I have a client that just called about a pre-design ALTA I did back in 2017. There is an overhead utility line running parallel to the property with one pole adjacent to the property in the right-of-way.?ÿ I showed pole and service line running to the existing building plus all of the risers, junction boxes and buried line connected to the pole.?ÿ I normally draw a line from pole to pole as a graphic representation that there are overhead lines but neglected to do so in this case.?ÿ The distribution lines are hanging over the property and the engineer is wondering why I did not show this as an encroachment.?ÿ I don't think I have ever seen an ALTA calling the aerial lines an encroachment nor have I ever considered it.?ÿ I would say that showing the pole locations is the standard of care.?ÿ How is the rest of the board depicting this?
As a side note, I'm sure this is an issue because they designed a luminaire with a precast 3' diameter base to be placed about 2.5 feet from the pole which was not going to work anyway.?ÿ Also, they have multiple photos showing the overhead line.
If you located the pole and strung the lines servicing the building, how is that an encroachment??ÿ If a title search can't reveal anything other than a blanket easement, I would be amazed, especially on an ALTA, regardless of it's age.
To add to my previouse comment, you did your job showing existing conditions at the time of survey.?ÿ Who is an Engineer that is making determinations on encroachments?
Here is a GE streetview of a downtown PDX site I provided staking for, c.2017. At the time construction began the wires were centered on the pole in the traditional "T" pattern, which placed them uncomfortably close to the 4th floor windows.?ÿ ?ÿIn the instance not only the proximity to the property line was questioned but also their height relative to the proposed development.?ÿ The electric company had some rules about how close to a building their wires could be.?ÿ
I do not recall that the pre-design and boundary surveyor caught any flak about it, but it is worth paying attention to.?ÿ
The service line was not in question.?ÿ The engineer's concern is the distribution line running parallel to the right-of-way.?ÿ The ALTA was prepared for design purposes.?ÿ I think the engineer is asking why I did not refer to the lines since they are interfering with the design.
If it's a situation like below...and the pole is (for sake of argument) 1' into the ROW, such that the cross arms are over the line into the lot, then I'm probably showing the cross arms.?ÿ
?ÿ
The 2016 standards in effect at the time you did that ALTA didn't mention "crossmembers or overhangs" - that was added in 2021. Page 5, item 5E(iv).
Perhaps it was implied but I sure don't remember worrying about it unless it was a non-standard type of pole & lines. Any engineer worth his/her salt is not going to automatically assume that poles never have crossarms unless detailed.
If there was not an easement of record covering the distribution lines found during your research, and an easement wasn't provided or referenced in the Title Commitment, showing the pole with the transmission line running through the center of the pole was the right thing to do, especially if the ground evidence is all within the right-of-way.?ÿ
In my humble opinion, the engineer failed to exercise the standard of care when he failed to offset the centerline of said transmission line a safe and reasonable distance prior to starting his design. I feel he is trying to point the finger at you to deflect any blame for his shortfall.
That is my $0.02...