Hello,
I'm definitely not a professional surveyor, but I'm hoping that those of you who are can help me understand why a surveyor might have made a decision that's had a rather profound effect on the appearance of my block. In a nutshell, I'd like to know how a surveyor might derive a lot width measurement that differs from that on the original plat by 0.01 feet.
Some background:
In a lot on my block, a new house is under construction, to a height of just under 30 feet. It is a large, modern-style three-story house (the only three-story house the block), and will probably also be the largest house on the block. It replaces a small, one-story house that stood on the lot for the last 65 years. The lot on which it is being built is only about 30 feet wide. I say "about" because the true width of the lot is the crux of the matter. In my view (and that of my neighbors) the house that's being built is grossly out of proportion to the size of its lot.
When it was framed to its full height a few weeks ago, I was surprised that our zoning law allowed such a tall house to be built on such a narrow lot. So I checked the city zoning code and found that, for a 30-foot lot, the height limit is actually only 25 feet. In order to build to 30 feet high, the lot must be greater than 30 feet wide. Searching online, I obtained a copy of the deed, which contained the legal description of the property, which defines it as a specific numbered lot on a plat map from 1907.
I then obtained a copy of this plat from our county recorder's office. This is the original plat map from when this land was first added to the city and subdivided. The plat clearly indicates that this lot is defined to be exactly 30 feet wide. And in fact, all 19 lots on the block are also defined as 30 feet wide, except for the two at the north and south ends (the south lot is 40' and the north lot is 39.83'). So it seemed that the house being built was indeed violating the zoning code by exceeding the height limit for a 30-foot lot.
A neighbor happened to have a copy of the plans and loaned them to me. They showed the height of the building to be just under 30 feet and also contained a survey commissioned by the developer showing a lot width of 30.01'--just barely enough to allow a 30-foot building, which in turn would allow an entire third story. This surprised me, because the plat clearly defined the lot to be 30 feet wide, so it seemed that it must be in error. Since this lot was defined to be exactly 30 feet wide at the time of its creation, it seemed that any measurement that deviated from that must be in error, by definition.
I contacted the city zoning inspector with this information but was told that because the developer's survey showed a width exceeding 30' (even if by only 0.01'), they were in compliance with the city code, so there was no zoning violation.
Since then, I've done some research and found it's fairly common for surveyed measurements to deviate from those on the original plat--even by only 0.01'--though I don't understand why. This would make sense to me if the measurements on the plat did not add up, or did not match reality. For example, if the sum of the various component distances between two monuments did not equal the distance measured directly between those monuments, but that is not the case here.
Also, I understand that when an error is found, a surveyor may allocated the error proportionally across all lots on a block, prorating the allocated amount according to the percentage that each lot contributes to the entire length of the block. I've even seen examples of that online. But again, there seems to be no such error here.
Researching online, I was able to find 4 surveys of this block (include that on which the original plat was based), and they are all remarkably consistent in the length they assign to the east side of the plat (i.e. between the existing monument at the SE corner and a calculated "monument" at the NE corner), as follows:
1907 Survey: 655.83' (this is the original plat map)
1981 Survey: 655.82'
2007 Survey: 655.85'
2015 Survey: 655.82' (submitted by the developer with the plans for the new house for building permit)
As you can see, these measurements do not vary from each other by more than 0.03'. Thus, even if you needed to distribute an error amount by prorating a portion of it to each lot, there would not be enough to distribute to an individual lot to make up 0.01'. Since each original 30' lot made up about 5% of the total distance, if each lot got 0.01' of proration, that would mean a total of 0.19' of error would need to have been distributed. That's about 2.35 inches. But there is no evidence that so much error existed.
So where did this mysterious extra 0.01' come from?
Two more things:
1. The original plat map uses a single stone monument at the southeast corner of the plat as the basis for its north-south offsets. All measurements from this monument are given in whole feet: 33 feet from the monument to the start of the southeast lot, 40 feet for the southeast lot, and then 30 feet for each lot up to and including the lot in question. There was not then and is not now any monument at the northeast corner of the plat. Both the 2007 survey and the 2015 survey calculate where a monument "should" be, presumably by extrapolating from monuments at the two street intersections immediately to the east and west of the intersection missing its monument.
2. For some reason, the original plat map shows 655.71' as the distance of the east side of the plat, although the sum of the component distances on the plat actually adds up to 655.83'. This appears to be a totaling error, but even if it is, that would not mean there is any "extra" distance to apportion to the lots on the block, since the sum of the lots (and the distances from the end lots to the center of the street) do add up to the correct number.
I apologize if this is a lot of information, but I wanted to provide enough detail to explain the issue clearly. I realize that surveying is complex and there may very well be valid reasons for the addition of the extra 0.01 foot to the width of this lot. Hopefully someone can explain it. Also, I I tried to add links to PDFs of the relevant surveys, but it wouldn't let me. It said I needed three posts before adding links, in order to prevent spam.
Thank you in advance for any clarity or explanation anyone can provide!
There's a number of reasons a platted lot line could be shown on a survey as having different dimensions that the original plat. As surveyors we report the location of existing corner monuments and the distances we have actually measured between them. That is what we do.
The 'fly in the ointment' here in the case you've described is most corner pins that were set in years past with traditional mechanical measuring tools usually fall short of their platted distance. For example, a 1965 plat that shows 50.00' as lot width may very well only measure 49.98' between the pins. This was probably due to the fact it is far easier to measure 'short' with a measuring tape than 'long'. But there are cases where the opposite can be shown.
If the surveyor did indeed either report an erroneous distance or smack the actual pin with a hammer to make it 30.01' he committed a serious transgression against his profession. Proving it would be difficult.
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it!
The entire plat has three monuments (one at each corner excerpt the NE corner). These are all concrete monuments with brass pins protected by circular steel covers in the center of the street intersections. They were all found by the surveyor (which is noted on the survey).
As far as I can tell, this property only had markers at its SE and SW corners. These are both noted on the survey as "FD TACK & LEAD". The surveyor seems to have set pins at the NE and NW corners, because these are noted as "SET PK NAIL W/WASHER".
I guess what I don't understand is, if you're measuring from either these existing "TACK & LEAD" pins or from a monument at a corner of the plat using the distances given in the original plat map, how you end up with an extra 0.01 foot.
In a case where the adjacent lot was surveyed and the monuments were actually set at the 49.98 figure, as Paden mentioned above, then 50.02 would be the possible measurement on the subject lot. What we measure is what we report. It would be expected that not every monument would be "precisely" the record distance from every other monument. This would be very common in an old subdivision (like yours) where different lots were surveyed at different times.
One post away from being able to post the PDF, I think you should make it happen.
So if I understand correctly, you're saying that these two "TACK & LEAD" pins might have been set 0.01' too far south, and so to make up the difference, 0.01' was added by the surveyor to the lot in question, so that at least its northern boundary line would be in the correct place. Is that correct?
If so, then it makes me wonder why they didn't just shift the southern boundary line 0.01' north to its correct position? Or does the fact that it's been in the wrong place for a certain number of years give it a kind of validity?
Actually, this leads to another question (hope you don't mind all the questions!): In a case like this, would a surveyor locate pins marking a neighboring lot and then offset from those OR would they go all the way to the monuments set by the city into the street intersections and offset from those, to get the correct position and dimensions of a lot?
Looks like it's letting me upload PDF files. 🙂 Here is a copy of the original plat map based on the 1907 survey.
As you can see, all north-south measurements are in whole feet, except for the northernmost two lots, which both have a fraction. So if you started with the SE monument (which is the only one that still exists) and then offset each of the distances indicated on the plat, you'd have to arrive at the correct position for the SE corner of the lot. And if you then marked off 30 more feet from there, you'd have the correct position for the NE corner of the lot, and the correct width.
But if you're offsetting from a neighboring lot, then you're depending on the accuracy of what a previous surveyor has done and may end up somewhere completely different. Is there a standard practice in the surveying profession?
LookingForAnswers, post: 372368, member: 11710 wrote: ...Is there a standard practice in the surveying profession?
"Standard Practice" is difficult to pin down in our profession because of the multitude of existing conditions a surveyor can encounter executing a survey. In the case of retracing the boundary of a lot platted over 100 years ago, the standard practice would be to first attempt to "follow the footsteps" of the original surveyor; replacing lost corners in a location congruent with where it was originally located...with a preponderance of evidence.
The second 'standard practice' in my opinion is to "protect the plat" and ensure that your modern and current retracement fits the plat, as near as may be determined. In doing so, the rights (and dimensions) of ALL the lots in the plat should be protected since the platting probably indicates a simultaneous conveyance.
There is much that is left to the discretion of the surveyor in such matters. But above all else, the surveyor should be able to defend his decisions with logic and available existing evidence if required.
Thank you, Paden. I appreciate your knowledge and expertise. And I like the idea of "protecting the plat" and ensuring that modern and current retracements fits the plat.
Even though this land was platted 109 years ago, it seems that the modern surveys do not contradict the measurements made by the original surveyor--or at least not by much. The 1907 survey effectively shows a distance of 655.83' between the NE and SE corners of the plat. The 1981 and 2015 surveys both show a distance of 655.82' between the same two corners.
So far, the only scenario I can think of where the 2015 surveyor could arrive at 30.01' between the SE and NE corners for the lot is as follows:
1. Accept the pin at the SE corner of the lot as "correct" (even though it is actually 0.01' too far south).
2. Offset southward from the (missing and thus calculated) NE plat monument by the distances idicated on the plat to reach the NE corner of the subject lot. In this case, 33 feet (monument to first lot), 39.83 feet (width of first lot), then a series of 30 feet for each intervening lot, until you reach the NE corner of the subject lot.
This would give you a width of 30.01' for the subject lot. In this way, you'd derive the width of the lot by coming at it from the closest previously surveyed marker to the north and south, rather than by starting at one lot corner or another and just measuring off 30 feet.
Is this something that a professional surveyor might reasonably do? Or would they be more likely to start with one corner of the lot and measure off the distance indicated in the plat to derive the other corner (especially when that distance is given in whole feet and is the same for nearly every lot on the block)?
I'm also attaching the two other surveys covering the same street: one from 1981 and one from 2007.
Can someone explain to me how a lot will have different dimensions over the years? Isn't it to be the other way around? The lot description should remain fixed in dimensions/bearings while the markers on the ground may differ from its descriptions? The surveyor's work then is to mark on the ground the dimensions as described on the plat?
It is mind blowing that .01 can become such a major issue. I realize that as surveyors we are supposed to measure accurately and precisely but .01 in question? 1/8"? And it causes an issue like this. Unless each surveyor that surveys the block uses the same two block corners and measures accurately with a tape between the two points, .01 will never be found and even then it would be difficult to find. Either that or it will turn into a court case of whose .01 is better than whose.
This is a photo I found on the web after a quick search of "pin cushion." LookingforAnswers, not sure if you are familiar with decimal feet, but each line on the tape in the photo is .01.
In a case like this, it seems to me that someone along the line either misread the survey, or the survey used for planning may have incorrectly reported what was found vs. measured. 30.00 deed/plat/description vs 30.01 meas.
I can move a property corner 0.01 feet just by digging it up with a shovel. Corners do move in the ground when it rains they move a little and when there is a drought the corners move a little.
However these corners seem to be a little more stable since they are in the street.
The plat does not show 30.00', it shows 30', a surveyor will expect the lots to be measured somewhere between 29.9' and 30.1', typically.
Looking at the plat and not doing any calculations the bearings are all NW and SE, this means the plat is not "square".
By doing that, it means to make all the lots 30 feet wide the end lines will need to be slightly longer than 30.00'.
It may well be that the surveyor is actually showing a 30.00' wide lot and his end lines have to be maybe 30.006' long to show it.
I'm not going to do any calculations, I'm not going to give you any surveying advice, beyond this: you need to get with a surveyor licensed in your state, and find an attorney who really knows these issues, an attorney like that can be difficult to find but will probably be worth it.
As an aside,,,,,,,,,I really hate zoning, this just highlights some of the reasons I do.
The regs should be based on the deed lot width.
That being said, stay out of your neighbor's business.
couldn't help myself, did the calcs and it only makes about 0.001' difference because of the bearings. The absurdity of zoning on display.
LookingForAnswers, post: 372359, member: 11710 wrote: 2. For some reason, the original plat map shows 655.71' as the distance of the east side of the plat, although the sum of the component distances on the plat actually adds up to 655.83'. This appears to be a totaling error, but even if it is, that would not mean there is any "extra" distance to apportion to the lots on the block, since the sum of the lots (and the distances from the end lots to the center of the street) do add up to the correct number.
655.71' is along the center-line of Ashley Avenue, 655.83' is along the sideline of Ashley Avenue. N82nd Street and N80th Street are not parallel but are diverging from one another causing the sideline to be longer than the center-line. This leaves 0.11' to 0.14', depending which current survey you use, to be proportioned through the block. That along with any slight deviation of the corners as originally set may account for the increase in the 30' distance.
MightyMoe, post: 372400, member: 700 wrote: The plat does not show 30.00', it shows 30', a surveyor will expect the lots to be measured somewhere between 29.9' and 30.1', typically.
Looking at the plat and not doing any calculations the bearings are all NW and SE, this means the plat is not "square".
By doing that, it means to make all the lots 30 feet wide the end lines will need to be slightly longer than 30.00'.
It may well be that the surveyor is actually showing a 30.00' wide lot and his end lines have to be maybe 30.006' long to show it.
I'm not going to do any calculations, I'm not going to give you any surveying advice, beyond this: you need to get with a surveyor licensed in your state, and find an attorney who really knows these issues, an attorney like that can be difficult to find but will probably be worth it.
As an aside,,,,,,,,,I really hate zoning, this just highlights some of the reasons I do.
In fact, 30' can be anywhere between 24.5' and 30.5'. 30.01' IS 30'!
So is the whole crux of this that you think the surveyor reported the distance ONE-One Hundredth of a foot too long to allow your neighbor to build their house taller than would normally be allowed? If your zoning board allows that sort of nearly immeasurable tolerance, there is NO WAY you could prove that they were non conforming. The same surveyor could go out there N days in a row and get N different lots widths, just by virtue of measurement error statistics. Not to mention, since the zoning board approved the construction, my experience is that they will want nothing to do with this claim.
Maybe I'm reading into your comments, but it's entirely possible that the surveyor reported their measurements properly, your neighbor's builder interpreted that data correctly, and the Zoning board ruled properly on the fact that the boundary at 30.01' did indeed fulfill the requirements for the proposed construction.
Andy
PS, Let me add that I would think the limitation should have been imposed, as the intent was to limit all lots at 30 feet or less. They should use the platted distances as the guideline. But that isn't what happens in a lot of jurisdictions.
My spin on the same answer: The plat calls for 30 feet. That is the "legal" width of the lot. If I come out and find the original corners, I might show both the platted distance and what I measured it to be. If I match close the original distance with a difference of only 0.01', that's actually very good. It calls for 30' I measured 30.01, that is actually strong evidence that I am hitting the original distance. Measuring dirt and ground is not as precise as measuring, say a building or a table top.
If a plat was made in 1907, and the surveyor set the corners back then, he set the corners using a steel tape or a measuring chain. he had to chain level to account for any slope in the grade or change in the terrain. If you are matching his measurements with modern equipment, it's actually quite amazing.
edit: After re-reading, I see it's an issue of county regulators. They don't really understand the error differences in land surveying. If a new measurement is that minor difference from the original, they should still consider it to be 30' and under the regulations for 30-foot lots. Sometimes their regulations screw the owner based on measurements. What if you weren't allowed to build at all if the lot was less than 30' and a surveyor showed his retracement to be 29.99. But your battle would be hard to fight. They can point to their rules and standards and can refuse to budge.
Jim in AZ, post: 372410, member: 249 wrote: In fact, 30' can be anywhere between 24.5' and 30.5'. 30.01' IS 30'!
I agree completely, and a 30 foot lot is fixed by law as 30 feet forever.
Good luck getting the zoning people to understand that concept.
I think you meant 29.5' 🙂
