235 acre ALTA survey with a drawing not showing any of the 507 lot platted subdivision with dedicated public streets and easements. At the very bottom of the first sheet (with all of the notes, etc.) is a sentence referencing the recorded plat and the statement: see final plat. If you miss that one sentence you would not know the land was platted.
i think that survey drawing is grossly misleading. What say you?
To say the least ! Was there a purpose note the would explain why?
If the streets and easements are public, they should be shown, even if all of the 507 lots are in common ownership.
Was this company just too lazy to draft them?
Perhaps the subdivision is being purchased by a developer, and he doesn't need to see all the lots on the ALTA plan. He just needs insurance on the title for the overall project area. That could have been negotiated with the surveyor to keep the cost of the plan down.
An ALTA survey that didn't need to be an ALTA survey. Transfer that liability.
I suppose the analogy would be a note that says a 120' easement for overhead electric transmission lines crosses the site. See Docket 12345 Page 67 for location.
The title report lists what is there, while the ALTA survey is supposed to show what is there, if it can be plotted.
Hmm, yeah seems a bit odd. What is at the site? Just empty ground?
I would say whomever the ALTA is certified to would have standing to complain or to be completely satisfied by the product. As mentioned above, it may have been an additionally negotiated item.
I still don't know how you don't show public roads on a boundary survey plan
You can't negotiate statutory requirements out of a price proposal for preparing an ALTA survey.
You can't negotiate statutory requirements out of a price proposal for preparing an ALTA survey.
Is this copyrighted? Thinking about putting this in my email signature...
You can't negotiate statutory requirements out of a price proposal for preparing an ALTA survey.
Are we sure about that?
Not trying to argue (I get where you're coming from) but ALTA surveys aren't normally filed here, they are for the client only.
If I write a description from a survey I have to monument it all by regulation (not statute), but all I have to do for an ALTA is show the conditions on the ground that the client requests and that's a private contract.
Are they up to the level of a Subdivision, Record of Survey or a Certificate of Survey.
I would say not even close, and there isn't anyone to review, approve or sign off on them like documents that get recorded.
They are often sold as some gold standard survey, I consider them the bottom rung of surveying from examples I've been seeing lately.
So the OP's example isn't surprising at all, just what did the surveyor violate with his ALTA, if the client is good then I guess there is no problem. There are no ALTA police.
3. Surveying Standards and Standards of Care
B. Other Requirements and Standards of Practice - Many states and some local jurisdictions have adopted statutes, administrative rules, and/or ordinances that set out standards regulating the practice of surveying within their jurisdictions...Where conflicts between the standards set forth herein and any such jurisdictional requirements and standards of practice occur, the more stringent must apply.
*The more stringent must apply to that survey, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore statutory requirements if they are triggered by that same survey.
3. Surveying Standards and Standards of Care
B. Other Requirements and Standards of Practice - Many states and some local jurisdictions have adopted statutes, administrative rules, and/or ordinances that set out standards regulating the practice of surveying within their jurisdictions...Where conflicts between the standards set forth herein and any such jurisdictional requirements and standards of practice occur, the more stringent must apply.
*The more stringent must apply to that survey, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore statutory requirements if they are triggered by that same survey.
Look at the OP; he sees one of these super minimal ALTA's, he's used to doing a thoroughly detailed survey, but what was violated by only doing a boundary of the 233 acres and not even showing the subdivision?
I don't disagree with you Rover, but be specific, what is wrong with the title company requesting a boundary of the subdivision exterior and nothing else?
I see lots of similar surveys, very minimal, basically a transfer of liability to the surveyor for a small fee.
Nothing I want to do, but they are getting done all the time.
I would say that the survey is unacceptable if it does not show all title related issues on the face of the survey. I would not dream of having somebody refer to another document outside of my survey. Not showing all of the title lines within amounts to creating a puzzle for your client to fit together. Unacceptable!
@oldpacer I do not know but are ALTA surveys regulated by state statutes? How did all of the states agree on the same statutory requirements? I thought ALTA surveys were defined by the title insurance companies along with inputs of interested parties. Are they really defined by individual state statutes instead?
Are they really defined by individual state statutes instead?
My take on what oldpacer means is that by state statute definition (not sure if it is in all states, but it is many), an ALTA is also a boundary survey. Once defined as a boundary survey by the state statute, the state standards of practice have to also be followed. Hence why some people have no option to allow the client to pass on the setting of missing corners (state requirement) while other states may not require re-setting any missing monuments.
Given differences between states, it could also be that it is required or not to show the interior lines of the record subdivision depending on where a poster practices.
3. Surveying Standards and Standards of Care
B. Other Requirements and Standards of Practice - Many states and some local jurisdictions have adopted statutes, administrative rules, and/or ordinances that set out standards regulating the practice of surveying within their jurisdictions...Where conflicts between the standards set forth herein and any such jurisdictional requirements and standards of practice occur, the more stringent must apply.
*The more stringent must apply to that survey, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore statutory requirements if they are triggered by that same survey.
This was exactly my understanding as well. Ironically, when I raised this very issue with the "veteran licenses" at my office (when you and I worked for the same outfit) I was met with a "Wellllllllllllllllllllllllll this is a grey area". It didn't seem particularly grey to me so when the conference rolled around I asked this question for myself and, to a lesser extent I suppose, for the room. My understanding seemed to be confirmed, but when I got back to the office after the conference I caught some hell for that.
Anyway, I've yet to hear of anyone getting busted for skirting the rules this way so I guess it makes sense that guys might try it.
This is one of many reasons I generally pass on calls for ALTA surveys. We do a few, but, do not pursue them. However, I do not care to work where the county population exceeds 40,000, so the opportunity is rare.