Every so often I see a note on a map that says something like "survey prepared without benefit of a Title Commitment". What, if anything, does this do to protect the surveyor?
In VA we're required to say if the survey was completed with or without a current title opinion. Don't ask me why the state board is dictating this CYA note, but they are.
Seems that this should provide notice to any user that the client was too cheap to care if the final product was as complete as possible. This further warns the user to expect some surprises that would only come to light by examination of all relevant title documents by an expert specializing in title searchs.
For example: A title search might find a deed from Joe Putzworth to the buyer, three owners back, does not indicate whether or not Joe was single, a widower or married. That could be very important.
When there's no title work I put on a note something like the following:
"No title policy, title commitment, abstract, or certificate of title was available; therefore easements and other matters of record may not be reflected in this survey. Obtain current title work and verify easements before constructing improvements."
The main idea being to warn the client against building walls, fences, decks, etc. in what might later turn out to be a drainage, utility or access easement.
Here is what I use. Many not protect me but it sure looks impressive:
This Survey Was Prepared Without The Benefit Of A Title Commitment Nor Was This Parcel Abstracted For Easements Of Record And/Or Rights Of Way. COMPANY NAME and The Undersigned Professional Surveyor And Mapper Make No Guarantees Or Representations Regarding Information Shown Herein Pertaining To Easements, Reservations, Set-Back Lines, Agreements, Rights-Of-Way Or Other Similar Matters Other Than Those Shown Upon This Survey. The Undersigned Surveyor And Mapper Has Not Made A Search Of The Public Records For Any Titles, Deeds, Reservations, Easements, Rights Of Way, Setback Lines, Agreements Or Other Similar Matters, Other Than What Is Readily Identifiable Through The Property Appraisers Website. The Use Of The Property Appraisers Information Is By No Means To Be Construed As A Proper Or Thorough Investigation Of The Public Records, As Would Be Accomplished By An Abstract Of Title, And/Or Opinion Of Title By An Attorney At Law.
COMPANY NAME and the Undersigned Surveyor And Mapper Also Make No Representation As To The Status Of Title To The Property Described Herein.
Rplumb & Joe.
What exactly are you doing for the client. Seems to me as if the piece of paper you have provided may also should say " This is where the client told me the property lines are".
I don't mean to offend here but I am required by Ga state law to verify "all" of the things you have excluded.
I actually welcome an ALTA because they supply a title commitment and it actually limits some of the work I have to do.
Do you really not check the ROW's for width location etc. How about power line ROWs, apparent and used drives across your clients property? How about the 10' strip he gave his neighbor 10 years ago that he's not telling you about.
I guess state laws are different but I'm flabbergasted that any state would allow such a statement. Maybe if GA required recording of all surveys and all property transfers required a survey it would be that easy here too.
Well, you do offend.
In the spirit of Fla.-Ga weekend I will offer up the age old question; Why does the St. Johns River flow north?
Here, virtually everything mentioned can be excluded at the request of the client. The requirement is for the boundary location, its description and monuments found and set. Why pay for what you don't need?
This is becomming more common as more and more people are told that they "need an ALTA", but don't know what it is. They will provide you with a title abstract, but they do not want to pay for a title insurance commitment report. (Usually they are not buying Title Insurance anyway, it's just that some kid at the bank said they "had to have an ALTA") The note that you mention addresses this issue and tells why the surveyor did not list his evaluation of the Schedule B, Part II exception items in the title insurance commitment report, as some erroneously think is required.
People want "a cheaper ALTA". Simple fact is that doing this results in a survey that meets or exceedes you Minimum Technical Requirements set out by your state board.
I actually like it. it allows me to do a "normal" survey, but charge ALTA rates. The disclaimer allows me to label the plat as an "ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey" without a bunch of the associated garbage that these folks assume to be "required".
> Why does the St. Johns River flow north?
Warren Sapp knows......
[flash width=420 height=315] http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/MHdKDKVLoik?version=3&hl=en_US [/flash]
State laws are indeed different, and of course they affect standards of practice.
Minnesota has no laws or regulations of any kind about how to perform a boundary survey or what it should contain. Plats are regulated, but not surveys, and survey practice varies a good deal. There does happen to be a Minnesota law that you can't certify to the accuracy of your deed research unless you're a licensed abstractor. Survey recording is optional by county and frequently ignored.
I prefer ALTAs myself. On a non-ALTA survey, I ask the client if they have a title policy or abstract. Some do, most don't. I then go on to explain the kinds of encumbrances that might be disclosed by title work, and warn them that a survey performed without title research will not necessarily show them.
So far, not a single such client has ordered title work for use in the survey, nor offered to pay the extra amount it would cost for me to do the research back to the original grant.
I always get a plat and/or a Torrens certificate as applicable. If it's not a Torrens parcel I get the vesting deed to verify the legal and see whether it recites any easements. On fractional lots or metes-and-bounds parcels I pull underlying and adjoining deeds to check for gaps/overlaps and senior parcels. After that I still put the warning, as above, on the drawing.
Recently I received a request to turn a boundary survey I'm doing into an ALTA survey. I asked why they would want one and the newbie attorney said that they always do.
It took a bunch of phone calls to finally get the requirement canceled. Would have loved to do one, but I don't think they could have waited while it was being done or would have wanted to pay the cost.
I'm not even sure how it could have been acomplished, but, it would have been a bunch of work.
Well in the spirit of the biggest outdoor party in the world I'll drink to that.
Spurrier sucks tho heck he's all the way in SC and influencing the St. Johns. (dam#@$%^$##), Ga never has been able to beat him. They probably gonna get kicked again this w/e by Fla.
One hell of a fishery BTW.
I've gotten the same kind of request. They want an ALTA, but no one is selling, re-financing, looking for title insurance, etc. They just heard that it was what should be done.
Yeah, while I hate to agree with the OP, I don't see how any of these statements relieves a surveyor from doing whatever his state law stipulates as the minimum standards for surveying.
