@mightymoe Yeah, they tax aliquot descriptions as the perfect acreage and then if or when a survey is done they switch to taxing whatever acreage the survey shows.
As far as dividing, yes, they require a survey before they approve the split but then they say oh look, your 1/4-1/4 is only 39.8 acres, so now you need a variance to finish the split.
40 acres patented as 40, remain 40 acres until the 40 is split. It might be measured as 39.5 acres, but it's legally 40. If it's divided then it's a new parcel and it no longer is fixed.
This came up for me this morning with a question from another surveyor asking if he needed to survey a patented 160 acre parcel that another surveyor carved out 40 acres from back in the 80s. While still maintaining that it is still an aliquot part, the reality is that the surveyor in the 80s may or may not have done a section breakdown, or more likely just ran out 1320 x 1320 turning 90's, who knows? In either case your post served to remind me that it's no longer the original 160 acres, hence they need to survey it and file a record of survey to remove any latent ambiguity on that remainder.
Once the patent starts getting broken then it can get dicey. Also, the GLO plat may not line up with the patent. In that case an 80 acre parcel shown on the plat should remain record (IMHO, which is worth very little).
Ughhhhhh It's the curse we live with as boundary surveyors.
Ten years ago a guy owned all of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of a given PLSS section. That is all he owned. He had it converted into a subdivision with numerous lots. Now, a surveyor comes along and must locate a lot that is on one of the borders of the subdivision. Apparently, his measurements for the quarter-quarter section differ from those of the fellow from ten years ago. His location of the lot does not match with the edge of the quarter-quarter section. Maybe off 0.04 feet or maybe off 4.00 feet.
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
A survey of a track is an opinion of the location of three or more lines defining the boundary. It is not clear from the original post whether the contemplated lines are those of a track or simply the South Line of lot 6. Generally, for every line there are two possibilities. First is a line indicated by the sum of all public records. This is the default solution. Second is a line determined by litigation and or the actions or inactions of adjoining landowners, which when proven is superior to record location.
Start at the beginning. For lines that lie wholly within subdivision, the beginning would be the creation of the subdivision. The beginning for lines lying on the perimeter of the subdivision starts with the creation of that line. In the subject case of the south line of Lot 6 this is the original section survey used for the patent.
A line is more certainly defined by a monument at each end. Thus a monument at the West quarter corner and a monument at the East quarter corner defines the line between the south half and the north half of the section. Record would place the south line of Lot 6 along this line. The only evidence relative is that which proves the original location of the quarter corners.
Having found the record location one should then turn to an evaluation of the actions of adjoining landowners or past litigation which would negate the record location.
Always start at the beginning and apply legal principles in chronological order.