HUD Item 5 asks for "Disputed boundaries or encroachments." and seems to only want those that encroach upon adjoining properties or vice versa. We do have a building encroaching upon a utility easement internally to the property. This encroachment is listed and shown on the ALTA Survey. My question is, do I need to list it on the HUD Item 5. I previously listed "none", but the lender is questioning it. Thanks.
I'm not sure I would consider a utility easement line violation an encroachment.?ÿ The servient estate still holds the underlying fee.?ÿ But the "E" word does lay heavy to some folks.
If it were me I would probably plow ahead with the attitude that Item 5 deals only with boundary issues...be prepared to argue the point if questioned.?ÿ While you have no control of others; be cautious with use of the word "encroachment".?ÿ It makes title companies and lending institutions go crazy.?ÿ?ÿ
The HUD report can have some very serious implications. As Surveyors, we show it as we find it, on the ground and of record.
I surveyed a bank building in Texarkana several years ago and an existing sewer easement went across a portion of the building and I showed it where it called to be and the seller and Title Company threw everything they could at me for me to take it off the survey.
I was very confident that the line was down there because the existing manhole locations at each end of the total network of easements across that part of town matched the location of the described easements.
It was part of some of the sewer locations I had staked in the 70s when working for an engineering company up there.
It caused problems on their end because it was never noted on any of the other surveys and it did not mention any sewer easement in their Commitment of Title and the Title Company was holding all the paper on that.
They thought that the out of town Surveyor would not have caught that, and if so, they thought I would bend to their pleasure.
I also believe that everyone knew it was down there because most of that area had been prepped for expansion to the building and when it was discovered they decided to turn the property and rebuild on a new site.
They had to do some manipulating thru their city codes and to get their ducks in a row because it took nearly a year before the property closed and new Title Policies were written.
Underwriters don't like finding things like that either.
NOPE, not on my watch.