We actually see quite a bit of this when the common back lot lines have offset corners. The landowner to the north finds the corner that is his back neighbor's corner and assumes it is also his.
In the photo, the yellow lines are the actual lot lines. The red line is where the north neighbor built a new fence - entirely on his property by using the wrong back corner. The taper is 10' to 0'.
The neighbor to the south then builds a patio and concrete deck up to the new fence, thus enchroaching onto his neighbor to the north who built the fence in the wrong location.
Another example.
Property owner with red roof garage assumes the tree line to the south is his property line, so he builds a swimming pool partly onto neighbor's property to the south.
I've seen that at least a couple dozen times in my 20 years ...
I even saw one that resulted in a trial, where the parties were able to find about 6 prior surveys one the two lots, and TWO of the surveys followed the fence lines actually used the wrong corner. That's what the $200 "survey" will get you in Florida.
A landowner has every right to make such mistakes and I want that right to be preserved in this free nation. Learning the hard way is common.
jud
Exactly why I always avoided this at all costs. Can't tell you how many subdivision layouts I got from engineers with this, not to mention curved rear lot lines because the tech offset the right-of-way x number of feet. Use common sense when designing. Lot owners don't know better.
I would always adjust the corners making them common. Just good practice.
All about public welfare.
One of the first "law suits" I got to cut my teeth on involved a 'wrong' corner.
The firm I was with had platted a residential area, and subsequently set all the property pins. Lot pins were marked by pins and 16" stakes that had corresponding lot numbers on each side. Geometry points on the property line were marked with abbreviated stakes; as point of curvature was marked "PC".
Some bonehead builder found a PC and layed out a house (and built it) 30' over onto another lot. His sentiment was that PC meant "Property Corner". He sued everybody that had ever even driven by the lot and looked at it.
Needless to say, he lost.
I dont stake PC's & PT's. along R/W. But... Come to think of it, maybe I should from now on.
Exactly why I always avoided this at all costs
It's one of my pet peeves, corners next to each other for lots on opposite sides of a common line.
There is no need for it that I've ever seen.
And a PC for a curve 3 feet from a property corner, it is a requirement that all the curve points get staked so I just bury them really deep.
If I design it there are no offset corners and all the pc's are a long way from a property corner or they are the property corner.
> I dont stake PC's & PT's. along R/W.
You better do that in the states I'm licensed in. They are property controlling points that need to be monumented during the course of a survey. Often times is comes in quite convenient to toss any R/M discrepancies into the curve data, and hold the tangent distances/bearings. Who will dispute that?
In terms of the landowner jumping on the adjoiners corner and using it as their own.... that is just money in the bank. Lot line adjustment and you are a super hero. And with the nicest smile you can conjur up, just remind them that most survey/legal problems fall under the heading of "...pay now or pay later..., but it will cost you...."
I just finished a Survey where persons unknown blazed a boundary. Unfortunately they blazed it from 0 to 15' to 8' (where the blazes stop about 200' before a concrete monument sticking 2' out of the ground) west of the 1/16th line. Both 1/16th corners are in and accepted. The neighbor knows they are there, has seen them and accepts them as the boundary corners (the Surveyor who set them did very good work).
I traversed around the quarter-quarter Section and my bearings and distances closely match the 1972 Record of Survey (all four corners of the quarter-quarter are in).
The west line is blazed and they are right on line.
The south line is blazed and they are right on line (also the 1972 Surveyor set some 1/2" rebars on line which I found, they aren't on his R/S but I have his field notes, that's why I looked for them). The rebars are right on line.
The east line (the W1/16th line) is blazed wrong. All of the blazes look similar (chain-saw cut). Typically three notches vertically arranged on the tree.
How do you fix the wrong blazes, drywall mud? I painted them with flat black tree paint. We cut new blazes on line and painted them with red tree paint. Fortunately it doesn't look like any permanent damage happened. There is some old fencing off a little but I think it predates the blazes anyway. The blazed line is 25' west of the fence but the true line is only 5 to 9' west of the fence. It is a cleared pastured; there are saw logs right up to the fence.
My speculation is whoever blazed the line mistakenly blazed a traverse line (it's the best traverse route) but that's just a guess. Maybe the Surveyor had set line laths on the other two lines but not this one. I'm just guessing because it could just be bad compass work too.
Incidentally, all of the fences around the quarter-quarter were built by the landowner in the early 70s (per the 1972 field notes) by the property owner who happened to be a CA LS. He left to go work on the Alaska pipeline according to the current owner. He mostly built the fences on his side of the line but he got that one pasture fence on our side.
> I dont stake PC's & PT's. along R/W. But... Come to think of it, maybe I should from now on.
Another reason why we never use Rebar as Control.
I set all corners, PC, PT included, when possible.
Main monuments are at the surface with a wire flag attached.
The PC & PT monuments are subsurface and a wire flag beside it. Digging required to see.
:good: that top photo's lot lines are ridiculous, surprised it passed agency review.
I agree with the practice of NOT designing these types of offset Lot Corners. The only exception would be for an over sized lot. In that case I'd keep them far enough away from one another, to hopefully avoid these conflicts. In my 18 years we've run into these designs many times. Always adding confusion and disputes for the unfortunate property owners.
@perry, I agree about not using rebar for control, but people will do the dumbest things. Last week I was digging up a Dept. Natural Resources monument at the NE corner of a section. The owner to the SW came out to see me. We walked south together to the top of a small hill where he showed me his corner that he had just built a fence to. His "corner" was a landscaping spike on the top of the hill where you could nicely see the NE corner and a long ways South to the next government corner. I had to break the bad news to him that it was another surveyor's traverse point. That it was about 30 feet South and 20 feet East of his SE property corner. Good news for me as he hired me on the spot to set his corners and mark his East and South lines. I had traveled 45 minutes to this job and was able to get them both done in the one trip. 🙂 We all went away happy in the end.
Estoppel
> We actually see quite a bit of this when the common back lot lines have offset corners. The landowner to the north finds the corner that is his back neighbor's corner and assumes it is also his.
>
> In the photo, the yellow lines are the actual lot lines. The red line is where the north neighbor built a new fence - entirely on his property by using the wrong back corner. The taper is 10' to 0'.
>
> The neighbor to the south then builds a patio and concrete deck up to the new fence, thus enchroaching onto his neighbor to the north who built the fence in the wrong location.
>
>
Since the bonehead to the N decided he was smart enough to figure out where his PL was without hiring a surveyor, he ended up representing the line incorrectly by where he put his fence. His neighbor to the S relied on that representation, and now landowner to the N is estopped (or should be) from requiring the neighbor to the S from having to go to the trouble and expense of removing improvements that he otherwaise would not have placed as he did but for where the bonehead built the fence.
I wonder how much bonehead would be willing to pay now if he could just turn back time and hire a surveyor.
> :good: that top photo's lot lines are ridiculous, surprised it passed agency review.
I've seen them like this far more often than not. Planners & engineers have been designing lot layouts to meet minimum lot sizes in order to maximize the number of buildable (sellable) lots for several decades now. If you do work in suburbia, this is what you find. Rural, larger lots tend to be designed with more attention to making common corners.
As for setting PCs and PTs at the RW, as mentioned in a post below, many agencies require them in new subdivisions. [sarcasm]If you think it's an unnecessary PITA, look at the bright side... think of all the fixit work they can generate when some bonehead builds a fence without having a surveyor show him his corner monuments.[/sarcasm]
Estoppel
> Since the bonehead to the N decided he was smart enough to figure out where his PL was without hiring a surveyor, he ended up representing the line incorrectly by where he put his fence. His neighbor to the S relied on that representation, and now landowner to the N is estopped (or should be) from requiring the neighbor to the S from having to go to the trouble and expense of removing improvements that he otherwaise would not have placed as he did but for where the bonehead built the fence.
>
> I wonder how much bonehead would be willing to pay now if he could just turn back time and hire a surveyor.
Why? You don't HAVE to build your fence exactly on the property line.
"I thought it looked better for my fence to be parallel to my driveway." 😉
BTW--I see offset rear corners all the time...Sometimes less than a foot between them. o.O
Estoppel
That would depend on if the neighbor to the north expressed to the south neighbor that the fence represented the property line. If so, and the south neighbor relied upon that information, then the neighbor to the north would (or should) be estopped from claiming the triangle shaped strip.
Estoppel
Yes, that is true. I guess I shouldn't make assumptions without knowing the situation. I just think that, sometimes, we put too much stock in fence locations--especially in recent subdivisions.