Hollandbriscoe, post: 363328, member: 9155 wrote: This sounds like a surveyor around here. he once called a guy and told him his pin was by 0.05' and that he needed to come move it.
Yes I guess this is where I struggle. I'm a 3rd generation surveyor who was raised as a math guy. Now I'm trying to see the 'light' I agree the non math way to retracement, and i love reading the boundary law but im reading more about how to apply it.
This will be involved but lets try this....
Picture an old sub dating back 100 years. Lot and block. Platted 50x100 lots with stone monuments at block corners. One mon remains.
Now, you run some control based on the monument location and old records of houses on the block and your subject property's occupation fits the lines very good.
But in the rear corner is a recently set rebar, couple months old, that is right on your sideline, just 0.3' down along your line.
If you accept this corner, you then subtract that 0.3' from the line and show the line as 99.7?
Ok, let's say the old chain link fence fits the occupation good and the found rebar is right at the fence corner. Then that would appear to agree and I agree.
But here is where I struggle.
If the rebar was set by another mathematical surveyor from the lot adjoining the rear, who himself just used old lot survey ties as control on the street behind, then accepting this corner is doing nothing but accepting what he did (math method too, not true retracement) and possibly robbing your own client of some possible land just because he performed a mathematical survey before you did.
I guess my point is, if you were to perform a true retracement, and found that pin, to accept it just because it exists would be no better than doing math only as that is how that rebar was set.
Sorry for rambling. Just trying to understand. Like I had said, in this area there is rarely any monumentation and most if not all the surveyors are doing the mathematical method.
I'm young and have plenty of time to learn. Which is my goal and objective.
Rich I like your comment about using a mathematical monument. I worked at a engineering company that did land surveying also.
Many times in this smaller city (25,000 residents more or less ) I would check monuments used by this company in the past I would find out that they were ground rods for power pole. I would dig down far enough to see if a clamp for the ground wire was on it. Then you find monuments set using the ground rod and all the recorded distances on my research would show 0.3' to 1.0' off from what it should be. I didn't want to pull any bad monuments because of their error, so I would set a correct one and note my findings on the survey report.
Rich., post: 363340, member: 10450 wrote: Yes I guess this is where I struggle. I'm a 3rd generation surveyor who was raised as a math guy. Now I'm trying to see the 'light' I agree the non math way to retracement, and i love reading the boundary law but im reading more about how to apply it.
This will be involved but lets try this....
Picture an old sub dating back 100 years. Lot and block. Platted 50x100 lots with stone monuments at block corners. One mon remains.
Now, you run some control based on the monument location and old records of houses on the block and your subject property's occupation fits the lines very good.
But in the rear corner is a recently set rebar, couple months old, that is right on your sideline, just 0.3' down along your line.
If you accept this corner, you then subtract that 0.3' from the line and show the line as 99.7?
Ok, let's say the old chain link fence fits the occupation good and the found rebar is right at the fence corner. Then that would appear to agree and I agree.
But here is where I struggle.
If the rebar was set by another mathematical surveyor from the lot adjoining the rear, who himself just used old lot survey ties as control on the street behind, then accepting this corner is doing nothing but accepting what he did (math method too, not true retracement) and possibly robbing your own client of some possible land just because he performed a mathematical survey before you did.
I guess my point is, if you were to perform a true retracement, and found that pin, to accept it just because it exists would be no better than doing math only as that is how that rebar was set.
Sorry for rambling. Just trying to understand. Like I had said, in this area there is rarely any monumentation and most if not all the surveyors are doing the mathematical method.
I'm young and have plenty of time to learn. Which is my goal and objective.
You are absolutely right Rich....in that it is always more complicated than accepting every monument you find, or every fence you find. If that new pin you found was out 0.3, there are probably other new pins out there or something that match that 0.3 pin well. I mean, it's highly doubtful that the surveyor came out and set only one property corner. If he did, he probably found some other corners that his pin matches well to. You have to carefully observe all the evidence, and if some things don't match others, you need to try to narrow down a theory as to why.
If that pin is, indeed, out by your opinion, you have another question as to whether it has been relied on, with improvements, by the local property owners.
Sometimes you have to make up your mind and document exactly what you did and your logic behind it. If you can do that, and show it on a plat that explains your decisions, I am guess that other surveyors will more than likely accept your findings. It's that "not knowing' where a monument came from that raises all the big questions. (sometimes maybe a monument has been dug up and reset by someone that didn't want to get in trouble for tearing it out).
Iit takes many fewer surveyors to accomplish the public's need than attorneys, & surveyors have been providing professional services longer than lawyers have been doing what they do.
JAC
(Jealousy? Ignorance? Self-promotion?)
Tom Adams, post: 363346, member: 7285 wrote: You are absolutely right Rich....in that it is always more complicated than accepting every monument you find, or every fence you find. If that new pin you found was out 0.3, there are probably other new pins out there or something that match that 0.3 pin well. I mean, it's highly doubtful that the surveyor came out and set only one property corner. If he did, he probably found some other corners that his pin matches well to. You have to carefully observe all the evidence, and if some things don't match others, you need to try to narrow down a theory as to why.
If that pin is, indeed, out by your opinion, you have another question as to whether it has been relied on, with improvements, by the local property owners.
Sometimes you have to make up your mind and document exactly what you did and your logic behind it. If you can do that, and show it on a plat that explains your decisions, I am guess that other surveyors will more than likely accept your findings. It's that "not knowing' where a monument came from that raises all the big questions. (sometimes maybe a monument has been dug up and reset by someone that didn't want to get in trouble for tearing it out).
Thanks Tom.
So I have a few thoughts questions on that.
Yes, I'm sure that pin isn't alone. There are probably 4 of them set in a perfect 50x100 rectangle for that property. I am going to go back and search that street as well to see what he could have found but more than likely did nothing but hold one of the stone monuments and house corners of an old survey. And at worst maybe just old survey house offsets of the house he was doing. (I have that old survey as my grandfather did it, so that would be easy to tell)
But enough of that pin as it was a hypothetical taken from a real case.
If a pin of recent origin, 6 months let's say, was still relied on by the owner and adjoiners, with improvements, wouldn't it still need to run some statutory period of time before fixing the boundary? I'm sure this varies though between jurisdictions.
And the other surveyors I would be very worried would find against you as they would come to the mathematical location. Maybe a court would side with you, but most likely any disagreement would not get that far and the public court of opinion would then probably side against me, which also worries me.
But my biggest concern is a title company. Doing a lot retracement and showing a not square lot of let's say 99.5x100.6 give or take, or showing a lot very different based on old occupation, would not only raise concern, I would think a title company would reject it. Some of these title companies won't accept my survey if the NE bearing was labeled SW!
These are just some concerns of mine that I would have before taking the plunge once I feel ready to do so. It is a big step/change and scary, however, i do think it is correct to do.
eapls2708, post: 363115, member: 589 wrote: [ . . . ] Also, most zoning ordinances are expressed in whole numbers (i.e. 50' min width; 5 acre min area; etc.). If that's the case, 49.6' is 50'. If the person at the planning counter that you're dealing with doesn't believe it, go borrow any 9th grade math or science book and show the part to the planner where significant figures is taught. [ . . . ]
It's more complicated than that. From Wiki:
"The significance of trailing zeros in a number not containing a decimal point can be ambiguous. For example, it may not always be clear if a number like 1300 is precise to the nearest unit (and just happens coincidentally to be an exact multiple of a hundred) or if it is only shown to the nearest hundred due to rounding or uncertainty. Many conventions exist to address this issue:
An overline, sometimes also called an overbar, or less accurately, a vinculum or a macron, may be placed over the last significant figure; any trailing zeros following this are insignificant. [unable to overbar a character for display purposes here]
Less often, using a closely related convention, the last significant figure of a number may be underlined; for example, "2000" has two significant figures.
A decimal point may be placed after the number; for example "100." indicates specifically that three significant figures are meant."
So strictly speaking, 50' without extrinsic evidence to the contrary is accurate to one significant figure and a field measurement of 45.0' to 55.0' would round to 50' (slight variations concerning where the break occurs due to rounding method used), meeting the zoning ordinance specification. A 5 acre parcel which is unambiguously accurate to one significant figure could field measure as 4.5-5.5 acres and round to 5 acres to meet the ordinance's dictum. Scarey, isn't it? Those mathematicians are picky.
But we all know the planning office didn't consider diddly concerning significant figures when establishing their specifications. Having been down the well many times at the counter here's a synopsis of what they claim to mean, listed from most dumbass to somewhat reasonable positions:
- 50' is a count, not a distance. It is infinitely accurate, like counting your fingers. You must report 50' or more (even if its 50.01') or your plat will not record, your ROS will encumber the parcel, the house is encroaching, your ALTA generates problems, blah blah. Actual field recovery and measurements mean nothing.
- 50' means 50' or 50.' (two sig figs), sort of. It's an infinitely accurate number when creating a new line so you better show 50' or more, but resurveys of an existing line 49.5'-50.5' won't cause a zoning problem. Unfortunately, they hold the sig figs requirement to the right of the decimal for line thousands of feet long too, idiots.
- 50' is a measurement, and the LS Statutes establish accuracy standards, so if your resurveyed 50' line measures 49.97' no problem based on the error budget allowed in your survey, similarly a 5000' foot line can be measured as 4,997.00' without problems.
- An absolute 50' or more is required for new subdivision lines, but in all resurveys the actual measured distance, controlled by recovered monumentation, and competent reestablishment of missing corners holds, even if the survey is in disagreement form record by dozens of feet. Any problems that may cause is not their purview; they only control the initial subdivision, not subsequent disagreements or litigation (unless somebody is encroaching on R/W).
- Property lines after approval of a subdivision is not their business, they'll only defend their 50' R/W (and drainage structure easements, et. al.). Subsequent maps which do not create new boundaries which result in substandard lot acreage (or other matters) do not make a parcel unbuildable.
As an aside, the significant figures confusion has bugged me for decades. Lots of jurisdictions require a square footage on the map accurate to 2 sig figs to the right of the decimal, unobtainable using conventional equipment and apparently based on a math closure for each parcel (a real number traverse math exercise). For a reasonable sized parcel the square footage is +- 10sqft (or much more) based on the survey error budget. Idiots.
Rich., post: 363353, member: 10450 wrote: Thanks Tom.
So I have a few thoughts questions on that.
Yes, I'm sure that pin isn't alone. There are probably 4 of them set in a perfect 50x100 rectangle for that property. I am going to go back and search that street as well to see what he could have found but more than likely did nothing but hold one of the stone monuments and house corners of an old survey. And at worst maybe just old survey house offsets of the house he was doing. (I have that old survey as my grandfather did it, so that would be easy to tell)
But enough of that pin as it was a hypothetical taken from a real case.
If a pin of recent origin, 6 months let's say, was still relied on by the owner and adjoiners, with improvements, wouldn't it still need to run some statutory period of time before fixing the boundary? I'm sure this varies though between jurisdictions.
And the other surveyors I would be very worried would find against you as they would come to the mathematical location. Maybe a court would side with you, but most likely any disagreement would not get that far and the public court of opinion would then probably side against me, which also worries me.
But my biggest concern is a title company. Doing a lot retracement and showing a not square lot of let's say 99.5x100.6 give or take, or showing a lot very different based on old occupation, would not only raise concern, I would think a title company would reject it. Some of these title companies won't accept my survey if the NE bearing was labeled SW!
These are just some concerns of mine that I would have before taking the plunge once I feel ready to do so. It is a big step/change and scary, however, i do think it is correct to do.
Whether or not a statutory period is required depends on your State's establishment doctrines and the evidence of the particular case.
I've never had a Title Company tell me how to survey a lot. They deal in Title; I deal in location.
Rich., post: 363353, member: 10450 wrote: Thanks Tom.
So I have a few thoughts questions on that.
Yes, I'm sure that pin isn't alone. There are probably 4 of them set in a perfect 50x100 rectangle for that property. I am going to go back and search that street as well to see what he could have found but more than likely did nothing but hold one of the stone monuments and house corners of an old survey. And at worst maybe just old survey house offsets of the house he was doing. (I have that old survey as my grandfather did it, so that would be easy to tell)
But enough of that pin as it was a hypothetical taken from a real case.
If a pin of recent origin, 6 months let's say, was still relied on by the owner and adjoiners, with improvements, wouldn't it still need to run some statutory period of time before fixing the boundary? I'm sure this varies though between jurisdictions.
And the other surveyors I would be very worried would find against you as they would come to the mathematical location. Maybe a court would side with you, but most likely any disagreement would not get that far and the public court of opinion would then probably side against me, which also worries me.
But my biggest concern is a title company. Doing a lot retracement and showing a not square lot of let's say 99.5x100.6 give or take, or showing a lot very different based on old occupation, would not only raise concern, I would think a title company would reject it. Some of these title companies won't accept my survey if the NE bearing was labeled SW!
These are just some concerns of mine that I would have before taking the plunge once I feel ready to do so. It is a big step/change and scary, however, i do think it is correct to do.
I recommend Chapter 24:
New York Law and Practice of Real Property, 2d
http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Treatises/New-York-Law-and-Practice-of-Real-Property-2d-New-York-Practice-Library/p/100019761
I wouldn't buy it, just download it your local law library.
Rich., post: 363353, member: 10450 wrote: Thanks Tom.
So I have a few thoughts questions on that.
Yes, I'm sure that pin isn't alone. There are probably 4 of them set in a perfect 50x100 rectangle for that property. I am going to go back and search that street as well to see what he could have found but more than likely did nothing but hold one of the stone monuments and house corners of an old survey. And at worst maybe just old survey house offsets of the house he was doing. (I have that old survey as my grandfather did it, so that would be easy to tell)
But enough of that pin as it was a hypothetical taken from a real case.
If a pin of recent origin, 6 months let's say, was still relied on by the owner and adjoiners, with improvements, wouldn't it still need to run some statutory period of time before fixing the boundary? I'm sure this varies though between jurisdictions.
And the other surveyors I would be very worried would find against you as they would come to the mathematical location. Maybe a court would side with you, but most likely any disagreement would not get that far and the public court of opinion would then probably side against me, which also worries me.
But my biggest concern is a title company. Doing a lot retracement and showing a not square lot of let's say 99.5x100.6 give or take, or showing a lot very different based on old occupation, would not only raise concern, I would think a title company would reject it. Some of these title companies won't accept my survey if the NE bearing was labeled SW!
These are just some concerns of mine that I would have before taking the plunge once I feel ready to do so. It is a big step/change and scary, however, i do think it is correct to do.
Remember that you are the expert in the boundary location but not title. Yes, often the title companies overstep their "bounds", but often times it is out of ignorance. SW vs NE is just that...ignorance. Educate them or appease them. .04' might be ignorance, or might be legit....but that is your area of expertise. Who owns it is theirs, where it is is yours. You should not let them control you over the difference in distances. Hopefully, if you have 99.5 x 100.6, it works with the overall pro rata value, or there is something that makes it work. If you measured every measurement in the block, and they are all +/- -0.65' or they are all +/-0.02' that may sway your decision. You virtually never have that luxury, I get it. But, the building and setbacks might be the best available evidence of where the corners once were as well...or maybe you have enough evidence to flat-out reject the monuments. I am only suggesting that the distance-anomaly from "something-or-other" might not be the best determining factor. Physical evidence =#1, title companies = something less.
Show/explain how you made your determination on you survey plat, and make it clear, and you will probably win. (Also the next surveyor who misses your corner will probably agree with you after they look @ your plat). Title companies are not your boss.
Dave Karoly, post: 363357, member: 94 wrote: I recommend Chapter 24:
New York Law and Practice of Real Property, 2d
http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Treatises/New-York-Law-and-Practice-of-Real-Property-2d-New-York-Practice-Library/p/100019761
I wouldn't buy it, just download it your local law library.
Actually. I've been asking my brother in law for some books just like this. I might just pick the set up for my office
Rich., post: 363367, member: 10450 wrote: Actually. I've been asking my brother in law for some books just like this. I might just pick the set up for my office
Lexis has a more extensive New York Real Property Treatise.
Warren's Weed New York Real Property, Fifth Edition
Chapter 37 Deeds and 40 Easements.
Chapter 90 Maps and Boundaries.
The authors are fairly high powered lawyers, can't go wrong reading their stuff.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/catalog/booktemplate/productdetail.jsp?pageName=relatedProducts&prodId=10533#
Tom Adams, post: 363360, member: 7285 wrote: Remember that you are the expert in the boundary location but not title. Yes, often the title companies overstep their "bounds", but often times it is out of ignorance. SW vs NE is just that...ignorance. Educate them or appease them. .04' might be ignorance, or might be legit....but that is your area of expertise. Who owns it is theirs, where it is is yours. You should not let them control you over the difference in distances. Hopefully, if you have 99.5 x 100.6, it works with the overall pro rata value, or there is something that makes it work. If you measured every measurement in the block, and they are all +/- -0.65' or they are all +/-0.02' that may sway your decision. You virtually never have that luxury, I get it. But, the building and setbacks might be the best available evidence of where the corners once were as well...or maybe you have enough evidence to flat-out reject the monuments. I am only suggesting that the distance-anomaly from "something-or-other" might not be the best determining factor. Physical evidence =#1, title companies = something less.
Show/explain how you made your determination on you survey plat, and make it clear, and you will probably win. (Also the next surveyor who misses your corner will probably agree with you after they look @ your plat). Title companies are not your boss.
Ya I agree about 0.5' or something not really too irrelevant. A difference in measurement.
I'm thinking of one job we did where a surveyor had screwed up a calculation and twisted the lot. The house was already built so this was not an original survey or an original layout. It could be the first time lot stakes were set but that I have no evidence for or against.
The lot ended up twisting and shifting about 12 feet over by the time you got to rear 150' away. (Not rectangle lots so I guess this wasn't seen...)
How do we know? We 'retracted' the survey recently. We tied into a ton of things and the fences must had been constructed from this old survey that got flubbed.
Now this was for title. This wasn't a meaningless difference in measurement. I didn't think a title company would insure this land based on my telling them alone that the fences were 40 years old and the property rights had shifted 12 feet in a 150' distance.
Did rights develope? I'm sure of it.
But my question would be, a title company would just accept this and insure it based on your 'location'? Or a case like this would end up needing further litigation before it gets cleared up and closed?
Dave Karoly, post: 363369, member: 94 wrote: Lexis has a more extensive New York Real Property Treatise.
Warren's Weed New York Real Property, Fifth Edition
Chapter 37 Deeds and 40 Easements.
Chapter 90 Maps and Boundaries.
The authors are fairly high powered lawyers, can't go wrong reading their stuff.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/catalog/booktemplate/productdetail.jsp?pageName=relatedProducts&prodId=10533#
Holy... that's quite the chunk of change to plop down.
What about this guy? Also a good place to start?
Rich., post: 363374, member: 10450 wrote: Holy... that's quite the chunk of change to plop down.
What about this guy? Also a good place to start?
That's the book Richard Schaut used to quote.
You don't have to buy the book. At my law library I can get single chapters on PDF.
Dave Karoly, post: 363376, member: 94 wrote: That's the book Richard Schaut used to quote.
You don't have to buy the book. At my law library I can get single chapters on PDF.
Yes maybe that's exactly what I'll do. I can always print and keep in a binder as well as save the pdf
Rich., post: 363038, member: 10450 wrote: My point was at some point you have to decide how far is too far. If I verify a corner and find it 3 feet from record, obviously it is not accepted.
With all due respect, I'm glad you don't survey here, because you'd make a complete mess of things.
Tommy Young, post: 363383, member: 703 wrote: With all due respect, I'm glad you don't survey here, because you'd make a complete mess of things.
I do understand. However, I think things are much different. I wish monumentation laws were different here. If each lot corner was monumented, or we had to monument/replace each lost monument while doing a survey it would be much easier to learn and get used to this new notion. However when you have a block of 18 houses and only 2 of the 72 possible corners have any sort of a monument (new or old) things are very different. :-/
Rich., post: 363384, member: 10450 wrote: I do understand. However, I think things are much different. I wish monumentation laws were different here. If each lot corner was monumented, or we had to monument/replace each lost monument while doing a survey it would be much easier to learn and get used to this new notion. However when you have a block of 18 houses and only 2 of the 72 possible corners have any sort of a monument (new or old) things are very different. :-/
I think that would only be 30 corners in a block with 2 tiers of 9 lots.
Dave Karoly, post: 363385, member: 94 wrote: I think that would only be 30 corners in a block with 2 tiers of 9 lots.
Sorry, yes I was thinking lots on opposite sides of the street, which is still only 36 corners due to the common corners....then you'd only probably find 1 😉 but u get the idea
Every project demands it's own level of effort to accept or reject monuments. Distances in and of themselves aren't sufficient to do either. If I can relate a monument to an original corner it's good, regardless of arbitrary math tests.