You have a 100 year old subdivision plat that says on the face that the lot corners were not set, but the block corners were staked with 2"x2"x24" redwood stakes. Is it possible for the interior lot corners to have original monuments? If so how?
I would consider monuments set at or near the time of conveyance of each lot sold to be original.
I would imagine that the land owners established their boundaries and set fence posts or something suitable for the corners.
Those monuments would be original to me!
Keith
I would say yes, (PA). It is not a lot until it is sold. After the lot is sold and staked, there is your original monumentation.
I agree with Keith. You may not be looking for survey monuments, per se.
My $0.02 worth would be to chase title back and see how the property was originally sequentially conveyed.
> I agree with Keith. You may not be looking for survey monuments, per se.
>
> My $0.02 worth would be to chase title back and see how the property was originally sequentially conveyed.
I was referring to a platted and filed subdivision, the lots were "created" at the same time, not a series of sequential conveyances.
As Terry pointed out, PA is a little different than other states in that respect. Even in a subdivision, where most other states consider it a simultaneous conveyance, PA considers them sequential conveyances.
Not in the sense you mean. The original monuments of all the lots are those block corners; in the sense that they locate the legal physical position of the lots. Likewise, if no block corners or lot corners are staked, then the first lot staked controls the others.
The original monument is the first monument that is presented to the world to notify the world where the original (only one)corner is located. An original monument at the block corner marks the location of the orignal block corner, not some distant lot corner.
Brian, I understand and agree. I was refering to the progression of possession. That is assuming since they weren't all "pinned" at platting, they possibly would have been 'layed out' at the time of each purchase.
Brian, I believe the original control to be those redwood stakes. All lot corners should be based on the positions of those stakes as set by the original surveyor. Otherwise, chaos sets in. Newer monuments set out in the platted right of way, set well back of the platted right-of-way, etc. All lot corners should be prorated between found original, undisturbed monuments.
My two cents worth.
Jack,
Does that procedure ignore all existing attempts by the landowners to establish their boundaries?
Actually chaos sets in upon the visitation of the surveyor after the original monument exists.
Especially when that surveyor refuses to accept anything that doesn't measure perfectly.
I agree Tommy and gaps and overlaps then appear.
Gaps and overlaps occur with metes and bounds descriptions
When platted subdivisions are monumented by prorating the distances between known an dcoumented monuments, there can be no overlap.
If you are talking about fence or usage placement, that is not gap and overlap.
I would say yes, (PA). It is not a lot until it is sold.
How does that work?
Once a subdivision is filed here there is property transfered. The streets are dedicated to the public, the easements now have estate interest transfered to the utilities. By the time the plat is filed, roads and utilities have to be installed so there is real property involved. All this is dependent on the monuments at the corners.
It is way too late to go back by then.
gaps and overlaps also occur in the PLSS by surveyors who don't know what they are doing?
Thats why I had the (PA). Here it's not a lot until the deed is made and recorded. Junior/Senior Rights prevail in PA.
Appellant's first contention for reversal is that the survey relied on by appellees is incorrect and unreliable because the surveyor failed to establish a monument indicated on the official plat as a reference point. John A. Powers, who made the survey for appellees in 1951, testified that the official plat called for a stone marker in place at the northwest corner of the addition. In making the survey he did not find the stone, which had apparently been covered by levee construction, but found an iron pin at that location. He had verified the iron pin as a corner by previous surveys which established the pin as being in agreement with existing monuments in the adjacent addition to the north. He also found that the iron pin checked with monuments in the addition itself as shown by the official plat and he made the survey in question from these points. One of these monuments was an iron pin found in the center of an old macadamized road at the intersection of two streets at the southeast corner of the block in which the lots are situated.
The official plat of the addition shows all lots in the block as being 50 feet and 10 inches wide and the Powers survey is in conformity with the plat showing that the hedge and fence line between the lots encroaches upon appellees' Lot 5. Although appellant showed that other surveys had been made, none of these were introduced nor was it shown that they were made in conformance with the official plat. On the contrary it is clearly inferable from the testimony that these surveys were made on the erroneous assumption that the lots were 50 feet wide instead of 50 feet and 10 inches as shown by the official plat. The testimony also shows that the property lines of Lots 1 to 6 on the east side of the block were all laid out and improvements constructed on this assumption. Appellant's insistence that these lines were established according to the original survey and the official plat is not supported by the testimony and is disputed by the plat itself. The preponderance of the evidence supports the court's finding that the Powers survey was in accordance with the official plat and correctly represents the property lines shown thereon.
Mr. Powers stated that iron pins 50 feet apart were found throughout the east side of the block indicating that previous surveys had been made on that basis. While he did not make a survey sufficiently extensive to determine whether all lot lines in the block were established and improvements made by the owners according to such surveys, he stated that this was apparently true. He also said that if his survey was adopted all these old lines would be disturbed and appellees would have to move their garage which encroaches V/2 feet on Lot 4 occupied by their neighbor on the south.
Appellee J. A. Wright testified that he built the garage in reliance on the old iron pins and a survey made for him by J. O. Jones in 1947 showing the lots 50 feet wide, that other owners in the block had established lines, made improvements, and were claiming lands in accordance with these old iron pins set in accordance with previous surveys.
B-)
DDSM
