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.

Four things caught my eye. The road centerline is in only degrees and minutes, The captioning is handdrawn, The plans look so much like the dozens and dozens of 1965-1985 plans I have used. And, last but not least, the notation under Wilson's name with a 1979 date.

You seem to be concerned about the old plotted property line and the station at the end of it. If it's wrong then it's wrong.

Gunter never granted that 40 feet of right of way cause he didn't own it. So today the ROW jogs back to 50 feet until it hits the station at 968+27 unless the taking from Wilson overlapped that area, I'm guessing it didn't.

The ROW can't be expanded out to 60 feet at the property line, that would be an illegal taking. Don't do that. Put Gunter's corner on the right of way as described however far from CL it lands.

Since you're not surveying for Wilson then I wouldn't deal with that issue.

I also wouldn't show the ROW continuing past Gunter's land to the east as a definitive line.

Be careful how much you take on when doing the plat.

In my experience, NCDOT leaves a mess wherever they go. The descriptions for the their fee simple takings don't ever appear to be actually surveyed, despite them often being written to the thousandth of a foot and to the hundredth (!!!) of a second. I often find then when trying to reconcile the described take into a properly resolved boundary, gaps, strips and gores are everywhere.

That said, in my experience, most of the deeds conveying from land owner to DOT contain some specific reference made to the DOT plans, "as shown on plans for NCDOT project #XX". These are sometimes recorded in the jurisdiction, but are otherwise available from the DOT with the right contacts and patience. The plans will never show the issues that the descriptions create, everything is always neatly buttoned up like you would expect had it been properly surveyed. Having that, I typically am inclined to take some liberties to make my resolution 'look' like theirs, even if strictly following the math doesn't make that work. I'll always make the same reference and note accordingly on my map.

I expect many surveyors would disagree with this, but so long as the project plans are referenced, I feel I'm on reasonably solid ground. That said, there's always an exception, and if the discrepancy is notable for some reason, I would likely handle it differently.

TSGPLS has probably moved on from this by now but, having a fair amount of experience with DOT right of way surveys and surveyors, I thought I'd chime in and hopefully contribute to the conversation.

DOT RW surveyors are in a tough position:
-They can't choose their clients
-They can't choose which surveys they accept/ can't turn down work
-They are often or usually doing surveys very distant from their "familiar territory"
-They don't get to choose the field crew that works for them
-They can't be as good at working in an area as the knowledgeable local surveyors are, especially in areas where land survey and land title records are not well organized and publicly accessible, or where a lot of non-filed surveys have taken place, etc.

Even the best professional DOT land surveyors will be challenged by the above and not produce the definitive location for a private boundary, maybe one of dozens they must locate on a project. I'm not defending sloppy results, if that's what the example case shows. Like all work done by others, verify it if you're going to use it yourself. But don't criticize it without knowing the details.

To deal with the above conditions, DOT's can do a number of things:
-Request that proposed RW acquisitions be modified, to help deal with uncertainties in surveys.
-Do not place RW angle points at private property lines, if possible.
-Do not write descriptions that terminate on uncertain boundaries.
-Do write descriptions that give the most possible certainty as to what land is being acquired (normally via complex calls or detail in the description or the use of "cut off line" descriptions, e.g. "that portion of the lands of Smith lying easterly of the following described line..." and that line extends beyond any possible location for the parcel being acquired from.
-As it is way cheaper than paying for extensive surveys to resolve difficult boundaries, pay both parties for RW in areas with substantially different alternate private parcel boundary locations (the area between Stations 967+87 and 968+27 in your case).

In your case, it appears the DOT was placing the new RW line just outside of that cut or fill line (I'm assuming that's what that dashed line is). They were not targeting "60 foot width at the property line" (wherever that may be), but 60 foot width at 968+27. I can't tell from your post, but the RW description in question might be of the "cut off line" style, and might have been used for the adjoiner Wilson as well, so the DOT would get the RW they needed. The only question is who got paid for the area of uncertainty?

Keep in mind what matters to the DOT in their real property rights acquisitions is they get clear title to the rights they need, the grantor is treated fairly, and the grantor is satisfied with the deal. Remember that real estate values/appraisals are highly variable and in the end deals are a "what will you accept for it?" proposition (not a fixed price per square foot), and that while land areas figure into the dollars exchanged, they are often or usually not true land area figures. If the DOT maps a grantors property based on fences that reasonably fit the record, and the grantor thinks the fences are his boundaries, and is happy with the compensation from the DOT, all parties are happy and the DOT project gets built, provided any uncertainties in boundary locations are accounted for, where that matters.

The intent is to widen the R/W 10 feet in 87 feet of stationing.

Unless the property line is defined in the deed, like, "to Station 968+27, 60 feet opposite survey station 968+27 at the west line of that property described in Deed Vol. 123 Pg. 456...), then the intent is: starting at 965+50 widen the R/W 10 feet in 87 linear feet. The parenthetical addition of (PL) rather than a citation of an actual boundary established by deed or monuments is a sorry a$$ed addition to the deed. Without the context of the R/W map, where the PL is written in the engineering form like CL for centerline, the (PL) in a stand-alone deed is vague and ambiguous. What is (PL)? Point of Linearness? Plausible Line? Proper Line? Maybe it's common in NC DOT deed descriptions, I dunno. And if PL= Property Line, which property line? One from 60 years ago when the first tax map was drawn that the drafter later used as a base for the R/W map?

The R/W map doesn't appear to have any supporting data for how the (PL) was drawn on the map (no monuments or bearings, distances from other controlling monuments or boundaries, etc.), so like others have said, it's just a cartoon line on the map which, unfortunately, the scrivener of the deed utilized. A vague cartoon line that says it is a PL (whatever that is) is low on the hierarchy of calls in my book.