Boundary Line Adjustment.
BLA document contains old (underlying) legal descriptions, of course.
I believe that the new legal description is inherent in my document. The new description is "Lot 1 of BLA recording #XXXXXXXX". Just like a lot on in a platted subdivision is "Lot 1 of Plat such and such".
Every single planning department wants a new metes and bounds of the new lots on the face of the BLA document. In this state we don't create a metes and bounds for every single lot in a platted subdivision, and this isn't any different. Yet, they want the metes and bounds right next to the annotated lots that say exactly the same thing. I think it is a waste of space, and I think is not just a waste but a bad idea.
The next conveyance will have the metes and bounds...but that is exactly what we are trying to get away from. We want the description to be short and unambiguous, and it doesn't get any clearer than "Lot 1 of BLA #XXXXXX".
Yes, you are right. Writing metes and bounds descriptions for surveyed lots is regressive.?ÿ
?ÿ
I think that it is worse than regressive as it gives a situation where there might be two answers to the same lot.?ÿ You have a drafted surveyed lot and then you have a description that could actually conflict with it.?ÿ and, .. Just when you get someone to see the point they seem to retire ...
That's how it's been in the PDX area for as long as I've been here. The metes and bounds is for the benefit of the tax assessors cartographer. I write a preamble that states that the area is Lot x of Record of Survey such and such "more particularly described as follows:". As a matter of fact, most locals do the same. The practice is common enough that I think that future surveyors will understand what is going on.?ÿ
I can't help it when lawyers ditch the preamble. But most just attach my descriptions in full as Exhibit A.?ÿ
You can also call out monuments within your M&B description.?ÿ?ÿ
How do you record the record of survey depicting the new boundary and monuments before the deeds have been recorded? I agree that a simple reference to Lot A as shown on BLA recorded as.......should be sufficient.?ÿ We're always required to compose a metes and bounds in my local municipality.?ÿ The deeds are then executed and recorded and then I set the pins and prepare and record the BLA with references to the new deeds.
I've been successful getting a couple of local planning departments to accept the premise that they are not necessary. However, as those same departments farm out the review process their consultants are hamstrung by checklists and outdated code. In the old days BLA's were not recorded surveys and hence the need for the extra descriptions.?ÿ PLSO is working on revisions to the RCW and perhaps they will address the description issue. We can take time to join in the process.?ÿ
I supply descriptions when requested and my client pays for it but there is the caveat that they are traps for errors transcribing them.?ÿ I always provide a description of the area to be conveyed which would sync with the map. Keep in mind that usually a BLA does not convey anything nor is the last step in the process.?ÿ
How about requiring mortgage companies approving of the BLA??ÿ
?ÿ
There is no boundary until there is a conveyance and a BLA usually does not do that. The departments that I work with temper the approval with a deed needing to be filed within one year of the approval/recording of the map. Otherwise it is void. The BLA gets recorded prior to the deeds in all cases.
In Texas, we do not write metes and bounds on lots that are in a recorded subdivision.
The Lot#, Block#, Subdivision name, Survey name, County and recording Vol, Pg or Slide, Cabinet # is the legal description.
We do write metes and bounds on boundary agreements of each parcel that is to be swapped and those are conveyed from lot owner to lot owner and when those lots change ownership metes and bounds are required because the lots do not match the plat of record.