Morning. I have a residential subdivision plat recorded in the 50's and it has language that dedicates easements for util and drainage on the rear and side lot lines. No easement lines are drawn, just noted. Would you say that on a corner lot, there are easements on lot lines that are adjacent to the right of way? if so, which line is the front and which is side. If i need to be more clear, let me know. Thanks in advance.
Generally no easement abutting the r/w, since the utilities can use the r/w. We have the same sort of thing here on older plats; the easements were required by local regulation, sort of a "just in case we need it later" thing.
I would say that in my area, those easements would exist along all the property lines, given the vague description.
Most of the utilities in the county I live in are along the fronts of the lots, adjacent to the right of way.
In the next county over, utilities run along the rear lot lines, to service more homes.
It really depends on your area.
> Morning. I have a residential subdivision plat recorded in the 50's and it has language that dedicates easements for util and drainage on the rear and side lot lines. No easement lines are drawn, just noted. Would you say that on a corner lot, there are easements on lot lines that are adjacent to the right of way? if so, which line is the front and which is side. If i need to be more clear, let me know. Thanks in advance.
Yes, but you have to look at 1, how does this municipality define the "front" and how did they define it then, and 2, just because they're not shown doesn't mean they're not there.
Our UDC (unified development code) specifies what the lines are on corners, i.e. side interior, side, front, side adjoining street, etc.).
Is the corner lot a square or angled corner, or a curve? The "Front" side is more than likely associated with the street address.
I suggest stating the easement note on your survey, exact as it is stated on the plat and nothing else.
I forgot to mention that around here, most of the times a corner lot has two front yard setbacks adjacent to the roads, and then two side yard setbacks, and don't have the rear yard setbacks.
thats what I would do - according to the plat....note form- unless you are positve what is the side, front, rear
In Florida...
In less the law has changed (again), you must show the easements graphically on the survey.
Rights-of-Way, Easements, and Other Real Property Concerns:
1. All recorded public and private rights-of-way shown on applicable recorded plats adjoining or across the land being
surveyed shall be located and shown upon the map.
:coffee:
“...Lift up now your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward”
(Genesis 13:14, AMP)
In Florida...
But these are "not" shown on the plat, only noted.
Sacker
So what do you do when you have a metes and bounds or centerline description for an easement? It's not graphically shown, but ALTA and others REQUIRE it shown.
In this particular case, I'd be safe than sorry and show both configurations rather than a note if I can't get some definite answer.
I disagree with your thoughts on this one. It should be shown.
Another avenue of research would be to check the original deeds transferring the subdivided parcels. You may be able to gleen a better picture of the intent of the developer or the city at the time of the subdivision.
TP
Sacker
It's fine to disagree, but a metes and bounds description by deed and a "note" on a plat are different.
It doesn't have to be shown, only noted as on the instrument which created it.
I would say that the intent was not to have easements along the roads, which is common with older subdivisions. Rear and side can be tricky, but where is the front door? That's what the developer considered the front, so the side and rear should be based on that. FWIW, I've seen corner lots built with the house 45d to the lot, and circular driveways that go to both roads, so it doesn't always work...
Regardless, I'd put a statement on the survey:
Easements shown are based on my interpretation of the following easement note found on plat: [copy in the exact easement note].
Sacker
Okay, lets take it a step further. Say the plat doesn't show the lines but has a note, but in the covenant restrictions it note the building set back lines as well. Do you show them then? Lets take it a step even further, what if what's in the restrictions don't match what's on the map be they in note form or graphically shown?
We show them all.
Sacker
It all depends, but if anything is in note form only, then doing the same on your survey is correct, but if you "choose" to "show" them, so be it. Building line setbacks aren't normally part of the platting process here, thankfully !!!
Sacker
And I am by no means saying you're wrong Kris, I'm saying that the note form "can be" acceptable.
Thanks for all the comments. I do agree with you Pseudo. Although, i'm only writing legal and sketches for right of way takes and temp construction easement, i'll show where i believe the easements were intended, which in not along the roadway....
None of the non-corner lots are encumbered by an easement along the street right of way (front) line. Why would you interpret the same note differently for the corner lot? It's an inequitable interpretation of the clear language contained in the note. The note says, "rear and side" lot lines.
We shouldn't create ambiguity where none exists. I would show the easement on the rear and side lines.
JBS
> None of the non-corner lots are encumbered by an easement along the street right of way (front) line. Why would you interpret the same note differently for the corner lot? It's an inequitable interpretation of the clear language contained in the note. The note says, "rear and side" lot lines.
>
> We shouldn't create ambiguity where none exists. I would show the easement on the rear and side lines.
>
> JBS
How is that language "clear"? The ambiguity is the result of a poorly written plat note. It's pretty easy to argue that all rectangle lots have two sides, a front, and a rear. In this case, one of the sides happens to front on a R/W. In this situation, I've seen the building department allow builders to observe "sideline" setbacks (usually 5') on both sides, rather than forcing the normal 20-25 feet for "front" setbacks on the R/W side.
The note is diffently not clear whether or not that side also gets an easements. Any answer is just assumption and interpretation.