This is the real deal, not a hypothetical. I am finalizing this one tonight:
Visually, your street is on top and is east-west. Lets say parcels are 150' wide x 200' deep.
You have a block that was created by an unrecorded subdivision map in an industrial area consisting of tilt-up buildings that appear to be the standard 1950s-1970s era. The deeds all basically start from some point off the block westerly and then calculate on paper as nice rectangles. The POB of your lot is around 900 feet east of the northwest block corner. There are no monuments of record.
You survey the block and tie-in buildings and cut cross curb extensions you find and in front of your parcel (of course) you find these facts:
First, ignoring the deed calls and analyzing the way things have actually been surveyed out
• There is a 2.7-foot monumented excess if you were to line up the cut crosses from the east and compare with those from the west. Your parcel comes out 2.7 feet wider than the 150 feet of record it is supposed to.
• When holding the cut crosses from the west along your west line, the adjoiner's tiltup building is encroaching 1.1 feet (yes there is a cut cross I found which "creates" this encroachment, per se, and as mentioned, it fits well with the cut crosses from the west). If you hold record 150’ wide from the east side (and yes, there is a cut cross for the easterly line of the parcel), you will obviously clear this building by 1.6 feet. The gas meter along this side and the sump pump line will then also not encroach.
If you compare with deed calls from the northwest block corner
• The west monumented line (creating the encroachment) is close to record 900-foot call, within say 0.2’.
• Therefore, the record 150 feet for your parcel then the deed calls for those to the east will make all the cut crosses and the four remaining parcels to be “off” about 2.7 feet.
The four easterly parcels involve zero lotline building lines, and the cut crosses nicely line up with the separation in the buildings.
On your parcel, your tiltup building is in the middle of the parcel and is not affected by the weirdness.
How say you?
I'm not sure how much difference this makes in the answer, but what are you doing, a Record of Survey, ALTA, topo or what? At least excess is better than deficiency. Shoot, I forgot to open this up in a new window so I'll read the details again and get back to you if I have any more wonderful insight for you.
Be glad it is an excess and there are no records on the conflicting marks. You could maintain long-established harmony and short no one.
Punt!!!!!!
Oh, I love these. The only thing consistent is the inconsistency.
One collection of surveyors will say to survey everything as if everything happened in a simultaneous conveyance as in a platted subdivision. A different group will demand you research the history of each tract to determine which was conveyed first, which second and so forth up to the last conveyance from the developer; then go with deed dimensions thus throwing all the error somewhere specific. You are the only one here who can put all the bits of info together to from the best opinion as to intent.
Steve it started as an ALTA but now the guy just wants a site plan.
I will do an ROS regardless.
> Be glad it is an excess and there are no records on the conflicting marks. You could maintain long-established harmony and short no one.
Basically it comes down to having my parcel be 152.7' wide or having the adjoiner get the 2.7 feet.
Added twist Plutae-style
A recent record of survey by someone for the west parcel is found that holds record from two points from the west and does not tie to anything on your east line or further to the east. He holds the cut cross on the west line and does not depict the encroachment. One cannot tell from looking at it that there is any monumented discrepancy, or that there is concrete edifice 1.1 feet over his resolved property line.
Therefore, there is a record from the last few years that put the adjoiner on notice.
as a result, you also find among the records from the title officer that there is a letter from the adjoiner to the former owner of your parcel where he acknowledges his building is encroaching and they have agreed to shake hands and let it lie. The adjoiner moved his old fencing and retaining walls so they match the recent ROS.
More questions - There are no monuments of record so what are you measuring the 900 feet from to say the westerly crosses match it better? It sounds like there is some evidence that the westerly crosses match record better than the easterly crosses, but from what?
If you're finishing this up tonight, you've got this figured out with a lot more thought than any of us have had about it so I hope you spill the beans on your opinion. Either your lot is hecka-wide and the neighbor encroaches, or the neighbor is hecka-wide in contradiction with the cut cross that, since the crosses are of a consistent character, seem to be linked with either the original or subsequent conveyances of the "lots". If possible, I'd let sleeping dogs lie and show your lot as record distance wide because the neighbor apparently didn't rely on the cross between your lot and his. If this is a Record of Survey, which I guess it should be, the cross between the two properties is "evidence that might result in alternate positions" so show it with a big long note on the map.
Again, I'm curious what the final product is that you're producing.
Yeah I was not going to play coy. I just wanted some confirmation. I am holding 150' wide for my lot from the cut cross to the east and not showing an encroachment. I just cannot hold to that. I am putting the excess where it should go and that is for the neighbor.
For that POB issue, they all call from a street that was a parallel railroad side street that was never really monumented. The curbs are inconsistent, and the tracks are not reliable in this area, so I had to establish the street as best I could from other evidence and once I got that up, it definitely seems like the westerly stuff fits well.
The parent deed (prior to the unrecorded subdivision) has an overall 1500 foot E-W distance, calling to the right of way of a main street to the east. Once I get the easterly street up (which has railroad spikes at centerline - this right of way is straight forward), I have this 2-3-foot excess. People must have come from the easterly street to put up some of the parcels, and some came from the railroad side of things.
Yeah, that's how it usually happens. There's a block that's extra-big and some people measure record from one end, some the other and there's an excess in the middle lot. What I don't get, and maybe you have a theory, is how all the lots got cut crosses at their projected lot lines, some measured from each direction. Were they not done by the same crew at the same time? Did somebody just go "whoops" and hope nobody would ever notice?
> Yeah, that's how it usually happens. There's a block that's extra-big and some people measure record from one end, some the other and there's an excess in the middle lot. What I don't get, and maybe you have a theory, is how all the lots got cut crosses at their projected lot lines, some measured from each direction. Were they not done by the same crew at the same time? Did somebody just go "whoops" and hope nobody would ever notice?
I wish I knew. I researched all places I could think of. This one drove me a little nuts. And every parcel map or ROS since 1980 near the area would never acknowledge the discrepancies.
> This one drove me a little nuts. And every parcel map or ROS since 1980 near the area would never acknowledge the discrepancies.
Okay, so you're the fellow who caused the problem, then? Have you thought about filing a corrected description in the miscellaneous records with an owner's affidavit? As I recall, this will work pretty much everywhere to solve all sorts of difficulties ... in about twenty-five years if things go right.
The interesting plutaesque twist is that the adjoiner has acknowledged publicly enough for it to show up in a title search that there is an encroachment based on a previous surveyor's acceptance of the cut cross. The thing is that he did it and your client's predecessor shook hands on it without the previous surveyor disclosing to them that there was an alternate solution based on the easterly crosses. How binding is that admission of encroachment? The adjoiner has acted on it by moving some of his improvements to the previous surveyor's line based on the cross. I think if anybody decided to press the issue to the point of a court decision, the court would say "no harm, no foul" leave everything where it is and your survey would be upheld. But that's just me thinking.
> Okay, so you're the fellow who caused the problem, then? Have you thought about filing a corrected description in the miscellaneous records with an owner's affidavit? As I recall, this will work pretty much everywhere to solve all sorts of difficulties ... in about twenty-five years if things go right.
Even better is I can come from the East and not tie in anything to the West,and pretend everything fits great, and let one of my sons find out when they take this up.
Kent
Have you thought about filing a corrected description in the miscellaneous records with an owner's affidavit?
What a brilliant idea. The old affidavit in the miscellaneous records trick.
> The interesting plutaesque twist is that the adjoiner has acknowledged publicly enough for it to show up in a title search that there is an encroachment based on a previous surveyor's acceptance of the cut cross. The thing is that he did it and your client's predecessor shook hands on it without the previous surveyor disclosing to them that there was an alternate solution based on the easterly crosses. How binding is that admission of encroachment? The adjoiner has acted on it by moving some of his improvements to the previous surveyor's line based on the cross. I think if anybody decided to press the issue to the point of a court decision, the court would say "no harm, no foul" leave everything where it is and your survey would be upheld. But that's just me thinking.
This one made me do a lot of thinking.
The adjoiner appeared to accept his building was built wrong. I deal with landowners who mentally cannot handle a crappy board fence being built wrong. The buildings out there all seem to be of the same era, and I would expect someone to be very skeptical of accepting this encroachment issue. And on top of that, an enterprising person (and I have a lot of clients who are smart enough to do this) could measure down the curb line and see they are clear if they come from the cut cross on the east line of my parcel.
> > Okay, so you're the fellow who caused the problem, then? Have you thought about filing a corrected description in the miscellaneous records with an owner's affidavit? As I recall, this will work pretty much everywhere to solve all sorts of difficulties ... in about twenty-five years if things go right.
>
> Even better is I can come from the East and not tie in anything to the West,and pretend everything fits great, and let one of my sons find out when they take this up.
No, no, no! A real professional knows that the affidavit with the corrected description is the True Path to cadastral righteousness. The county surveyors and plat reviewers out there at the edge of the Pacific plate will thank me for mentioning this little known aspect of your state laws to you since they will be out of the loop when you correct the faulty descriptions!
> No, no, no! A real professional knows that the affidavit with the corrected description is the True Path to cadastral righteousness. The county surveyors and plat reviewers out there at the edge of the Pacific plate will thank me for mentioning this little known aspect of your state laws to you since they will be out of the loop when you correct the faulty descriptions!
I do like the feeling of power it gives me...
> This one made me do a lot of thinking.
Don't we hate it when that happens?
> The adjoiner appeared to accept his building was built wrong. I deal with landowners who mentally cannot handle a crappy board fence being built wrong. The buildings out there all seem to be of the same era, and I would expect someone to be very skeptical of accepting this encroachment issue.
Well, someone who mistakenly agrees to a line isn't really bound to that agreement as a matter of equity until there has been mutual reliance, is he? Or is California law somewhat different?
> Well, someone who mistakenly agrees to a line isn't really bound to that agreement as a matter of equity until there has been mutual reliance, is he? Or is California law somewhat different?
Good question. I think you are right. I am not sure if my client has a clue about the deal. Actually they do not seem to care either way. What is it about these guys? Are these blue collar dudes with money that easy going? You have a lot of these types in Austin perchance?