Did a lot survey last year. Found 2 out of 8 corners. Did a fast static on those. They bulldozed most of the improvements including large trees while I was waiting for OPUS to upload their data (24 hrs). One of the static points did not 'compute' in OPUS. Went back out to reshoot the point. Guess what, yep they nixed that point when they bulldozed.
I did find another point that wasn't available until they cleared the back of the property but it was .6' out from other control much further out from the property. Knowing they were shoving dirt around and uprooting trees I just had to call that one off. It didn't hang with the other control.
The one remaining point I hit flat with the external points. I will always hit those points twice or three times from now on.
[USER=10450]@Rich.[/USER]
After reading all of the advice, a cornucopia of great comments, I hope your estimate for Surveying Services associated with this project are in excess of 50K. 😎
FL/GA PLS., post: 397124, member: 379 wrote: [USER=10450]@Rich.[/USER]
After reading all of the advice, a cornucopia of great comments, I hope your estimate for Surveying Services associated with this project are in excess of 50K. 😎
I might charge that much to just do my 'research' (read the comments)
Mapman, post: 397123, member: 6096 wrote: Did a lot survey last year. Found 2 out of 8 corners. Did a fast static on those. They bulldozed most of the improvements including large trees while I was waiting for OPUS to upload their data (24 hrs). One of the static points did not 'compute' in OPUS. Went back out to reshoot the point. Guess what, yep they nixed that point when they bulldozed.
I did find another point that wasn't available until they cleared the back of the property but it was .6' out from other control much further out from the property. Knowing they were shoving dirt around and uprooting trees I just had to call that one off. It didn't hang with the other control.
The one remaining point I hit flat with the external points. I will always hit those points twice or three times from now on.
This pretty much is what I felt happened. The two monuments 0.5' north were not anywhere near the same make as the others. Also a stone wall and concrete wall were constructed at one point against the monuments which easily could have disturbed them.
I also had found a cross cut on the old sidewalk at the record distance adjacent to one of the monuments that was off 5 tenths. I left that info out of the original post bc I was more feeling for how people handle the monument dilemma.
The 8 tenths monument is more of a mystery. I did find an old deed that helped a bit but nothing that would really be able to overturn the years and years of reliance (with improvements) on the record distances.
I've got a case where the monuments according to the subdivision plat should be located on the Government Lot Line. Monuments found are 5/8 inch smooth pins (Plat says they are 3/4 inch pins) and they are located 200 feet too far North and 85 feet too far West, which puts them over the Government Lot Line onto another property owners land. Their Land Surveyor searched three days and could only find 8 monuments which varied from 5/8 inch smooth pins, to spikes in a concrete filled coffee can to 1/2 inch rebar. Their Surveyor is telling my adversaries that the monuments rule over the Plat. I say B.S., not when they are that far off and not of the material described on the Plat. There are 26 lots in this subdivision. That means there should be over 50+ monuments and their Surveyor can only find 8! .Their Surveyor performed an analysis of his findings and determined the pins were 20 degrees off in bearing and horizontal distances were short 10 to 20 percent from Plat bearings and distances. The Developer revealed he owns a Nikon Total Station. He introduced himself as an Engineer. Truth is he's a backhoe Operator (Operating Engineer). The monuments their Surveyor found are located on open easy ground around existing cabins.
The Original GLO corners the Plat was tied to are intact and undeniably original. My Opinion is when monuments are in suspect, you need to go back to the original monuments that were used to establish the subdivision and relocate the Plat based monument locations. They Lawyers say "Hell No, cabin owners will lose their property". I say too bad maybe they can work out some Boundary Line Agreements.
The whole subdivision reeks of Fraud by the Developer. He has tossed his Statute of Limitations card to avoid being sued. I don't think Fraud has a Statute of Limitations, but evidently the Lawyers feel it does, because they won't go after the Developer. Mean while all the Lot owners are twiddling their thumbs over who's going to pay to fix this mess. Anyway it puts a whole new meaning to Monuments ruling over the Plat. It makes me laugh over worrying about .6 error.
Rich., post: 396211, member: 10450 wrote: 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.
Sounds like you have built a decent case for rejecting the monument, aside from what everyone else has already pointed out, I'd look into setback requirements as some for of verification, I'd also (cough) look at the math, hypothetically speaking, IF, one in the 1950's inadvertently used the wrong trig function to set the point would that explain the 0.8'?
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.
Sounds like you have built a case for rejection of the monument, I'd review setback requirements to assist in backing up the deck and garage locations, I'd also toy with the idea that the person setting the monument may have used the wrong trig function setting the monument in the 50's and landed 0.8', should be an easy check with the measured data. Eyeballing the angle at about 10 degrees from cardinal west at the 40 foot distance mentioned would explain 0.61' of your problem, or past surveyors mistake. Forgot to mention it doesn't appear to have been relied on, to be verified of course.
Skeeter1996, post: 397143, member: 9224 wrote: I've got a case where the monuments according to the subdivision plat should be located on the Government Lot Line. Monuments found are 5/8 inch smooth pins (Plat says they are 3/4 inch pins) and they are located 200 feet too far North and 85 feet too far West, which puts them over the Government Lot Line onto another property owners land. Their Land Surveyor searched three days and could only find 8 monuments which varied from 5/8 inch smooth pins, to spikes in a concrete filled coffee can to 1/2 inch rebar. Their Surveyor is telling my adversaries that the monuments rule over the Plat. I say B.S., not when they are that far off and not of the material described on the Plat. There are 26 lots in this subdivision. That means there should be over 50+ monuments and their Surveyor can only find 8! .Their Surveyor performed an analysis of his findings and determined the pins were 20 degrees off in bearing and horizontal distances were short 10 to 20 percent from Plat bearings and distances. The Developer revealed he owns a Nikon Total Station. He introduced himself as an Engineer. Truth is he's a backhoe Operator (Operating Engineer). The monuments their Surveyor found are located on open easy ground around existing cabins.
The Original GLO corners the Plat was tied to are intact and undeniably original. My Opinion is when monuments are in suspect, you need to go back to the original monuments that were used to establish the subdivision and relocate the Plat based monument locations. They Lawyers say "Hell No, cabin owners will lose their property". I say too bad maybe they can work out some Boundary Line Agreements.
The whole subdivision reeks of Fraud by the Developer. He has tossed his Statute of Limitations card to avoid being sued. I don't think Fraud has a Statute of Limitations, but evidently the Lawyers feel it does, because they won't go after the Developer. Mean while all the Lot owners are twiddling their thumbs over who's going to pay to fix this mess. Anyway it puts a whole new meaning to Monuments ruling over the Plat. It makes me laugh over worrying about .6 error.
The senior line needs to be protected, they are not original monuments
MightyMoe, post: 397159, member: 700 wrote: The senior line needs to be protected, they are not original monuments
Another good point.Also you can't sell property you don't own.
Skeeter1996, post: 397143, member: 9224 wrote: I've got a case where the monuments according to the subdivision plat should be located on the Government Lot Line. Monuments found are 5/8 inch smooth pins (Plat says they are 3/4 inch pins) and they are located 200 feet too far North and 85 feet too far West, which puts them over the Government Lot Line onto another property owners land. Their Land Surveyor searched three days and could only find 8 monuments which varied from 5/8 inch smooth pins, to spikes in a concrete filled coffee can to 1/2 inch rebar. Their Surveyor is telling my adversaries that the monuments rule over the Plat. I say B.S., not when they are that far off and not of the material described on the Plat. There are 26 lots in this subdivision. That means there should be over 50+ monuments and their Surveyor can only find 8! .Their Surveyor performed an analysis of his findings and determined the pins were 20 degrees off in bearing and horizontal distances were short 10 to 20 percent from Plat bearings and distances. The Developer revealed he owns a Nikon Total Station. He introduced himself as an Engineer. Truth is he's a backhoe Operator (Operating Engineer). The monuments their Surveyor found are located on open easy ground around existing cabins.
The Original GLO corners the Plat was tied to are intact and undeniably original. My Opinion is when monuments are in suspect, you need to go back to the original monuments that were used to establish the subdivision and relocate the Plat based monument locations. They Lawyers say "Hell No, cabin owners will lose their property". I say too bad maybe they can work out some Boundary Line Agreements.
The whole subdivision reeks of Fraud by the Developer. He has tossed his Statute of Limitations card to avoid being sued. I don't think Fraud has a Statute of Limitations, but evidently the Lawyers feel it does, because they won't go after the Developer. Mean while all the Lot owners are twiddling their thumbs over who's going to pay to fix this mess. Anyway it puts a whole new meaning to Monuments ruling over the Plat. It makes me laugh over worrying about .6 error.
You are surveying much bigger lots. 200 feet error here would either put you 100 feet out into the Atlantic Ocean, or in the next block a couple properties down.
Rich,
I commonly run into the same issues on this side of the Hudson.
I am very reluctant to call a 100 year old monument that everyone can see and assumes is the corner wrong. That's not to say I haven't, I have if I can prove that the monument has been disturbed. Talk to the property owner and the neighbors, does everyone believe the monument to be the corner, does anyone have knowledge of the monument being disturbed. In one case I had a neighbor inform me that the stone monument had been hit by a snow plow the previous winter, explaining the 1/2 foot shift.
The monument is the corner unless you can prove the contrary. I don't want to tell a Judge that the monument is wrong based solely on measurements (+/-0.5'). I need additional evidence and/or testimony that the monument has been disturbed within the time period of Acquiescence. After the time period of Acquiescence and if both parties have been accepting the monument as the corner, then the monument is the corner.
Dan Dunn, post: 397215, member: 911 wrote: Rich,
I commonly run into the same issues on this side of the Hudson.
I am very reluctant to call a 100 year old monument that everyone can see and assumes is the corner wrong. That's not to say I haven't, I have if I can prove that the monument has been disturbed. Talk to the property owner and the neighbors, does everyone believe the monument to be the corner, does anyone have knowledge of the monument being disturbed. In one case I had a neighbor inform me that the stone monument had been hit by a snow plow the previous winter, explaining the 1/2 foot shift.
The monument is the corner unless you can prove the contrary. I don't want to tell a Judge that the monument is wrong based solely on measurements (+/-0.5'). I need additional evidence and/or testimony that the monument has been disturbed within the time period of Acquiescence. After the time period of Acquiescence and if both parties have been accepting the monument as the corner, then the monument is the corner.
+1000
An example of a recently rejected corner, this corner was part of a parcel surveyed in the early 70's.
The north monument was set and the deed was recorded passing through it.
It was set along an east west fence line and was to be on the north line of the NE4SE4, 600' west of the E1/4.
The E1/4 and W1/4 are brass caps and are not in dispute.
I rejected the rebar from the 70's because it slid 20.5 feet into the SE4NE4, even though it fit the geometry very well.
I informed the landowner of my decision and he was totally on board with "giving up" the sliver of land . So the monument was pulled and now there is just mine at that position.
After looking again at the picture of this nice stone monument sitting out of the ground, I have to say that it does have a different feel about it than some unearthed pipe that no one has seen for years. Just sticking out of the ground in broad daylight for everyone to see...there is something different about that. We don't have anything like this in our area.
Found original monuments, or their replacements, govern. You still have to show it is an original of course, but it is generally assumed to be unless their is evidence of the contrary. You don't have to accept a monument that is in doubt, but you better be able to back up your decision if you don't. Personally, I would go with the monument
I would like to know the answers to a few questions. First, did the first conveyance predate the plat? Did the owner of the lot when it was first conveyed own all of the adjoining lots? Does the block have an excess or deficiency in its measurements? Could the monument predate the plat? What makes you think the monument was set in error as apposed to an error made drafting the plat? I have seen much worse perpetrated much more recently & I have seen many incompetent so called "legal descriptions". I would have to say today's surveyor does a much better job than today's lawyer, whom is generally only interested in how much he can gouge. The general view of the courts has been, a survey is done on the ground, not on paper.
BTW, I have been to Singapore. I was impressed! Wow, you could meet a girl from any country in the world. I believe I was in the "Pink Pussycat". Very nice people.