In a couple of threads below there was some discussion of how much research a land surveyor ought to do. Texas is a metes and bounds state and the diagram below is of a tract that is composed of three different tracts out of two original land grants or "surveys" as they are known in Texas. The base map was made in the early 1970's by an engineer.
Here is a list of how the various segments of the tract boundaries were created:
A-B : No right-of-way of record (track laid 1873)
B-C : Original Land Grant 1846
C-D-E-F-G : Subdivision in 1869
G-H : Partition in 1844
H-J : Subdivision in 1869
J-K : Original Land Grant 1832
K-A : Original Land Grant 1846
J-C : Original Land Grant 1832
I-F : Subdivision in 1881
Each of those lines has its own separate history that would be referenced in the metes and bounds description of the tract and on the map of the resurvey of the tract. That enables the next surveyor to assess the work fairly efficiently without needing to do the same amount of digging as it took to uncover the history in the first place.
You do enough research until you have all the questions answered. And this is not only the tract you are surveying but all adjoiners. Sometimes this is as simple as getting a recent subdivision plat. Other times it is back to the original grant (or patent) back into the 1700's.
I have one easement case right now that I have 15 - 20 hours in the courthouse for and still have not found all the answers because I get back into the burnt records for my county. But no one is going to surprise me.
Yes, during the "war of northern aggression" the yamn dankees burned our deed books. The citizens salvaged what they could, but a lot got lost.
How Much Research?
Enough to figure out how to draw the sketch/diagram... (what you showed is just a simple line drawing, so I won't call it a Map).
If it is intended to represent something more than a tax map, maybe even a field survey, then you could/should note the source of all the descriptions or maps being depicted... and the same for the adjoiners too. Simple to do, just write down what you used. If some of it is measured, then note the record data that differs.
Yes, all of that data could be listed out in some separate narrative of some sort, but then neither document would be vary complete and connecting the two proper documents at some later date may be rather difficult.
Actually it kinda looks like a title plant sketch to be used with overlays...
Are you willing to trust the "research" of some faceless and nameless clerk in some remote insurance office? Not me...
maybe I am missing your point...
> You do enough research until you have all the questions answered. And this is not only the tract you are surveying but all adjoiners. Sometimes this is as simple as getting a recent subdivision plat. Other times it is back to the original grant (or patent) back into the 1700's.
Yes, and the ideal is that a surveyor who has dug up that history will leave a trail of paper for the next surveyor in the form of references in a metes and bounds description, notes on a map, or a full discussion in a report for record, if possible.
> Actually it kinda looks like a title plant sketch to be used with overlays...
>
> Are you willing to trust the "research" of some faceless and nameless clerk in some remote insurance office? Not me...
>
> maybe I am missing your point...
I think perhaps you are. The point was that each of the lines of that tract had its own history to be researched back to the conveyance or instrument by which it began its status as a boundary. On that particular tract there were quite a few different instruments involved. The tract boundaries didn't emerge fully formed from the cadastral ether with the last transaction of record.
I make the same kind of sketches when researching. Its just an in-house aid in understanding the makeup.
John Harmon
Glad you asked, but I'm going to start a poll and try to word it as objectively as possible.
Stephen
> Glad you asked ...
Actually, it was a rhetorical question. :> I know perfectly well how much research is required to make a reliable resurvey of the boundaries of a tract of land, but am never surprised that many surveyors do only a minimal amount of research and investigation for reasons that usually boil down to wanting to render a lesser service for a cheaper price.
>
> I know perfectly well how much research is required to make a reliable resurvey of the boundaries of a tract of land, but am never surprised that many surveyors do only a minimal amount of research and investigation for reasons that usually boil down to wanting to render a lesser service for a cheaper price.
Yes, you have your opinion.
Stephen
> > I know perfectly well how much research is required to make a reliable resurvey of the boundaries of a tract of land, but am never surprised that many surveyors do only a minimal amount of research and investigation for reasons that usually boil down to wanting to render a lesser service for a cheaper price.
>
> Yes, you have your opinion.
Well, what other reason makes any sense considering that failure to adequately research a survey is probably the primary cause of serious mistakes in boundary determinations? A desire to increase one's liability for a smaller fee isn't entirely rational, so presumably the surveyor is simply cutting corners and rolling the dice to try to spend less time on a project for some other reason.
From what I see as the field crew, there is a need to research tracts beyond the last conveyance. You get to see things in the field and often times wish you could decide the schedule and when and if more research is required.
I guess as a case in point, and not really worried about ruffling feathers, as (insert insane laughter here) i've probably blown way past that point, if you had only relied upon the last property conveyance, you would probably have missed the deed conveying this tract and the inherent problems. If you have the resources:
Harris County Film Code# 003-20-0518 (to heirs)
Harris County Film Code# 008-15-0499 (to county)
I wish I had the deeds to post but i'm not in posession of that.
I'm not sure i could create a .pdf or tif and display it properly to scale with the calls legible. I'm also not sure if this issue was resolved satisfactorily at some later date and I just somehow wasn't able to discover this.
The beauty of the PLSS. A mouse click and you have the original creation of the parcel. It's amazing how many of the lines followed through to today;-)
> The beauty of the PLSS. A mouse click and you have the original creation of the parcel. It's amazing how many of the lines followed through to today.
Yes, I've never had any doubt about how much more complex surveying is in the metes and bounds states when compared to PLSSia. The fact of the original government subdivision is a gigantic simplification that is vastly underappreciated.
Researching back to patent is rarely necessary here.
So you wind up with a series of Deeds with the same description, the east 100' of Lot 100. The neighboring description is Lot 100 excepting therefrom the east 100'. Survey data is rarely contained in descriptions here.
We have filed Surveys going back to at least 1892.
Old subdivision plats are usually little more than the diagram the subdivider used to sell lots.
I'm not saying we never do it but there has to be a good reason.
Sometimes more abbreviated research into the long past is done for various reasons.
The PLSS mostly separated title from boundary location. It isn't very useful to have a series of 25 deeds all with identical descriptions, e.g. The northwest quarter of the northwest quarter.
I suppose you could have the termite inspector remove all the drywall in the house in search of hidden termites but who does that?
If you guys would have just admitted you didn't have the "Right stuff"
Your records would still be there :pissed:
Uh-Oh - I am south of the Nueces River and north of the Rio Grande right now.
I had better get some reinforcements and my sleeping bag and head for a hilltop (that would be the landfill here). Might be a long night...
> The PLSS mostly separated title from boundary location. It isn't very useful to have a series of 25 deeds all with identical descriptions, e.g. The northwest quarter of the northwest quarter.
So, in PLSSia is the better question "How far back in time do you examine records of survey?" Is it standard practice to just look at the last couple of records of survey for a parcel of interest and those adjoining it?
I'd think it would still be useful to know when the "East 100 ft. of Lot 100" was first conveyed if there has been some difference of opinion develop over time as to the true location of Lot 100.
No I get all I can find which is much easier than searching the grantor/grantee indexes. The indexes cover the entire county in California.
> No I get all I can find which is much easier than searching the grantor/grantee indexes.
So, what you're saying is that if you were just to settle for the last record of survey on a subject parcel and those adjacent, you might overlook something important that prior records show?
I went to a seminar on how to write descriptions and the presenter said to abstract the title back to its creation in the preamble, and he was discussing writing easements.
> I went to a seminar on how to write descriptions and the presenter said to abstract the title back to its creation in the preamble, and he was discussing writing easements.
Yes, that's how it's done in best practice in Texas in that reference is made to all of the original conveyances that created the subject tract in its present form. In the body of the description, best practice is to describe the various tract lines also by reference to the original severing conveyances.