion of it and the new survey says it is locating the subdivision rods for a road we need to tie into for access as 2.9 feet off of our property line (a gap). The surveyor says what likely happened is the subdivision surveyor back in 1977 didn't locate both stones of the survey abstract line (about 2+ miles apart) but now they located both of them and got the results that the old subdivision was set wrong.

The scenario that a surveyor in 1977 didn't make connection to distant corners of an original land grant, the line of which was the record boundary of the tract being subdivided, seems quite possible. What's the problem? If the true boundary of the tract subdivided follows the original survey (land grant) line, then ordinarily the lots would simply be understood to extend to meet the the true boundary, absent some other circumstance. The Texas case on point is Cantley v. Gulf Production Co.

If the plat and owners certificate call it the line i agree with extension. If not this may be a case where the original pins become angle points and each owner gets proportionate length of 'frontage' along the true line...

> I was contacted by a friend who only gave me the info below. This is in Texas and I would like to see others opinions
>
> Gotta a question for you. We bought property 13 years ago which referenced a survey abstract line and the boundary of an adjacent subdivision (the plat also showed going to the survey abstract line and the pipeline easement that is along our boundary) as our property line in the description. Now we are selling a portion of it and the new survey says it is locating the subdivision rods for a road we need to tie into for access as 2.9 feet off of our property line (a gap). The surveyor says what likely happened is the subdivision surveyor back in 1977 didn't locate both stones of the survey abstract line (about 2+ miles apart) but now they located both of them and got the results that the old subdivision was set wrong.

I just love a layman's synopses of a title abstract ... almost always goofy and sometimes just dead wrong.

1. The sub boundary is correct, maybe the monuments were not set on the boundary... just treat them as closing corners.
2. Your friend's line is coincident with the sub boundary, regardless of monuments. see above.

It might be possible to find proof that there was an intentional gap made between the properties, such as what we call a "spite strip" platted on sub maps out west, but I highly doubt it.

Your buddy needs to slap his surveyor around and get him to fix his work FAST... and demand he make a clear clarification of his errors to the potential buyer.
(have him suggest damages for screwing up or delaying the sale)

but I was wrong once

> If the plat and owners certificate call it the line i agree with extension. If not this may be a case where the original pins become angle points and each owner gets proportionate length of 'frontage' along the true line...

You really don't need any explicit statement like that on the plat. The idea is that the ordinary presumption is that a grantor did not intend to reserve a narrow, useless strip of land from a conveyance unless there is some definite statement to that effect in the writing.

As for how to extend the sidelines to close on the true boundary, I think that prolongation has to win strictly on the grounds of practicality. The plat locates the side lines of the lots and prolongation (or shortening, in the case of a monument that ended up outside the boundary of the tract subdivided) is simple and direct. The intent of the plat was to lay out straight lines between the lots and prolongation preserves that element.

Any supposed equity in establishing new prorated corners on the true boundary and making angle points of varying sizes at the original boundary monuments erroneously shown on the plat as being on the subdivision boundary would be more than outweighed by the major confusion for negligible gain that would result. It might be convenient for a surveyor working on the adjacent tract just to consider the lot corners as falling at the same stations on the true line as the monuments found offset from the true line, but it's a disservice to the lot owners.

> I just love a layman's synopses of a title abstract ...

The word "abstract" in Texas surveying has at least two senses. In this case, it sounds as if the word refers to the original land grant, each of which is assigned an abstract number used to identify it. An example would be "Joe Doak Survey No. 5, Abstract 1532, Alamo County, Texas". "Abstract 1532" is more or less synonymous with the land grant from the Republic or State of Texas known as the Joe Doak Survey No. 5 and colloquially so are "abstract" and "land grant".

I agree absent explicit reservation no gap exists. On the matter of division I am not convinced. The method to employ is not driven by convenience. It is controlled by the manner in which the apparent gap was created. If the land were truly omitted (as determined by examination of the record) it is well beyond my authority to treat the lot corners as 'closing corners'. If the proper method of distribution can be determined that is what I would propose to the effected owners. If the record is unclear and the impact negligible I would consider alternative methods. In any event entering an agreement (including all effected owners) into the record is a must.
My .02, Tom

Some folk call this pincushioning, but not me.

:good: :good: :good:

> I agree absent explicit reservation no gap exists. On the matter of division I am not convinced. The method to employ is not driven by convenience. It is controlled by the manner in which the apparent gap was created. If the land were truly omitted (as determined by examination of the record) it is well beyond my authority to treat the lot corners as 'closing corners'.

"Omitted" is not the same as reserved. What in Texas is required is a clear statement of reservation of a narrow strip of land owned by the grantor adjoining a lot or tract conveyed. Just mistakenly omitting it would not be a clear reservation.

>If the proper method of distribution can be determined that is what I would propose to the effected owners.

In Texas, this wouldn't even rise to the level of serious question. In the case of a strip of land 2-3 ft. wide, the net difference in land area between prolonging the lot lines through the monuments and running lines directly from the monuments to the true boundaries on a course perpendicular to it, as I think you suggest, should be only a couple of square feet at most. Practicality far outways that negligible gain or supposed loss of equitable share and practicality is an equitable value.

> If the record is unclear and the impact negligible I would consider alternative methods. In any event entering an agreement (including all effected owners) into the record is a must.

In Texas, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that a boundary agreement was needed if the line between two parcels was not in dispute but merely failed to reach or exactly intersect the true boundary of a tract subdivided. That doesn't come close to a serious problem. The one exception would be for lakefront property, but that isn't what the OP described.

We are still in agreement there are differences between reserved and omitted. Had the original post stated 'perpendicular lot lines' as you added in this posting I would agree. The difference is negligible. Having run upon this more than a few times I can tell you it is rare to see all Lot lines run that way. Invariably there are lines coming in at various angles. As for square footage it still isn't much in a 2 to 3 foot strip. Where it does matter is planning.
Suppose I bought knowing my neighbor did not have enough width to put a road through next to me? Add a few feet now maybe he does. Flip that around. I had enough to access the other parcel, now I don't. Granted these aren't listed in the original post, but I have seen both.
Another issue is overlapping lines. A rear corner common to 3 Lots is not at all unusual. I suppose you can run that one perpendicular. Now you are mixing methods. Nothing invites scrutiny faster...
Perhaps local custom for you doesn't involve memorializing solutions in agreements. I cannot see a better way to maintain marketable title and prevent costly disputes. The alternative is to leave it up to the whims of whoever is looking at it to impose thier own solution...

>. Had the original post stated 'perpendicular lot lines' as you added in this posting I would agree. The difference is negligible. Having run upon this more than a few times I can tell you it is rare to see all Lot lines run that way.

Actually, prolonging the lot lines to reach the true boundary doesn't require that they be perpendicular. The solution that I understood you to be suggesting was locating points on the true boundary by proration of the dimensions between the corners shown on the plat and then connecting the platted corners to the prorated corners on the true boundary. For subdivision of nearly rectangular parent tracts, even though the lot lines ran all all sorts of skewed angles, that scheme would tend to produce closing courses very nearly perpendicular to the true boundary and introducing angle points of varying amounts.

> Invariably there are lines coming in at various angles. As for square footage it still isn't much in a 2 to 3 foot strip. Where it does matter is planning.
> Suppose I bought knowing my neighbor did not have enough width to put a road through next to me? Add a few feet now maybe he does.

> Flip that around. I had enough to access the other parcel, now I don't. Granted these aren't listed in the original post, but I have seen both.

If the lot was too narrow to make it into a road, it will still be too narrow to make into a road after extending the side lot lines. Only the dimension along the true boundary possibly changes. The dimension between the rear corners as shown upon the subdivision plat remains unaltered. All that happens is that the lot now includes a narrow strip of land at the rear that the plat neglected to show.

> Another issue is overlapping lines. A rear corner common to 3 Lots is not at all unusual. I suppose you can run that one perpendicular. Now you are mixing methods. Nothing invites scrutiny faster...

No, in that case, the rational solution would be to simply adopt the mean bearing of the lines that are to be extended to reach the true boundary. Each is then as nearly a prolongation as the other.

> Perhaps local custom for you doesn't involve memorializing solutions in agreements. I cannot see a better way to maintain marketable title and prevent costly disputes. The alternative is to leave it up to the whims of whoever is looking at it to impose thier own solution...

I don't think you've weighed how expensive it would be to get twenty lot owners and their lienholders to all sign off on some scheme for "distributing" a strip of land that conveyed with their lots. On a practical level, I'd consider it to be impossible unless there was some urgent necessity.

If a person wanted to memorialize the fact that his lot had been discovered to have different dimensions than those shown on the subdivision plat, in Texas two solutions come to mind. The most cost-effective is to prepare a metes and bounds description of the actual shape and location of the lot including the previously undisclosed strip with the idea that the corrected description might get used when the property is sold.

The textbook solution (in Texas) would be to file an amended plat of the lot depicting its true shape and location as determined by resurvey. The cost of that (in Austin) would be substantial and probably not in proportion to the benefit. Lenders and title insurers would probably need to be involved. On an 85' x 125' residential lot worth $350,000, an extra 1.5 ft. at the rear would probably be worth significantly less than $4000, less than the cost of preparing and filing an amended plat.

Gap?? - Wild Tax Sale Deed for Gap goes to court

Various Utah counties try to sell gaps every so often.

This one went all the way to the Utah Supreme Court which rejected it and the gap. There was even a survey done showing the "gap". But there isn't a gap.

Massey v. Griffiths, 131 P. 3d 243 - Utah: Court of Appeals 2005

Massey v. Griffiths, 152 P. 3d 312 - Utah: Supreme Court 2007

I think you grasp my proposed solution well. It is the preferred method of dividing omitted lands or vacated Rights-of-Way. As for the road I did not explain that well. Some Zoning Codes related to accessing tracts requires a minimum frontage. One of the considerations when buying a piece of land is 'what can my neighbor do'. Another is 'what can't he do'.

I've done these agreements more than once. I am in the middle of one right now. We aren't distributing the land. The owners are agreeing to honor a plan that resolves an ambiguity in ownership. In most municipalities where I work the Planners are receptive to recording a survey and agreement with no need for review. They recognize that no property is changing hands. The Assessor gets on board quick when they get to tax more acreage.

I never set foot in the office in Austin except to turn in notes and grab my check. You are obviously well versed in the laws and customs there. It does seem odd there would be no provision in law allowing owners to resolve ambiguity in the record without P&Z requiring a Subdivision. Perhaps we are spoiled more than I know...

> I think you grasp my proposed solution well. It is the preferred method of dividing omitted lands or vacated Rights-of-Way. As for the road I did not explain that well. Some Zoning Codes related to accessing tracts requires a minimum frontage. One of the considerations when buying a piece of land is 'what can my neighbor do'. Another is 'what can't he do'.

I suppose I don't see alteration of the lot frontage as a problem since in Central Texas practice, once the plat is approved and recorded the lots are legal lots for administrative purposes. By far the most common and likely scenario is one in which the subdivision boundary at the rear of the lots is found to differ significantly from that shown on the plat.

I trust that it goes without saying that if the lots are platted by mistake onto the adjacent property, no agreement with the adjacent owner is necessary to set boundary markers where the true boundary intersects the side lot lines. Prolonging the side lot lines to reach the boundary in the opposite case would be no different in that the rights of the adjoining owner are not determined by the mistaken plat, but by his own chain of title.

I'll post an example of a problem that I've mentioned before that is an extreme example, a case of a subdivision of a tract bounded by an elevation contour that got laid out into lots by a plat that showed the subdivision boundary in a postion that was in places more than 100 ft. from the elevation contour that was the true boundary of the tract subdivided. How to extend one particular lot line was the subject of a lawsuit and has some novel features.