I'm working on a survey in an old 1888 plat in the City of Seattle. (Washington became a state in 1889). The property description is lot 4 and the north 1/4 of lot 9. The original lots were all 40 x 100; but the plat doesn't fit in the original boundary and the lots on the south side of the block are conciderably shorter and the south line is tapered.
A survey was recorded in 2000, for the remaining portion of lot 9, together with portions of lots 7,8 and 10. He shows finding 2 corners 0.5' south of where he determines the split in lot 9 to be and sets his own corners. This puts my clients garage over the line by 0.1' on the west and 0.4' on the east. If he accepted the found corners, there would be no encrouchment.
If I calculate the split in lot 9 by dividing the east line and west line by 4, and drawing the line on the north 1/4, I come close to his corners. If I calculate the area, divide it by 4 and hold a line parallel to the north line, it doesn't encrouch the garage and comes close to the corners he found.
How would you resolve this survey? What would you tell your client?
Thanks in advance for your input; in this all but too common situation.
Dougie
My 2 cents. The division is by area, but, anyone's guess as too alignment. It sounds like your answer is going to be an area solution that closely matches occupation, which your line sounds like it does. Your solution is reasonable, but, I might have a look at what 1/4 of the bearing difference from north to south looked like. Do note that the alignment of the line is subject to interpretation on your survey and move forward
I have an Arkansas pin cushion going on. It results in 75' move from found to set, and 52' from found to set.....
My thoughts, (Having NOT thought all of your enigma through) are that you should solve the problem every way it can be solved. Then, think about it, what solution is the MOST legal, and MOST professional? They are not always the same.
Document your reasoning, for whatever you do.
IF I followed you, and you did this, leaving a good set of footprints, and I came up with ANOTHER solution than you did, then I would be hard pressed to differ with you, if you left GOOD footprints to follow.
N
The fractional description (absent other evidence) would likely be done by the strictest method against the grantor. In this case the actions of the owners had been expressed by the existing pins (assuming they had been in the ground for a bit). Setting a second set is ridiculous. Whatever you do, please don't consider a third set...
I would tend to sway toward the earliest set of pins especially if they are more coincident to the improvements on the properties (ie the house). It also sounds like you could interpret the deed and come to a similar conclusion that the earlier surveyor did. That would also be reason to agree with the older boundary marks.
There is a great case in Wattle's book where an owner granted half of his property to a grantee and the grantee had the surveyor create a line that jogged around a tree he wanted on his property while still holding half the area. Some deeds or subdivisions are ambiguous enough, that I would tend to go with the first guy who laid it out, if they had a reasonable solution, and if it appeared to accepted by the land owners.
Yes, leave a trail! The fact that he would then match the original corners, so much the better
> I'm working on a survey in an old 1888 plat in the City of Seattle. (Washington became a state in 1889). The property description is lot 4 and the north 1/4 of lot 9. The original lots were all 40 x 100; but the plat doesn't fit in the original boundary and the lots on the south side of the block are conciderably shorter and the south line is tapered.
>
> A survey was recorded in 2000, for the remaining portion of lot 9, together with portions of lots 7,8 and 10. He shows finding 2 corners 0.5' south of where he determines the split in lot 9 to be and sets his own corners. This puts my clients garage over the line by 0.1' on the west and 0.4' on the east. If he accepted the found corners, there would be no encrouchment.
>
> If I calculate the split in lot 9 by dividing the east line and west line by 4, and drawing the line on the north 1/4, I come close to his corners. If I calculate the area, divide it by 4 and hold a line parallel to the north line, it doesn't encrouch the garage and comes close to the corners he found.
>
> How would you resolve this survey? What would you tell your client?
>
It is tough to analyze these things without a picture and all the evidence, so...
A few questions: What do you mean by "the plat doesn't fit in the original boundary and the lots on the south side of the block are considerably shorter and the south line is tapered"? I think you are saying what was established on the ground doesn't match exactly with the dimensions on the plat. No surprise there.
Where did the "2 corners" the 2000 surveyor found and rejected come from? Why were they set? Who has relied on them? Why did he (and why would you) reject them? I certainly hope the decision would be based on more evidence than "they didn't match my calculations of where they should have been set"
I would think that finding the monuments originally set in 1888 isn't likely to happen - more likely, the modern surveys are based on 2nd, 3rd, or even later generations and iterations of guesses of where they were.
Are you performing a retracement of existing boundaries, or are you helping the landowners create new boundaries? If you are retracing, then retrace - forget about "where things should have been placed in a perfect world" and go find where they have previously been established. I surely wouldn't reject monuments that agree with long-standing improvements based only on the wizardry coming from a data collector and computer. I'm sure the courts in Washington would (and have) frowned mightily on such nonsense.
Go forth, retrace, and leave good footprints (evidence and sound, legal, reasoning of why you did what you did).
Curious, how do we know where those pipes came from (original?? doubt it from the 1880s). IMO there are too many questions that need to be answered, does anyone know where those pipes came from. Why did the other surveyor make the decision he did(phone call)? What is the standard of practice for the area as far a determining the N1/4, distance or acreage? My experience in Seattle and most of Western Washington it is distance, because you can make the acreage fit anything. Did the person building the garage use the pipes when it was built?
At the end of the day you need to talk with the adjoining land owners and the other surveyor. And make a nice detailed explanation on the face of your ROS so everyone exactly what your professional opinion is.
:good: :good:
Ditto Nate and Norm. Whatever you do, use good logic and a good explanation on your plat or whatever media you have to perpetuate your boundary. If I retrace some work and I see a well-written logical plat, I would be hard-pressed to do anything but perpetuate that.
With found monuments, a plausible reason for their location, and a garage that seems to have been there without objection (did it rely on the pipes?), the guy should not have set a second pair. Add to that the argument that ambiguity should be held against the grantor.
How does the owner of the rest of Lot 9 feel about it?
my $0.00
Thank you Brian; I can always count on you to get to the meat of the problem.
> It is tough to analyze these things without a picture and all the evidence, so...
>
> A few questions: What do you mean by "the plat doesn't fit in the original boundary and the lots on the south side of the block are considerably shorter and the south line is tapered"? I think you are saying what was established on the ground doesn't match exactly with the dimensions on the plat. No surprise there.
That's correct; the 1888 plat shows dimensions that are very different than what you find on the ground.
When the EDM became widly used and survey measurments became almost instant, the City of Seattle took it upon themselves to monument all of their right-of-way centerlines. Now; that is what everyone is left to work with.
> Where did the "2 corners" the 2000 surveyor found and rejected come from? Why were they set? Who has relied on them? Why did he (and why would you) reject them? I certainly hope the decision would be based on more evidence than "they didn't match my calculations of where they should have been set"
Washington state created a "Survey Recording Act" in 1973. Prior to that, recording boundary surveys was not mandatory. I'm not sure that this was the case here; the rejected rebar and caps do not look that old. There are surveyors in this area that interpret the recording requirements to best fit their needs. I think that's what's happened here.
> I would think that finding the monuments originally set in 1888 isn't likely to happen - more likely, the modern surveys are based on 2nd, 3rd, or even later generations and iterations of guesses of where they were.
Yes, again you are 100% correct.
> Are you performing a retracement of existing boundaries, or are you helping the landowners create new boundaries? If you are retracing, then retrace - forget about "where things should have been placed in a perfect world" and go find where they have previously been established. I surely wouldn't reject monuments that agree with long-standing improvements based only on the wizardry coming from a data collector and computer. I'm sure the courts in Washington would (and have) frowned mightily on such nonsense.
I was asked to "survey" the property. Whan I asked what they needed the survey for; they told me they wanted to replace a fence and were concerned about a tree, so they needed to know where the line was.
> Go forth, retrace, and leave good footprints (evidence and sound, legal, reasoning of why you did what you did).
Isn't this the basic approach to surveying? Is it sound reasoning to reject pins a half foot away from where your expert measurments say they should be?
One of the things my first boss taught me; take the time to do the job right, do a good job no matter how long it takes; your ability to do your job quickly, will come later.
It seems that some surveyors didn't get that lesson.
It just makes it tougher for those of us that did.
Radar
> With found monuments, a plausible reason for their location, and a garage that seems to have been there without objection (did it rely on the pipes?), the guy should not have set a second pair. Add to that the argument that ambiguity should be held against the grantor.
According to my client; the garage and house have been there for over 100 years. I would say that about the house on the adjoining property too. I would assume that was also when the division of lot 9 was created.
> How does the owner of the rest of Lot 9 feel about it?
The adjoining owner doesn't care. When I explained to him what was going on, his eyes glazed over and I could tell he wasn't getting most of it; even though I kept it to the simplest terms.
I'd most likely go with the old irons if they fit a reasonable interpretation of th edeed language and the improvements appeared to have been placed in reliance on them. I would want to investigate where those irons came from though. Just enough explanation to show that they aren't goat stakes or weren't placed by one homeowner with a tape and a hammer on his own would be enough to raise those old irons from "seems better" status to "set on purpose by someone licensed to do so" status.
Out of curiosity, was the surveyor in 2000 LS XXXXX or RCE XXXXX?
HANDLE the pin cushion? It's obvious. PULL the offending pins!
(Wink)
N
I agree. Pull the stupid new pins.
Just kidding, although that is probably what they deserve. I can't believe they set new ones. Sheesh, the button pushers are stupid, not the pins.
I've never pulled anyone else's pins, though I have wanted to.
> I'm working on a survey in an old 1888 plat in the City of Seattle.
In these situations a split of the curb lines around the block is sometimes helpful to resolve conflicts in the other evidence.