Ok so I am looking for a little help. My client wants us to survey his tract of land and here are the particulars. Around 1920 a lot approximately 200’ by 400’ with the 400’ running east-west is created and purchased. This lot is bounded on the south by First Street and the East by Oak Lawn Road. Around 1925 an out parcel on the corner is sold and is described as follows
50’ front on First Street running back between parallel lines 60’ being bounded on the south by First Street and east by Oak Lawn Road and north and west by vendor.
In 1930 this parcel went up for tax sale and from then till present day the description is simply bounded on south by road, east by road and north by vendor and west by vendor, with no lot dimensions given. I am guessing at the date but around 1970 a house is built and a fence constructed on all four sides of the out parcel. In the 90’s we started with a GIS and thru the use of aerial photo’s the assessor plotted the fence to depict what they thought was the lot layout. The dimensions are scaled and are south side 50’, north side 40’, west 58 and east 65’.
About 5-8 years ago the house and fence were completely torn down/removed so today there is no evidence of either, but the GIS still shows the same scaled dimensions. Even the concrete below the ground holding the fence post are gone and there is no evidence of holes anywhere.
A month ago a surveyor was hired to survey the out parcel. I just received his plat and he used the same scaled the dimensions off of the GIS maps as the bases of his survey. I emailed the 1920 description and called to discuss his survey. He says the GIS scaled distances are the best evidence of the property lines. If I use the 1920 distances as a less and except to my survey there will be a gap on the west side and an overlap on the north side of the out parcel survey.
I am trying to decide if I should just accept the new survey or should I show the possible gap and overlap between the 1920 description and the new survey.
> Ok so I am looking for a little help. My client wants us to survey his tract of land and here are the particulars. Around 1920 a lot approximately 200’ by 400’ with the 400’ running east-west is created and purchased. This lot is bounded on the south by First Street and the East by Oak Lawn Road. Around 1925 an out parcel on the corner is sold and is described as follows
>
> 50’ front on First Street running back between parallel lines 60’ being bounded on the south by First Street and east by Oak Lawn Road and north and west by vendor.
>
> In 1930 this parcel went up for tax sale and from then till present day the description is simply bounded on south by road, east by road and north by vendor and west by vendor, with no lot dimensions given. I am guessing at the date but around 1970 a house is built and a fence constructed on all four sides of the out parcel. In the 90’s we started with a GIS and thru the use of aerial photo’s the assessor plotted the fence to depict what they thought was the lot layout. The dimensions are scaled and are south side 50’, north side 40’, west 58 and east 65’.
>
> About 5-8 years ago the house and fence were completely torn down/removed so today there is no evidence of either, but the GIS still shows the same scaled dimensions. Even the concrete below the ground holding the fence post are gone and there is no evidence of holes anywhere.
>
> A month ago a surveyor was hired to survey the out parcel. I just received his plat and he used the same scaled the dimensions off of the GIS maps as the bases of his survey. I emailed the 1920 description and called to discuss his survey. He says the GIS scaled distances are the best evidence of the property lines. If I use the 1920 distances as a less and except to my survey there will be a gap on the west side and an overlap on the north side of the out parcel survey.
>
> I am trying to decide if I should just accept the new survey or should I show the possible gap and overlap between the 1920 description and the new survey.
I believe, susceptible to change with further information, that I would be hard pressed to even consider scaled distances from a GIS map to set a boundary.
In all likelihood I would be setting off a fight on this one.
SJ
I agree that you should hold the deed dimensions and ignore the "recent " survey based on scaled dimensions from a GIS. Hard to believe that a surveyor would even consider that.
What a bunch of "bull hockey"!!! Maybe you could ask the other surveyor bout checking the back deeds and backing it in that way? With abutter calls on two sides you can't have a gap!
Is it possible that the differences between deeded distances and the GIS distances could be attributed to differences in determining the roadway ROW?
Really :bored: --"He says the GIS scaled distances are the best evidence of the property lines." I can't wait to retire.
His response is the scaled distances are the best evidence to the locations of the fence which is the best evidence of property lines because of the lack of information in the description he has. Remember the discription that was furnished to him only had bounded by calls. He didn't appear to change his mind after I sent in the 1920 deed.
No right of way change on any of the roads.
The old fence lines match the GIS boundaries. Could this be the boundary based on acquiescence? What happens to acquiescence when they tear down all the physical improvements that mark the mutually agreed upon boundary? Alternatively, someone put a fence in without staking the boundary line: happens all the time. It might not make the boundary. Perhaps there was an adverse possession of the overlap, but good luck proving that now that the fence is gone. At best, the other surveyor can call the overlap as 'As Claimed By', but the facts are simple enough: put the GIS back where it belongs and go back to surveying 101: Research, Title and Deeds.
Different thread, same response!
This sort of issue is becoming more common, especially when a home owner checks with the building department and they "recommend" placing the fence a foot or two inside the property lines.
We need to a grip on the very simple fact that homeowners don't have to place a fence on the property line and they don't have to intend that the fence is the property line.
The act of building a fence NOT on the property line should not be considered acquiescence, and should not be considered estoppel if a neighbor ASSUMES that it's the property line!!
This is an excellent example of why our state societies should have a committee set up to review differences in opinion between surveyors. They don't need any authority, they simply need to provide a professional peer review group. If the society doesn't have one, suggest it and form one. Or, simply call three other local surveyors and get them together (along with the other surveyor) to help.
There's a biblical principle at play here. Lamon has "aught" with the opinion of another surveyor. He needs to make a good-faith effort to meet with the surveyor, share his evidence, and discuss the disagreement. The "brother" surveyor should be just as open to share the evidence he has and to present his reasons for the opinion he's reached. Then the two of them need to debate the issue until they resolve the difference.
If the two of them cannot resolve their differences, then they need a peer review group who is made available to listen to both surveyors, review the evidence, and mediate a solution. "Two or three witnesses" should be able to bring some perspective to the situation and help resolve it. Both of the surveyors need to be open to the suggestions of the committee. There may be something both haven't considered. The idea is to get as many professionals together as it takes to resolve a professional problem between two professional surveyors.
The typical alternative approach of "setting the corners and finishing the survey" cements the differing opinions and leaves both landowners with no resolution. That's what gives us all a bad public perception.
You're going about it the right way, so far, Lamon. Keep dogging it.
JBS
It is all this guessing and speculation from unknown sources that is plain and simple "bad surveying practices".
Assume nothing and use record information and intent, that is true surveying 101.
Sorry..not in my survey world here. I think Lamon hs done enough with his notice,
A scaled distance off a GIS map that was generated by photography 20 something years ago just does not work even considering that the original work met all specs at the time. These GIS projects were never intended for cadastral work. They were intended for utility and emergency management and tax record purposes. No way were they intended to supply data for boundary resolution. That is a total misuse of their intended purpose which can be considered negligence, IMO.
It shouldn’t be considered the best possible evidence and IMO again, it is not evidence at all to a land surveyor.
I can see discussing the fallacies with a client , engineer or some layman but not with a surveyor
My 2cts.
I'd have told that dippy SOB that it doesn't matter, he needs to go back and review the junior/senior rights of the creation of the lot, regardless of where a freaking fence is. Then, I'd ask if he is going to fix it voluntarily or I need to package it all up and send it to the board.
If he balks, send the package to the board and then set the corners where they should go. I'd be like Stephen here, about to kick start a fight and will ultimately have one guy losing (the other surveyor).
> A scaled distance off a GIS map that was generated by photography 20 something years ago just does not work even considering that the original work met all specs at the time. These GIS projects were never intended for cadastral work. They were intended for utility and emergency management and tax record purposes. No way were they intended to supply data for boundary resolution. That is a total misuse of their intended purpose which can be considered negligence, IMO.
1000% agreement with you on that Mr. Hill.
When reading the original post, I thought how odd it was that a surveyor would not know the limitations of combining a guessed at scaled distance from a tax map with survey measurements.
I still can't see that scaled GIS distances are reasonable evidence. At the very best, they were plucked from an aerial image.
Was that image rectified? How much care did the GIS tech take in "scaling" these distances? Did he "scale" them from the aerial image or from something else that is even less reliable? Was there any local data to ground truth the aerial image, rectified or otherwise, in this immediate vicinity?
Did the GIS technician bother to try to analyze the mention of parallel lines in the description? Was there a surveyor, or anyone skilled at interpreting descriptions in responsible charge of the GIS "scaling", or even involved at all?
I would be disinclined to consider the "scaled" lines as anything moe than a rough guess done so that the Assessor could have some rough basis for tax valuation. If the image is rectified, and there are identifiable features that one could use to place the image relative to measured and mapped features, I might consider the locations of improvements per the image.
Given that all improvements have been thoroughly removed and that the description is vague and convoluted, I think that a prudent surveyor would offer to assist the parties in reforming the deed and executing a Boundary Line Agreement.
A lazy, and most likely negligent surveyor would give up on actually trying to interpret the description, grab the most convenient dimensions to be found (in this case made by a GIS tech who has no knowledge of boundaries, probably exercised little care in drawing the lines, and has no knowledge of why the fences had been placed as seen on the image and no input from any landowners). Unless the surveyor has documentation of having thoroughly investigated and reasonably ruled out all other possibilities, I would consider him (very) negligent for accepting lines drawn in a GIS as his best evidence of the boundary.
Taking my best stab at interpreting the description, you have a 50' x 60' parcel, 50' wide (fronted on) 1st street, and 60' on the other street. the sides opposite each of these courses is parallel with the streets. Although the language of the description is a bit convoluted, I would have a lot more confidence in my interpretation than I would in an unlicensed GIS tech's "scaling". If there is no occupation and use conflicting with these lines, then I don't see a good basis for establishing a boundary that seems to be not based on the description at all, other than being in the same general location.
Seems to me that the areal photos showing occupation would have a lot of bearing on what was occupied over time. If those photos were reviewed, there is some grounds for his actions that would trump the description. If he didn't consult the photos and say so in his narrative, then maybe you should before you hold fast to a description when there is evidence of occupation in conflict with that description. Don't think your where I would be comfortable hanging my hat, yet.
jud
MT 18 Principle
I don't, given the info presented in this thread, agree with JBS that this is a legitimate difference of professional opinion (maybe he's not saying that, and if not, I apologize for putting words in his mouth), but I do agree with the approach he suggests to resolve the matter.
(15) “If your [fellow surveyor] [is negligent] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. (16) But if they will not listen, take one or two other [respected local surveyors] along [or refer to the local Professional Practices Committee if you have one], so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ (17) If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the [State Board of Registration]; and if they refuse to listen even to the [Board], treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector [or a formerly licensed surveyor].
Of course, the other side of that is that if they convince you that they have looked at the other possibilities and reasonably ruled them out, and can explain why an untrained GIS tech's or Assessor's mapping tech's rough tracing over a 20 year old aerial photo constitutes reliable evidence of a valid original boundary establishment, then you don't need to go to the next step and you thank him for his time to more fully explain it to you.
MT 18 Principle
> I don't, given the info presented in this thread, agree with JBS that this is a legitimate difference of professional opinion (maybe he's not saying that, and if not, I apologize for putting words in his mouth), but I do agree with the approach he suggests to resolve the matter.
>
I definitely agree with you, Evan. This does seem to be more than a simple "difference of opinion." I wasn't really going there, as I really don't know all of the circumstances (I'd hope there's more to the other surveyor's justification).
Either way, the MT 18 approach is always the best method for unending disagreements. If we can't resolve our professional differences, how can we expect the public to resolve them? There are some ambiguities that are beyond resolution, too. In those (rare) cases, the landowners need to be involved to remove the ambiguity by mutual agreement (something that two surveyors can't agree to do).
JBS
MT 18 Principle
:good:
