Allen Wrench, post: 386562, member: 6172 wrote: I don't run into a lot of situations where the measured and record distances between found monuments vary, and I have to subdivide the line. I've done many surveys where I'm retracing, and I can simply state the facts on the drawing that a line was platted as this, and I measured this.
Well now, I have a platted lot (rectangular) that I'm splitting into two, and I found all 4 original corners, capped, and good condition. However, the measured distance between two of the corners is quite a bit off considering the age of the survey, technology, etc. at the time (about 0.40') Now if I have to subdivide the line (for discussion let's just say in half) is it half of the measured or record distance - where do you put the corner?
Probably not an easy answer, but I just wanted to gather some wisdom from our community on a situation I don't deal with often.
Use proportionate measurement. In the example, half the distance. Unless your job is to provide for one of the parcels to be 50'. (ie: the north 50 feet of the 100-foot lot) or the North half of the 100-foot lot.) On the north half, it would be half of what you measure. I think.
Is there excess or deficiency in adjacent lots? since you cannot merely surveying a lot, and most especially for subdivision purposes.
Paul in PA
Tom Adams, post: 387124, member: 7285 wrote: Use proportionate measurement. In the example, half the distance. Unless your job is to provide for one of the parcels to be 50'. (ie: the north 50 feet of the 100-foot lot) or the North half of the 100-foot lot.) On the north half, it would be half of what you measure. I think.
In reality, the situation was to separate the south 200' of the lot, leaving about 800' to the north. The description was essentially the south 200' of lot such and such, measured at right angles, parallel, etc. The drawing showed all the discrepancies in measurement. If it had truly been a half and half situation I would have done proportionate, midpoint split like any other block.
Paul in PA, post: 387126, member: 236 wrote: Is there excess or deficiency in adjacent lots? since you cannot merely surveying a lot, and most especially for subdivision purposes.
Paul in PA
The error was limited to one found monument that was a street-side corner common to two lots. Everyone else had what they should, except the one neighbor, who is also shorted.
Allen Wrench, post: 387559, member: 6172 wrote: The error was limited to one found monument that was a street-side corner common to two lots. Everyone else had what they should, except the one neighbor, who is also shorted.
My brain hurts a little. No one should get shorted, if they do, fraud happens. We surveyors do not describe a short block as someone getting "shorted", . A deed has meaning and there are mechanisms to lay it out on the ground.
But, my understanding is that one owner owned the entire frontage, than sold the "south 200" or such. IF this is the senior deed, it should get the full 200, that is true.
Allen Wrench, post: 387557, member: 6172 wrote: In reality, the situation was to separate the south 200' of the lot, leaving about 800' to the north. The description was essentially the south 200' of lot such and such, measured at right angles, parallel, etc. The drawing showed all the discrepancies in measurement. If it had truly been a half and half situation I would have done proportionate, midpoint split like any other block.
For the 'South 200' of the lot, you should hold a measured 200' I believe. If it were a proportional call, such as the south 2/10 of the lot (or something like that) I would proportion.
I grew up thinking that the south 200' is 200'. But some might say that if the lot was called to be 1000' and the following deed called for the south 200', and you measured 1003' you should proportion in that three feet of difference. But my feeling is that if the deed calls for 200' then that is what the grantor and grantee "shook hands" to and that the grantee should not need to get more nor should he be shorted on the 200' contract.
Allow me to muddy the waters with this simplified sketch of the situation.
Take a sledge hammer and beat THIS ONE 0.2' east...:smarty:
Yeah, I know it's not much - but let's say it was 0.40' off.
It's not a huge issue in this case, but what if they were selling the east 90' of that lot? I'm thinking in that case, the east part would be 90l.00' wide, but the west portion would be 109.80?
Allen Wrench, post: 386562, member: 6172 wrote: I don't run into a lot of situations where the measured and record distances between found monuments vary, and I have to subdivide the line. I've done many surveys where I'm retracing, and I can simply state the facts on the drawing that a line was platted as this, and I measured this.
Well now, I have a platted lot (rectangular) that I'm splitting into two, and I found all 4 original corners, capped, and good condition. However, the measured distance between two of the corners is quite a bit off considering the age of the survey, technology, etc. at the time (about 0.40') Now if I have to subdivide the line (for discussion let's just say in half) is it half of the measured or record distance - where do you put the corner?
Probably not an easy answer, but I just wanted to gather some wisdom from our community on a situation I don't deal with often.
It's a stupid easy question. You split what YOU MEASURED!
Allen Wrench, post: 387850, member: 6172 wrote: Yeah, I know it's not much - but let's say it was 0.40' off.
It's not a huge issue in this case, but what if they were selling the east 90' of that lot? I'm thinking in that case, the east part would be 90l.00' wide, but the west portion would be 109.80?
I think you just use a bigger hammer according to post 27 above. 🙂 Jp
Is that 80' the road ROW? Did you find CL monuments? Did you give the city/county its required 80', no more, no less?
Regardless of the position of that supposed original corner, set the new ones on line and at 200'. You create a junior/senior line and the conveyed portion is the south 200'.
Jim Frame, post: 386576, member: 10 wrote: In California we have a word for that: fraud.
I don't think that's necessarily true, and think that we may be discussing two different types of mapping documents for different purposes.
For the survey map, record of survey, or whatever you are producing to represent your boundary survey for the client and/or for filing, then you are reporting distances to the hundredth, showing record and what you actually measured to that level of precision. Reporting differently in that context certainly would be misrepresenting the data.
On the other hand, zoning regulations rarely designate a precision greater than the nearest foot for things like minimum lot widths and setbacks, the nearest 500 or 1000 s.f. for minimum lot areas of smaller lots, or the nearest acre for areas zoned for larger parcels.
For planning review, I see nothing unethical about submitting a site plan based upon your field survey but with distances and areas reported to the same significant figures as the requirements are given in the zoning code or ordinance. In fact, I believe that would be the more correct thing to do than to provide a drawing with a greater degree of reported precision as many planners have no understanding of significant figures and often would make incorrect and detrimental decisions based upon supposed deficiencies which are insignificant according to the language and precision contained in the code.
Even some surveyors have little or no understanding of significant figures and would argue that 49.80' does not meet a zoning minimum width designated as 50'.
Several years ago, one of our County Supervisors (also an LS) had to give the Planning Department a lesson in significant figures at the regular Board of Supervisors Meeting when they had denied a Parcel Map (minor division) because the zoning minimum was for 5 acres (not 5.0 or 5.00) and one of the parcels came out to 4.96 acres. The landowner appealed to the Board of Supervisors and prevailed.
Back to the original question of how to divide the parcel (99.60'). If your direction was to divide it in half, do that. The legal concept of prorating between original monuments is that the original undisturbed monuments are legally correct and your measurement is legally mistaken, therefore you must correct your "chain" (or edm) to match that legally correct distance between the monuments in order to correctly set points at specific distances on the line between the original monuments. Set your mon at midpoint and be done with it.
Allen Wrench, post: 387850, member: 6172 wrote: Yeah, I know it's not much - but let's say it was 0.40' off.
It's not a huge issue in this case, but what if they were selling the east 90' of that lot? I'm thinking in that case, the east part would be 90l.00' wide, but the west portion would be 109.80?
I agree. If someone is conveying the east 90' of his property you need to stake it @ 90'
If the as-measured was one foot off (forget 0.4').....I say that the east 90' would still be 90, and the west would be 109'. Likewise if you measured 201', the east 90' would be 90'. You only proportion when it is broken into a simultaneous conveyance. (the East 90' creates a senior/junior rights conveyance, and the 90' conveyance leaves the grantor with whatever is left over. You need to know the real intent of the seller if you are creating the legal description for his deed)
If an owner had subdivided his 200' lot into a 110' lot and a 90' lot,and you measured the total to be 199.... you would need to proportion the corner in between so one lot would be 109.45 and the other would be 89.55 for a total of 199'
Every survey is different, few bearing trees here, except for the mountains and most of it is fed so not many surveys. The 1880's were usually stone, mounds and pits.
Very rare to find a pit from that era, only have seen one mound.
The stone holds if you find it firmly set and marked, you are probably good to go, many were set "in" the earth mound and you might expect to find them "loose".
The best luck are the stone mound corners they have stood the test of time better than the pits and earth mound monuments.
Later surveys 1890-1910 are better monumented, found many pits for them, but it's still the stone you are mainly looking for, hopefully still set and still marked. Some surveys were wooden posts, sometimes they are still recoverable.
Rob O'Malley, post: 387872, member: 154 wrote: Is that 80' the road ROW? Did you find CL monuments? Did you give the city/county its required 80', no more, no less?
Regardless of the position of that supposed original corner, set the new ones on line and at 200'. You create a junior/senior line and the conveyed portion is the south 200'.
It is the 80' road r/w platted at the same time as the lots. The CL was never monumented.
