HUD Surveys

They want to see how water flows across the property and around buildings.
You may need up to 50ft outside property and/or to centerline adjacent street.

The survey report depends upon your state and what is usually provided. My experience has been in Texas and the drawing and property description are the survey report for most surveys.
More detailed information is needed when there are boundary issues and there becomes a necessity to explain your reconstruction of monument and boundary location.

:plumbbob:

Its been a while since we have done one but in my experience they take forever to close and then subsequently to get paid on.
When I see HUD now I insist on payment when the product is delivered.
For the older jobs, some took over a year to close and luckily we were able to get the client to pay prior to closing.

The fun part is when everyone decides they are now ready to review it again and want any comments or questions addressed immediately a year later!

Gregg Gaffney, post: 360564, member: 1111 wrote: Its been a while since we have done one but in my experience they take forever to close and then subsequently to get paid on.
When I see HUD now I insist on payment when the product is delivered.
For the older jobs, some took over a year to close and luckily we were able to get the client to pay prior to closing.

The fun part is when everyone decides they are now ready to review it again and want any comments or questions addressed immediately a year later!

I have had the same experience as Greg, the HUD process is lengthy and difficult, that being said if you are willing to finance the job, they can be quite profitable.

Also for me they required the surveyors report to be filled out seperatley.

hillsidesurveyor, post: 360552, member: 7292 wrote:
2) It is my understanding that the surveyor report required only needs to accompany the ALTA/ACSM Survey and is not to be included on the actual survey itself. Is this correct? Also I have some reservations about the HUD Certificate itself and the language I would be certifying to.

Hillside, you are certainly correct in having reservations about the HUD form.

It's been nearly 10 years since I was in active practice, but I downloaded the form and it seems to be exactly the same. Here's how I used to fill it out. Letters and numbers refer to the uploaded marked .pdf file.

A. ("standing in the name of...") I would put in the owner(s) names from the title work. No harm in adding, "per Title Commitment No. XXXX by _____Title Company, dated __________." ALTA does not require us to determine ownership, and neither should HUD; that's the title company's job.

B. (second "standing in the name of...") This question is redundant and has never made sense to me (the form is at least 30 years old, maybe 50). There will no doubt be other opinions about what to put in this blank. I usually put in a very general statement about who seemed to be occupying the premises on the survey date, preceded by the words "Occupied by..." For a rental property I would put something like "Occupied by tenants as to leased units; owner as to all other areas."

I did it this way probably 100 times and no one ever objected. Of course it would also be possible to put in the same ownership information used for Item A. Never tried that.

1. Rights of way, etc., relating to possible prescriptive rights-- "None disclosed by survey" or "As shown on survey drawing." The drawing in turn should contain a note, and/or a reference to ALTA requirements, that limits liability for underground utilities. People have gotten nailed for failing to show underground utilities on an ALTA survey, and the same thing could happen with the HUD form.

2. Springs, streams, etc.--"None visible" or "As shown on survey drawing."

3. Cemeteries-- "No grave markers or other visible surface indications were observed. No documents relating to cemeteries are disclosed by Title Commitment..." Limiting the answer to visible surface indications and records disclosed by the Commitment will help to limit liability, I believe. Of course I'm not an attorney, and other surveyors may have different opinions.

4. Electric/telephone lines, etc.--"As shown on survey drawing."

5. Disputed boundaries or encroachments--if improvements are over the line, or occupancy doesn't agree with the surveyed boundary, I usually note these matters briefly, followed by "as shown on survey drawing." Others have commented on BeerLeg that it's just as well not to use the word "encroachment."

6. Earth-moving work or recent construction--either "No visible surface indications," or something like "newly-completed 17-unit apartment building." Usually it will be a newly-completed project, since the HUD loan is generally the final mortgage, replacing the construction loan.

7. Building or possession lines--note how boundaries are occupied, followed by "as shown on survey drawing." If there are party walls, of course you need to tie them down according to ALTA requirements.

8. Recent or proposed street or sidewalk construction--note anything that appears to be newly built. As to proposed construction or ROW changes, I used to call the city, county, and/or state agency that controlled the adjoining streets or highways, ask someone there if any new construction or ROW acquisition was in the works, write down the person's name, agency, date, and what they said, and put that note in the file. Generally nothing was proposed that I could find out about. Then I would fill out the blank with "No proposed change in street lines known to the undersigned."

9. Flood hazard-- "Surveyed parcel is in Zone ____ by scaled map location and graphic location from FIRM Panel No.____, dated_____"

10. Site used as a solid waste dump, etc.-- Lots of potential liability here. I always used to put "No information." I was very glad to have done that one time when I surveyed a site prior to construction. On the first day of excavation, a large deposit of buried asbestos turned up.

On that and other occasions, lenders told me, "HUD requires you to answer that question yes or no." I would say, "Have you asked them?" "Well, no." After a few repetitions of this conversation the lender would actually call the local HUD office and ask. The usual reply was, "Let the surveyor answer it the way he wants."

In one or two cases the lenders or their attorneys did not try to hide behind the alleged HUD requirement. They said they wanted it themselves. What I did for them was to personally walk the site and then write a separate note something like this--

"I walked this site on [date]. The site is landscaped and the ground surface was clearly visible except in a brushy area at the southerly end. I observed some loose papers, soda cans, and plastic bottles on the ground. I did not observe any old tires, automobile parts, discarded appliances, steel drums, household garbage, rags, old clothes, scrap lumber..." [and anything else I could think of that I didn't see].

The lenders' attorneys seemed to find this reassuring. And I didn't think there would be much liability for my firm in talking about specific things I didn't see. But there would have been a lot of liability in making sweeping statements like "No solid waste dumps on site."

Of course what the lenders and/or HUD ought to do about the solid-waste issue is to require the borrower to engage an environmental firm to do a study. Those firms have trained personnel, test equipment, and suitable liability insurance, and their fees reflect that. Again, the HUD form is old and that's probably the reason Item 10 is still on there. It likely dates back to a time before environmental contamination became such a legal hot potato.

C. (signature) When I was doing this they usually wanted "live" (original) signatures on the form. I would fill out the form, run copies, and sign them with a blue pen rather than black, so the signature could be seen to be original. 10 copies usually did the trick. If I ran fewer than that I would often get a rush request for more. It never hurt to sign a few extras and throw them in the file, in case someone wanted more when I was out of the office.

And yes, the form is separate from the ALTA survey.

Whenever a client specifies a HUD survey, I figure out my fee for a plain ALTA survey and then add $1,000.00. That usually covers my time for the tedious back-and-forth with the HUD reviewer.

Thanks all,

This is exactly what I was looking for.