Obviously, you can’t see the line, but as a surveyor you will make a determination using on ground-based evidence. The determination also includes the language of the deed, but many deeds were written long ago, and if measurements were made they would not be as precise as those with technology available today.
The case of stone walls is particularly interesting. While it is common to think the center of a stone wall is a boundary line between adjoining ownership in colonial states, there are differences of opinion regarding stone walls bounded by a highway.
My opinion is that the face of a stone wall along a highway is the boundary if no other evidence or documents exist. This places the entire stone wall on the private owner’s property.
In colonial times many town highways were laid out as being a specific width. Stone walls were made to accommodate the width. Thus, the entire wall was constructed on the private property side.
Some surveyors use the center of the travelled way or assume the width of a public highway is variable. In colonial times the center of the travelled way is not usually a monument. The center of a public highway as a monument is almost always wrong, and the idea that the width is variable usually means no research was done.
The law in my jurisdiction that governs the determination of the boundary on a public highway, and otherwise states that fences known to be in existence for twenty years may be considered to be the boundary if no other evidence exists. Stone walls are always considered to be fences of a sort.
Unless surveyors have an operative document stating the width of a highway is variable, or that the center line of the travelled way is a monument they are not using evidence or research for an opinion.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
Many surveyors locally held the old saying that "the king gets his". Meaning if a record of 60 feet is described in the original document then the width is 60.00', regardless of any evidence to the contrary, even DOT monuments were never held. Holding that 60 feet is 60.00 as gospel never seemed to sink into the thought process. It's quite the logic leap. I can imagine that in the colonial states it's even more of happenstance when the ROW width matches the grant for it perfectly.
You can state the width as 60 feet and still use ground-based evidence. That way you still have an operative document. It doesn't need to be perfect, just better than guessing. I don't think that 60 feet and 60.00 feet are the same.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
My boundary is a stone wall.
There it is! The boundary is the wall. Why do surveyors feel the need to refine the boundary to a mathematical vertical plane that has no width? If refinement is needed it will be accomplished by the actions of the landowners. I know of no law that requires a deed to satisfy a certain degree of precision.
Consider a loan contract often contains terms of principle and interest as well as "time is of the essence." A date of repayment is stated, but not a time of day. Payment either in the morning of afternoon satisfies the contract. If the parties meet where payment is made and accepted at 11:10AM, then the contract has been refined to that exact time. Surveyors would do well to apply the same concept to "stone walls" or the like.
I hate analogies.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
I am so happy that the chance of me running into this problem is negligible. The same likelihood as encountering a "fence in or fence out" circumstance. To the extent possible, our fences are built on what is believed to be the property line and abutters share in the responsibility for its maintenance.
I don't know of any case law. It is more like doctrine. Either way I would expect a surveyor to be diligent in determining rights-of-way, and that means searching for records that may exist outside the county registers office.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
If you know what your boundary is you have your line. It's your boundary.
What I wrote is more specific. Here is another example of why it matters. However, you are entitled to your opinion.
The DOT has always set stones marking the boundary of their rights-of-way. In early times the stones had no drill hole or other mark. That is because the center of the back face was intended to be the mark. In that way the entire stone was in the right-of-way.
At times surveyors ignorant of this rule place errant drill holes in the top of theses stones. Perhaps they think they are correcting some ommission. Perhaps they think it doesn't matter, after all, if a stone is your boundary, then there it is
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
Great topic, and it shines light on the difficulty of doing the right thing without bankrupting oneself. It's so much easier surveying RoWs in states where DOTs owns most of the roads. While surveying in Maine and NH, I remember spending as much or more time sorting out the class of road (Class III, IV, V etc.), and the owner or the RoW, as was needed to survey the bulk of the parcel's boundary. It was a culture shock when I called North Carolina DOT and they claimed a "ditch to ditch" right of way.
There are at least two ways of looking at it:
1. What's the least a PLS needs to do, when researching right of way limits, to not be considered negligent?
2. What's the right and professional thing for a PLS to do?
I find money or economics to be the least bad of available assessment tools for these situations. I take my budgets seriously, I explain potential boundary issues before the commencement of surveys and I'm willing to stop the survey if an issue occurs. When dealing with a major issue, such as a paper subdivision or a road with no pedigree, I'm okay indicating what I don't know on a plat. After much greater time researching than the minimum state requirements, I'll let my client's budget dictate the next steps. I'll ask if they're willing to continue to pay me to search for additional evidence. If not, I'm okay writing a note on the plat that might read, "Roadside face of stonewall held in the absence of evidence to the contrary." I'd love it if engineers, planners, DOTs, or the public cared about this stuff so much that they'd be willing to pay me to find the correct answer. Unfortunately, they don't care, as shown by their actions. The delicensing pushes I'm aware of are usually due to a desire to get faster cheaper surveys. The vast majority of real estate transactions occur without the buyer or seller caring enough about the boundary of their purchase to pay less than 1% of the closing cost.
Bottom line, take continuing education and increasing your knowledge of history seriously. Save and catalogue class printouts and anything relating to local surveying nuances, but don't beat yourself up for not falling on every sword placed in front of you.
Center of the back face?
Much like Railroad rail monuments. Locating the center of the upright rail would be incorrect.
There are monuments set for some highways where the big concrete post is only a reference post with the actual monument being a rebar or later years an aluminum cap in the ground next to it. My crews long ago puzzled that custom out and when we are surveying in those areas we try and figure out which one is holding, the big concrete post or some little bar set alongside.
It pays to understand local customs.
It was late and I basically read the subject line and responded. We don't have stone walls on or near right of way here. We do have fences and they are intended to be built 1 foot outside the ROW line. We also have ROW monuments. We used to have ROW rail monuments and the flat bottom was supposed to have been set on the line with the remaining part of the monument in the ROW. The old construction survey handbooks had diagrams. So if the stone wall is intended to be outside the ROW it is not the boundary making the subject line misleading. How do you like them apples?
We had a court case years ago in our state involving this very topic except it was a ROW fence and not a wall. Courts in our state are famous for decisions stating that a long standing fence between owners used as the boundary is the boundary. In the case mentioned they decided that if the intent was to build the fence outside the ROW it is outside the ROW. This would apply to ROW purchased in fee. A roadway easement could be a different story so there's another twist.
...........the idea that the width is variable usually means no research was done.
Never have truer words been spoken.
Not-your-real-name,
If the face-of-wall and back-center-of-stone-monument are well known past practices in your area, then that's very good evidence without necessarily having case law or a written procedures manual that states so.
In N'rn CA (and many other regions) it's well known that although old subdivision maps rarely specifically stated so, lot corners were commonly marked with redwood hubs. In most parts of the country, seeing a brass screw means nothing but in Portland, OR, it was a very common corner monument and is viewed the same as a nail & brass washer set in the sidewalk would be elsewhere.
Knowledge of local historic monumentation practices is important. Good thread.
My opinion is that the face of a stone wall along a highway is the boundary if no other evidence or documents exist. This places the entire stone wall on the private owner’s property.
That seems a little arbitrary to me, but as long as you explain your reasoning then it's probably as good as any other resolution.
My opinion is that the face of a stone wall along a highway is the boundary if no other evidence or documents exist. This places the entire stone wall on the private owner’s property.
The county roadmaster and the state DOT probably have their opinions, too. If you differ it will take plenty of clear and convincing evidence for you to win the day.
As far as road widths go - most rural roads in my area are described by centerline and width, called for monuments being PLSS corners or, often, trees on the centerline now long lost. Any later monuments or occupation along the margins would rely on adverse possession and/or unwritten boundary doctrines to attain controlling dignity. And we all know that these doctrines are not operative against the public. So we are left with the full stated width and nothing else. If the road is dedicated with called for monuments along the margins, that's different. But uncommon.
If the road is dedicated with called for monuments along the margins, that's different. But uncommon.
I should have said uncommon for rural roads. Typical in subdivision plats, of course.
I am in a colonial state. My jurisdiction was a colony at the time highways were laid out. In fact, they are mostly easements.
Calling the face of stone walls as the boundary along the highways was also the method we used when I worked for DOT.
The method is outlined in their survey manual, however no explanation is given there.
I wrote that the walls were constructed to accomodate the widths given to the rights of way in my opinion.
It is not arbitrary. It is a fact that the stone walls were constructed after the highways were laid out.
So in terms of finding the layout, this is the evidence I use unless there is a surveyed and monumented layout available.
Most surveyors do not even attempt to define the width of a right of way.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.