In light of the other thread that is currently ongoing, I decided to post what I currently am working on.
I was hired to survey lot A for a perspective home buyer.
A little history of the area. This is an old area, platted in the early 20s, however many of the houses already existed at the time. Many houses, including all in this block, mention the roads in the descriptions, but do not use the lot numbers as designated by the subdivision (which shows small little sliver lots and has no dimensions) the deeds all are metes and bounds.
Each deed fits together fairly well but not exact. There is minimal 'overlapping' which to me means that these numbers in the deed are actual measurements and not protracted distances that a surveyor just used the adjoiners numbers to build off of.
This area is well known to have many stone monuments (around here when we say 'monument' we are referring to stone monuments, so from here on I will go by that) at many of the block corners. The filed map shows some of them but not all. I would say this is the most heavily monumented area around here and local surveyors all stay within each block while surveying.
When I went to the site, I found and located all of the monuments I was able to find. Below is a diagram of the monuments found (circles) and the lines shown are how the block lines work based on the found monuments.
The monuments across the street to the north work great with the road width.
Below is an overlay of the record lines and the monument lines.
The squares shown on the above map are monuments found that all 'check' the record very well. Within a tenth.
The three triangles seem to be set at a later time as they are different in nature than the others. They all check each other and lie roughly 0.5' north of the record lines.
I have no issue accepting these as the points they represent. Especially since lot D constructed a little wall right along their northerly line against them.
The issue I'm having is the monument depicted as a star.
The monument is lying 0.8' west of the record. 0.8' to me seems to be a lot for a 40' stretch considering each block corner fits so well. And I cannot see some surveyor setting a witness monument considering nothing would stop them from putting one at the corner and I would have an issue with them using such a prolific monument for an offset corner. Being that we don't record any monumentation here, that would just cause huge confusion (as it currently is)
I am super tempted to accept the location even though the discrepancy is a little higher than what I would expect. However there are reasons that I also have against it. I have an old survey of Lot A that shows the house offset from the porch as being 19.9 which checks the record line perfectly. (See below) Which is the least bit surprising as all surveyors around here go by and show the record lines on surveys. (I'm breaking the mold which also scares me as nobody would probably agree with me) my other reason is that Lot B had constructed a garage (long ago) and the garage is exactly 1' off the record lines, which seems like it would be right. The only possession would be a scraggly hedge that is about a foot more to the east of the record line so it doesn't really help clarify.
The blue lines are the dimensions to the record lines. Purple to the monument line.
So to hold the monument would give the monument precedence as it is clearly visible and inmistakable as to what it represents. However, since the only construction and existing paper surveys are using the record line location, would that constitute reliance on a boundary in that position? Obviously the record of each parcel, beginning at each respective corner comes basically to the same record location.
Decisions to make.
Rich., post: 396211, member: 10450 wrote: This is an old area, platted in the early 20s, however many of the houses already existed at the time. Many houses, including all in this block, mention the roads in the descriptions, but do not use the lot numbers as designated by the subdivision (which shows small little sliver lots and has no dimensions) the deeds all are metes and bounds.
Well, the obvious question is whether the fact that various houses existed prior to the filing of the subdivision plat in the 1920s means that the parcels upon which those old houses are situated had already left common ownership. If so, did all of the record owners join in executing the plat or was it recorded by some stranger to their titles for some reason?
Skipping ahead, what would you guess is the vintage of your "star" object that you refer to as a "monument? Have you ruled out the possibility that it's a property owner's goat stake that was driven near where some actual survey marker was placed? Is it obviously of a type that had to have been set long after the 1920s and long after the house and garage that you show on your sketch were constructed? For example, is it a modern rebar of a type that was only made after 1947 whereas the structures obviously predate that?
I would be tempted to call the point off, especially due to the fact that holding the point would leave parcel B eight tenths short of record. Where disregarding this outlier allows for near record dimensions.
The preponderance of the evidence as you have described it is against the star monument.
It was that blasted rodent from the movie Caddyshack that moved the monument. He hit it digging one of his tunnels. So, he dug beside it enough to shove it over out of his tunnel's path. Then he "reroofed" the tunnel such that no one could tell the monument had been shifted. I'm sure that's what happened.
Kent McMillan, post: 396214, member: 3 wrote: Well, the obvious question is whether the fact that various houses existed prior to the filing of the subdivision plat in the 1920s means that the parcels upon which those old houses are situated had already left common ownership. If so, did all of the record owners join in executing the plat or was it recorded by some stranger to their titles for some reason?
Skipping ahead, what would you guess is the vintage of your "star" object that you refer to as a "monument? Have you ruled out the possibility that it's a property owner's goat stake that was driven near where some actual survey marker was placed? Is it obviously of a type that had to have been set long after the 1920s and long after the house and garage that you show on your sketch were constructed? For example, is it a modern rebar of a type that was only made after 1947 whereas the structures obviously predate that?
I don't have a picture but this is from Google Earth street view. It's unmistakably a survey marker.
My grandfather had an atlas of the area and it had all the monuments on it. Then he penciled in ones he found that weren't in it. This particular wasn't penciled in, but I'm sure it was there then. He just hadn't surveyed either of the adjoiners.
He was working back in the 50s so I would venture to say these were installed much earlier than that.
Holy Cow, post: 396241, member: 50 wrote: It was that blasted rodent from the movie Caddyshack that moved the monument. He hit it digging one of his tunnels. So, he dug beside it enough to shove it over out of his tunnel's path. Then he "reroofed" the tunnel such that no one could tell the monument had been shifted. I'm sure that's what happened.
I definitely do not want to cross paths with any rodent that could move this thing
Dave Karoly, post: 396231, member: 94 wrote: The preponderance of the evidence as you have described it is against the star monument.
Yes could be. Although one thing I will say is when you parallel the street as located by the northerly monuments and they run right through both found on the southern side of the road, the angle point on the north side of Lot B (no monument found) would be just about the record distance from angle point to mysterious monument. Using the other side of the road parelled the shortage seems to occur between the North West corner of Lot B to the angle point.
Rich., post: 396259, member: 10450 wrote:
A couple of questions come to mind from looking at the photo above.
(1) Is the theory that the road was constructed after the stone marker was set and, if so, is the protrusion of the stone above grade consistent with that theory?
(2) Is the size and type of the stone identical to others more consistent with the pattern of the lot layout? Likewise any station mark in the top of the stone.
(3) Do all of the other stone markers protrude above grade by similar amounts?
My concern from afar is to wonder whether all of the stones are essentially identical in type, dimension and details of installation or whether there are features of the stone in the photo that are different from the rest of the group.
Rich., post: 396261, member: 10450 wrote: Yes could be. Although one thing I will say is when you parallel the street as located by the northerly monuments and they run right through both found on the southern side of the road, the angle point on the north side of Lot B (no monument found) would be just about the record distance from angle point to mysterious monument. Using the other side of the road parelled the shortage seems to occur between the North West corner of Lot B to the angle point.
FrancisH will be along soon to tell you how to adjust all the monument locations so everyone gets their exact acreage.
FrancisH will be along soon to tell you how to adjust all the monument locations so everyone gets their exact acreage.
well here I am, the fact that you could not decide what/which monuments to hold with the presence of several existing monuments that don't fit, points to the quality of land surveyors in america.
while I was on the other thread, I was almost convinced that US land laws are different. but I then thought ,,,,what's the purpose of the land law whether in US or in Singapore?. Isn't it to provide clear delineation on the ground of what every land owner really owns?
you keep on saying ..."that's the law" but then you forget that those laws were based on survey records of your own surveyors. courts had to make a decision based on faulty survey work over the years that keeps on propagating because of your "legal" mindset in doing an "engineering" survey.
if through all these centuries, the land boundaries in the US is in disarray between actual & written boundaries then it points to only one thing. US surveyors suck big time in their boundary work.
Rich., post: 396261, member: 10450 wrote: Yes could be. Although one thing I will say is when you parallel the street as located by the northerly monuments and they run right through both found on the southern side of the road, the angle point on the north side of Lot B (no monument found) would be just about the record distance from angle point to mysterious monument. Using the other side of the road parelled the shortage seems to occur between the North West corner of Lot B to the angle point.
Interesting. I was initially perplexed at how, when paralleling the monumented line on the North side of road it would produce such a difference, if, as you mentioned, all the black squares are all within a pattern fitting record to a tenth. But I think it must be due to it being such a flat angle that small differences are getting amplified when things are offset over. It's also interesting that you are getting near perfect distance across the street... makes you think this is, where this point has always been. Good luck!
Rich., post: 396261, member: 10450 wrote: Yes could be. Although one thing I will say is when you parallel the street as located by the northerly monuments and they run right through both found on the southern side of the road, the angle point on the north side of Lot B (no monument found) would be just about the record distance from angle point to mysterious monument. Using the other side of the road parelled the shortage seems to occur between the North West corner of Lot B to the angle point.
If I'm understanding that, it suggests that the street lines were laid out first and the starred monument set in relation to a marker at the angle point in the street line on the same side of the street. In retracing and reconstructing old surveys, it's always a good idea to consider how the survey was actually made. In this case, I assume that would be by transit/tape methods, probably by running centerlines of the streets and turning angle bisectors at angle points in the centerlines to mark the angle points on opposite sides.
Here's another question that comes to mind: If the houses predate the plat of the subdivision, were some or all of the streets most likely laid out BEFORE the plat was prepared? Is there some separate record of the layout of the streets that would suggest that the subdivision layout was really made after the streets were in place and their lines marked?
FrancisH, post: 396272, member: 10211 wrote: ...if through all these centuries, the land boundaries in the US is in disarray between actual & written boundaries then it points to only one thing. US surveyors suck big time in their boundary work.
I'm sorry, but you really should except out Texas from your statement. In this Country a lot of States have their own State laws, and licensing is per state. And most of us from States outside of Texas have humbly ceded our inferiority. I suggest a "correction statement" which serve as a retroactive change in your original statement.
Thank you.
Tom (a humble servant from Colorado)
Remember that barns and buildings are monuments too.
