Legal Description Question

I would probably describe the tract as a whole and then except or subject to, "whatever the reason is for the condition", using a separate description to describe the building location. Need to think about it a bit and know the whys, how comes, is there a time limit or if a separate document is already in the records addressing the issue.
jud

I'd prefer not to address with a separate description under the building area. There is no prior record description. This is creating a limited land use easement for the area. I have setup all the historic ties to get to Pt F already.

If you don't separate the descriptions within the document you are tying the land and building together as far as title goes forever. Don't know the whys but they need to be in the document with some provision for the disappearance of that building over time. Are there some subsurface rights involved? Might get some legal and title advice on what you want to do so the impact of your action does not come back someday as a problem.
jud

I believe this description would limit digging or specific uses within the description area (due to possible underground contamination).

As for as tying the building and delineated land area together forever, and the building is destroyed say 5 or 10 years from now, wouldn't it still be ok since the dimensions to the building are also called out (and would thus hold thereafter destruction)?

I would call QB the northeasterly corner of the building, I'm not sure why you have to refer to QA and I'm still thinking about what to call QC besides an angle point in the building. What I don't understand is how there would be an easement for the same type of use under the building as the use outside the building, but you didn't ask about that so I assume there's some reason. I don't see anything wrong with referring to the building lines as passing calls in the description even though it will disappear some day. A lot of things that we refer to in descriptions disappear or move after we've referred to them.

I called QB the most northeast corner, because if you go northerly from QC, what would that northeast corner be called?

In reality QB should be called the most East corner!

QA is not related to this description, but is related to another one. And it has to do with the same idea, which point is the southeast corner of the building, QA or the lower point of the wing? What would you call QA?

The easement (whether under or outside the building) is to limit usage because of possible underground contamination danger (In case the building is ever destroyed).

I see what you're saying, there could be two northeasterly corners so most easterly would be better. I even seen "most easterly northeast corner".

An easement beginning at [point F somehow defined] on the easterly lot line, N80 48' 35" W, encountering a building at 25.44 ft, continuing under the building for another 47.37 ft, and continuing 17.19 ft, a total of 90.00 ft, to a point short of the lot boundary, thence N 9 11' 25" E 22.85 ft, thence S 80 48' 35" E 90.00 passing under said building, thence S 9 11' 25" W 22.85 ft to the POB.

I would call QB the Most Easterly Corner of Bodg H-215. There isn't really any other corner that could be confused as the most easterly.

I would call QA the Southerly Terminus of the Most Easterly Wall of Bldg H-215. I think that the "most easterly wall" is clearly definable, and from there, the "southerly terminus" becomes clearly defineable. Trying to identify QA as the most southeasterly raises the question of whether that's the most southerly of the southeasterly corners or the most easterly of the southeasterly corners.

As for the description, I'd do something like this:

Beginning at Point "F", being a point on the westerly wall of Bldg 216, 48.55' northeasterly from the southerly terminus of said wall; thence N80-48-35W 25.44 feet to the a point in the easterly line of Building H-215; thence continuing N80-48-35W under Bldg 215-H 44.90 feet to a point on the westerly line of Bldg 215-H; thence continuing N80-48-35W 19.66 feet to a [iron pipe/rebar/whatever] marking the southwesterly corner of this description; thence N09-11-25E 22.85 feet to a [iron pipe/rebar/whatever] marking the northwesterly corner of this description; thence...

and deal with the building similarly on the way back. Essentially, when writing a M&B description, I like to include a description and location of any bound or point along a line that will serve to add clarity or definition in re-establishing the points and lines for someone following at some later time.

For Bill and Evan, I am not sure I understand the line going "under" the building. Does the line have a vertical element to it? If the building were removed, would the line be vertically underneath where the building once was, and would the surface of the ground belong to another deedholder?

Also to the general subject, I have a problem with "Most" northeast corner. I am not sure what that means, especially if there is a corner "more" north of that corner. If I were to deal with the "most" I would probably say something more like "eastmost" Northeast corner. Could you say eastmost angle point or something else?

I read this only in general, maybe I will absorb it a little further. I may have missed the intent.

In the OP, Epoch described the easement as going under the building, so I made the assumption that it is an easement for some underground feature. If it were a surface easement, I might have said "thence through bldg 215-H...". Little difference as far as the description is concerned. Other terms of the easement deed will designate use restrictions which may give the effect of a limit to the vertical element of the description.

In general, nearly all boundary descriptions have an unstated vertical element to them. The boundaries are not really lines which exist only on the surface of the land, although we commonly refer to them as "boundary lines". They are actually planes intersecting the ground to form the boundary line (OK, roughly intersecting as we always report horizontal distance and not along the surface of the ground distance).

Think about it. If the landowner excavates below the surface, isn't he still on his property? If the roof of a neighboring building overhangs the boundary, don't we identify it as a potential encroachment?

Building condo descriptions are often limited by stated vertical elemenst defining both top and bottom of the conveyed "airspace". Many easements have an implied vertical element based upon their use. Fee descriptions may have a vertical element if someone else owns the subsurface rights to certain mineral veins.