Ask somebody like Gary Kent. He runs around telling associations
how to do ALTA'S. His company does hundreds of inspections like the
above maps.
Mortgage Survey Gone Bad - 6th
6th, from the context of your post, I think you meant the opposite of sanctioned. Maybe "reprimanded" or something like that.
I agree with you. Still, I have a problem with the attempted disclaimer and would consider it invalid. I can't imagine actually providing someone a product and trying to "disclaim" responsibility for the product at the same time. I would want to take out my checkbook and ask them who is responsible, so I could write my check to that person.
With ILC's, mortgage surveys, or other products, in my opinion it is the expectation of the client that they are getting a professional to provide them a professional opinion. If it were a laborer or an artist that they hired to sketch up their property, I would not think that the product would hold much water on it being a real representation of the boundary line. But with a land surveyor providing the plat (or sketch), I would think that someone could hold their feet to the fire if encroachments were later discovered that were not shown on the sketch. You, I, and everyone that posts on this board knows that a higher order of responsibiity will be shown to having the opinion of an expert. I would expect the same thing if I hired a structural engineer to certify the integrity of my building structure. I would expect that engineer to provide a better opinion than, say, an architect for the same purpose: regardless of the disclaimers the engineer might add.
Tom
We have someting similar to your "Foundation Inspection" in CA, but it is for building permitting and not for residential transactions. These are called "Setback Verifications".
The work done for a Setback Verification sounds similar to your current practice, which is to do enough work to adequately identify the pertinent boundaries by accepted survey methods, and locate the improvements of interest similarly. With a Setback Verification, the inprovement is usually going to be a building foundation which is either existing, as formed, or as staked.
The deliverable is a letter to the building department that the foundation as existing/formed/staked does or does not meet or exceed the required setback distance as indicated by the building inspector. No map or sketch which might be confused as a boundary survey. In fact, if the boundaries are not already monumented or readily and definitively identifiable from other nearby monumentation, the Setback Verification gets put on hold until a boundary survey can be performed. An exception to that might be where the required setback is something like 30 feet, the foundation is roughly 100' within the property, and you've done enough work to know the boundary location +/- 10 or 15 feet. Worst case scenario, the proposed foundation is about 80 feet from the boundary. Your not reporting precise locations, just that the distance from boundary to foundation meets or exceeds the required setback.
My problem with Mortgage Surveys is that in many, if not most places they are provided, the methods are totally inadequate to verify the boundaries to the precisions commonly shown on the drawings, and the drawings give the average homeowner the distinct impression of being a valid survey document.
Depending upon how your data is presented, considering how you've described your current methodology, it may be a service to the homeowners.
By the methodology you described as being used when you first started performing these, a methodology which is still probably practiced by many in some areas, it does not serve any valid purpose. While purporting to show improvements relative to actual property lines, it merely shows improvements relative to other improvements and apparent occupation lines by rough measurements.
If the sketch you provide is clear not only to other surveyors, to building and planning department staff, and to real estate professionals, but also to the average homeowner that it is not a map of a surveyed property, then you may be providing a valid service.
But, if the map at all gives the impression of being a survey, and/or the work behind it is inadequate to verify the boundaries to any degree of certainty, it is not a service to the homeowner but a deception to them.
The only ones served are the lenders and title companies who have decided upon an acceptable level of risk that factors in the probability of damages sought due to actions taken based upon improperly depicted boundaries. The insurance companies and banks can absorb the costs to fight these claims, and to pay out to the few who persevere long enough to collect. But to the homeowner who gets caught up in such a problem, it can be devastating.
Evan,
Here is how it was explained to me (paraphrased).
I, as a surveyor, can go to buy a house, and look at the legal description and/or the subdivision map, and go out and roughly find a few local pins and pull some distances and/or pace out to where the house I am planning to buy. I can look at the improvements, and make sure the house I want to buy looks like it is on the property I am getting a description for. I can also look and see if it appears as though the fences and the improvements are within the limits where I measured to. I can then buy the house with some confidence that I am not acquiring something with major problems such as the deeded line going through the middle of the house. Most people are not land surveyors and don't have the same abilities I have to make sure everything appears copacetic.
The mortgage survey is a way of hiring out the surveyors' abilities and basic understandings to do that on behalf of the lenders and/or title companies. My greatest concern is that the language should reflect that. I think it should be more along the lines you are talking about that it does not "resemble" a survey and distances to improvements should not be shown (with any high order of precision anyway). Only an assurance that the same house that is on the address is on the property that is on the description and that there is not a major problem with encroachments.
The mortgage survey (or ILC) should be forced to escalate to a boundary survey, in my opinion, if there are improvements too close to know about with a high degree of certainty.
Maybe they shouldn't be done at all, but the explanation I heard has some merit.
Tom
Adam
I can understand that, but you hit on something important.
They are for the lenders and title companies who presumably understand what the service is and the limitations of the product. They are not for the homeowners assurance. If they were provided only to those institutions and never made it into the hands of the homeowner, I and many others would have less problem with them. But then, how could anyone along the process ensure that the homeowners are never provided a copy? I don't think it's realistic.
It might be possible to legislate some sort of statutory requirement to convert an MR project into a full boundary (or ALTA?) survey upon encountering certain conditions, but I see that as a difficult solution to define and implement, with lots of resistance from real estate, title, and legal lobbies. I also see it, if it were ever to become law, a provision that would be continually abused and circumvented, require a lot of enforcement action against a lot of licensees for several years, and probably still never see widespread adherance due to pressure from the aforesaid professions to not provide a more expensive service which could represent a deal breaking cost (not true in most cases, but that will be the line constantly used).
I'm just glad that among the many issues we do have to contend with here, mortgage surveys isn't one of them.
Mortgage Survey Gone Bad - 6th
> With ILC's, mortgage surveys, or other products, in my opinion it is the expectation of the client that they are getting a professional to provide them a professional opinion. If it were a laborer or an artist that they hired to sketch up their property, I would not think that the product would hold much water on it being a real representation of the boundary line. But with a land surveyor providing the plat (or sketch), I would think that someone could hold their feet to the fire if encroachments were later discovered that were not shown on the sketch.
>
> Tom
Tom,
The component about an ILC is that there is specific statutory language for the certification, whereas an ISP/LSP does not have certification language, other than a statement that the survey was prepared under the direction of a PLS.
The ILC specifically states that
I further certify that the improvements on the above described parcel on this date, .... (insert date) ...., except utility connections, are entirely within the boundaries of the parcel, except as shown, that there are no encroachments upon the described premises by improvements on any adjoining premises, except as indicated, and that there is no apparent evidence or sign of any easement crossing or burdening any part of said parcel, except as noted.
“Except As Shown & Noted” – That statement is enormous.
It seems to me that the potential liability to a surveyor who prepares an ILC in which he did not note or show an encroachment when an encroachment does exist, is much higher than any boundary survey he may ever prepare.
The problem with the whole mtg survey issue is not the fact that state law allows them, the problem is that there are many paper mills out there churning these things out by the dozens, every day. Done by a single field tech who don’t know anything about surveying or proper measuring techniques, then rubber stamped by some PLS who never visited the site that comes in the once a week to collect a check. And this perpetuated by the entire industry, we all just sit here a watch it happen - Mtg survey gone bad, indeed.
Adam
Evan,
I have problems with them as well. I would guess the same problems you do. The homeowner is charged for the "survey" in his closing documents (at least around here), and if/when I am charged for something like that, I tell them I want what I paid for (ie the "survey").
They have tried around here to put in legislation that the docuemnt is provided for the client, and that the homeowner can receive a copy (only), but that it is not for the homeowner.
Regardless, you and I know that the homeowner and others will look at it, and want to rely on it. I could see even the lender and/or the title company going back to the surveyor if something goes bad and there is something found wrong with the document at a later date. Also, it is provided by a licensed land surveyor, so I would expect it to be created with a higher standard of care than if it were provided by someone not in this area of expertise. In my opinion, once you, as a licensed professional, take on the responsibility of sketching a property and showing improvements on the drawing/sketch, the client has the expectation that it is done by and expert that understands boundaries and their relationship with the improvements. I think you have that liability whether you disclaim it or not.
Just some of my thoughts,
Tom
Mortgage Survey Gone Bad - 6th
6th. I agree with you 100%. I have the same gripe about the statement that there are no encroachments except as noted. I am even stating above and beyond that, that the homeowner will rely on the document for locations of boundary lines and fences even if the certificate "disclaims" that reliance. You and I both know they will. Maybe it wouldn't hold up in court, but I would contend that if a land surveyor showed a property line and a tie to a house, I would think I should be able to rely on those measurements when they are provided by an expert such as a land surveyor.
I might do them if I didn't have a paying job, but I am bothered by the language required and the responsibility implied as well.
Tom