Mis-Aligned Right of Way Taking

I wouldn't do any of those things. In my experience, it seems that much of the DOT work is usually correct. You're off 40.3' one way, and off 46.7' the other, if you think you really have it.

There's not nearly enough information given to identify what is actually correct. Looks like that R/W has varied from 33' to 50' to 53' to 60' (with various tapers) in a rather short span.

I would recheck the POB & Alignment Points, acquire/replot all the deeds, recheck the station math, and then take the shovel out for another spin.

Respectfully disagree there…DOT in North and South Carolina don’t always nail down their property lines when doing a taking so it’s an often run into issue. You’ll see a few irons on their plans and then deed plotted boundaries leaving the roadway. I could show you a handful of times I’ve run down this question. I could show you full easements not even taken from the correct property owner due to misplaced property lines…

For the question at hand please assume that I have properly surveyed the boundary. And separately I have properly established the DOT alignment. All I’m after is reconciling the conflict created in the incorrect stations of the taking.

I'm working on one right now with the same deal.

There is about 81' difference from where the dot plans have the boundary line and where I believe it to be.

I'll be following this thread for sure. Great Timing TSG

If this is such a frequent occurrence, and a commonly known issue, and you've dealt with it often enough in the past, then it would seem that you should already know what to do.

But the fact that you're here asking, and another has chimed in with the same problem leads me to respectfully disagree.

While your findings may be correct, your comments do not inspire much confidence in "Carolina DOT surveying". Heck, what's 40' here, or 80' there between neighbors.

Option B with the caveat that DOT changing the plan sets isn't a big problem.

If plans are too far along then leave the new ROW as is and create a kink in Wilson's property line (not ideal). But, that's a discussion needed with DOT. I'm also assuming that Wilson's property is being taken so the little parcel will need to be added to it.

Option D: Tell the DOT they screwed up, show them how, and ask them how they want to handle it.

Wait. Are you working on a boundary survey for one of the owners? Are you working as a contractor to the DOT to locate the limits of the ROW in a project from forty years ago?

Actually, that's a good question. I assumed this was a current taking, but if this is a retracement survey of the Wilson parcel then that changes things.

That's a good question, I assumed from the OP's original post that it's a DOT project, but if it's a private survey for an adjoiner then the answer is really simple.

R/W plans typically don’t transfer land. Find the deed that recorded the take.

Great discussion here.

I am doing a boundary survey on the Gunter tract to the left of the Wilson tract.

SCDOT plan set is from ‘82 but the R/W was acquired by deed in ‘79. I have the full plan set and all deeds, which is how I know it was taken in fee.

My boundary was resurveyed in ‘88 and a portion cut out in 2004. Neither of the “recent” surveys seem to have had a copy of the DOT plans or deeds because they don’t even show the curves…not to mention this tapered triangle. SCDOT takings are only filed in Columbia so this is also not an uncommon occurrence for a county an hour and a half away…local surveyors didn’t have good notice of these takings unless they knew about them (…story for another day)

Seems like I’m the first one placing these DOT takings on the ground for this parcel since ‘79.

As far as what I have done in the past…no two scenarios are the same…but I think I am inclined to my option A.

I have plotted the triangle by the established stationing and chopped it off at the property line. It would never make it to the 60’ width on our site. This would hold the taper as designed (for slope) but SCDOT could not be conveyed what Gunter did not own. So the taking would only be affective for the area of the triangle owned by Gunter at the time of the deed.

If I was surveying Wilson’s property I would show the end of the triangle per station, site Gunters deed and shade the area where DOT may need to clean up their title with the successors to Wilson since that area was not taken from Wilson.

This is how I currently have it drawn when I asked this question.

Also side note:

Boundary is solid…old irons…fence line…no questions there…all good.

DOT alignment is holding a reset PC iron on the opposite side and it works great with irons in the curve on our side as well. I also used aerial imagery as a 3000’ back check of the centerline alignment on the long tangent to the north…very confident on my stationing & alignment.

Well now. That settles it. Everyone will now agree with you.😆

I don't get the question in the context of a retracement. It's clear that the deeds get put together on the ground. The plans may or may not follow the deeds, including the PL but the plans are only one, possibly irrelevant, element of the puzzle.

I think what tripped me on this and the reason I posed the question. It’s an issue of conflicting elements. The deed called for a station and stated that station to be the property line. At that point it called for a 60’ offset.

The conflict (after survey) is the station and property line cannot be one in the same.

So…which holds? Station or PL?

Put in another perspective, if the surveyed property line was 2 or 3 feet off I would not have blinked to just hold 60’ offset at the PL and the station would give way. But here we have 40+ feet… that’s ultimately why I wanted some other thoughts on this.