One item mentioned above concerned progression. We have found this to have a tremendous impact on how lots were marked, by whomever, whenever. One example is a case where all of a so-called 80 acre tract, the west half of the northeast quarter, was created on paper in 1867 and recorded as a town. The actual nucleus was near the midpoint on the west side. The plat indicated the total tract to be 2640 by 1320 and laid out at right angles. Anyone see a problem yet? The actual growth of that town pretty much started at the nucleus and grew out radially. Measurement only needed to keep being added as lots sold. The result became some very oddly-shaped lots at the edges of the total tract with dimensions far from what the plat showed. I remember one side where the last lot was something like 37 feet bigger than record.
Dedication Of A Street Is Not A Property Transfer
In fact even if you filed a fee simple deed to the municipality, the municipality would only have an easement. You have legal access bto a public street because you own the fee title under that street.
In the case of a limited access highway, you do not have access because you do not own the fee title under the highway, even if the document of transfer was not a fee title deed. In many cases there is no deed transfer to be found. The legal document is the highway department's design plan with the Governor's signature on the first page, which was filed at the county courthouse. Many counties seem to have lost said plans. As a minimum to have full reference you would need sheet 1 with the project name, location etc and the Governor's signature. You would want the relavent sheets fronting your parcel and any sheet with ties. They could be on the design plan, grading plan, or the profile plan. You may have ties to a marked station on one sheet and different ties to the same point on a different sheet. That could mean that something disappeared between design and construction.
I recently recovered an iron pin set in 1927 as one of 3 ties to a P.I. I am going back with the geometry to look for the others. A few hundred feet up the (not limited access) road is a tangent station tie to my PQ house corner. On another sheet are ties to the same station to 3 iron pins set on other side of the road. I am sure 2 are gone because they are too close to the former foundation of a barn I once owned. The third is vey likely to be there as that area 10' from the property line has been undisturbed 75 years. 1500' East I located a house and front porch with 2 ties distances to an unstationed point on the revised semi-tangent out past another PI on that same project. Both semi-tangents (original and revised) have geometry on the plan.
Paul in PA
That is not always the case
Here, when a subdivision is platted and a street created and dedicated it actually becomes the property of the city in which it is located upon their acceptance and finalization of the plat. It is not merely an easement like a rural road. In the event that the street is vacated by the city at some point in the future, half or all of the street is considered to have been transferred to the abutter within that subdivision. I suppose the abutter could refuse to accept it, but, I've never known that to actually happen. The abutter then owns two tracts, not one. He is free to deed that strip to the other abutter or anyone else who would like to own it.
Here? Not Being In PA
A vacated street in PA is one parcel with each lot and not neccessarily to the centerline. One might transfer it to the opposite owner, but to a third party it must meet lot size requirements.
A platted street is merely an offer, a municipality cannot sell same to others. In fact the underlying owner can reclaim it with one years notice. Simply submitting a plan proposing to build on it puts the municipality on notice. The town has one year to perfect a street, condemn or otherwise acquire the land. Failing to do so, the map is stricken. Years ago I prepared a plan to that effect. The landowner failed to show up at the Planning Board meeting however to assert his intent for the record. I never spoke with him again.
Paul in PA
Did you get your answer?
Keith,
In that I am first going to establish the lot lines as per Texas law, yes. Obviously, I will show lines of posession and lot lines determined by calculations using the locations of original, undisturbed monuments.
For the purpose of this conversation only, let us say that all transactions within this block of this recorded subdivision are described by Lot and Block, i. e., Mr. Developer sells to Mr. A Lot 6 of Block 2, per plat recorded in Harris County Map Records under blah, blah, blah. All subsequent transactions use this description. I go out there and find all the original Block monuments for Block 2. I called the son of the original surveyor who sends to me a written letter stating he worked on this subdivision as a mere lad of 15 (he is 75 now), but he remembers quite well that no interior lot monuments were set. That was SOP for his dad's company (We can discuss the legality of those omissions at a later date).This now becomes a very easy decision to make as to where the original lot lines should be reconstructed. Mr. D owns the tract in question now. There are differences in what is fenced, what is being used and claimed by Mr. D and the reconstructed lot lines. There are also other monuments present, 2 new 5/8-inch iron rods with caps, 2 1/2-iron rods and even 1 "X" in concrete. Some of them are called for in survey drawings that were given to me by 3 of the 6 lot owners within this tier of Lots. They were all set by the surveyors of record on the drawings, the earliest of which was 30 years after the plat was recorded at the County Clerk's office.
I present my survey to Mr. D and he says, "What do you mean, my property line is 4 feet away from my fence?"
"I am not saying your property line is over there, what I am saying is that the original lot line that your deed calls for is 4 feet away from your fence. You may have acquired rights to that property, but I cannot attest to that. If I were you, I would discuss this with an attorney who is very experienced with real property issues like this."
"Do you know of any?"
"I know of three. Here are their names."
Thanks Jack,
Your statement: "In that I am first going to establish the lot lines as per Texas law, yes. Obviously, I will show lines of posession and lot lines determined by calculations using the locations of original, undisturbed monuments."
I am thinking that your procedure is the same procedure that is being practiced by some BLM surveyors when they subdivide a section in the PLSS. They use the guidelines for the survey (first time) of the section using only original undisturbed monuments on the section lines and ignore any existing corner monuments within the section.
The end result will be the same as yours: two sets of lines for the subdivision of section lines.
That practice is what I am continually referring to as the bogus theory of Bouman and Robillard in their book.
Am I correct when I assume you are ignoring these monuments? "There are also other monuments present, 2 new 5/8-inch iron rods with caps, 2 1/2-iron rods and even 1 "X" in concrete. Some of them are called for in survey drawings that were given to me by 3 of the 6 lot owners within this tier of Lots. They were all set by the surveyors of record on the drawings, the earliest of which was 30 years after the plat was recorded at the County Clerk's office."
Keith
In many parts of CA, it is common that on older (pre WWII) subdivision maps, the plat may call only the monuments shown at major exterior corners of the subdivision (typically stone or 2" iron pipe), and make no mention by note or graphically that anything else had been set. It was also common practice to set 2 x 2 redwood hubs at all lot corners. This is fairly common knowledge.
The courts here have treated those hubs, when found as original monuments superior to more junior and more durable monuments proportioned in based upon measurements from exterior subdivision corner monuments.
I have also seen instances in which perhaps only block corners were set but no lot corners within the block, and where a later surveyor, or perhaps the lot owners themselves have established the lot corners. Where those were set using the block corners properly for control and the measurements were made reasonably well, the established corners were treated as original, overcoming more junior monuments placed according to proportional methods calculated from more careful measurements.
Keith, Texas law mandates that we do this. I'm not breaking new ground here. There is even a question on the licensing test concerning this point.
Am I correct when I assume you are ignoring these monuments?
I am not ignoring them. I would show them and not call for them to be the lot (per plat) corners. If they were within a 0.15, I would honor them, but if they were out 2 feet, I would not. They are not the original undisturbed monuments. If no monuments were ever set by the surveyor of record, I have to prorate. I am not allowed, nor would I ever assume to do so, make a decision as to who owns what. Heck, I am barely capable of making a surveying decision, much less a legal one.
