Boundary Line Adjustment. Guy with a 5000 square foot lot in a recent plat has negotiated with his neighbor, exterior to the plat, to buy a small triangle of land of less than a tenth of an acre, in order to "square up" his lot. Not to build, not for access, no squabble. Recent survey of the adjoiner parcel, too. Same company even.
The first "gotcha" is that the adjoiner is 8+ acres, with wetlands (previously delineated and mapped), ponds, creeks, powerline easement, and about 20 angle points on the boundary.
I'm trying to explain to the client that for a boundary line adjustment, it's not a question of staking one line to draw and stamp, it's a boundary survey of both parcels, including mapping the buildings and the adjoiner's septic tank and field for the county's BLA requirements. He hadn't considered that in order to do a proper survey, the surveyor would have to measure around the adjoiner's acreage.
I referred him to the company that did his plat and his adjoiner's survey, however, I suspect he already talked to them and many other survey firms and balked at the prices, and I suppose the price seems astronomical for "doing one line."
While researching, I found this article on a law firm's web site:
http://beresfordlaw.com/how-to-adjust-property-lines-in-washington-state/
Since the guy isn't building or changing zoning, seems like the "friendly quiet title" would solve his problem. In this instance it does seem like overkill to survey both lots for the one tiny triangle. It doesn't help surveyors help the public if the BLA process is more cumbersome than the quiet title process. On the other hand, both the client and the adjoiner would apparently rather deal with a surveyor and the County than hire two attorneys, even for something "friendly".
Your thoughts, Boss?
Here, if you can get the court to do it, it can be cheaper than going through the planners.
And the court is also an exception to the subdivision regulations, I had a family of lawyers basically skirt the subdivision regulations that way last year.
And we are working on tracts that violate all the zoning and subdivision regulations for a family of ranchers that are using court ordered probate splits to the land as the exception.
half bubble, post: 404740, member: 175 wrote: Boundary Line Adjustment. Guy with a 5000 square foot lot in a recent plat has negotiated with his neighbor, exterior to the plat, to buy a small triangle of land of less than a tenth of an acre, in order to "square up" his lot. Not to build, not for access, no squabble. Recent survey of the adjoiner parcel, too. Same company even.
The first "gotcha" is that the adjoiner is 8+ acres, with wetlands (previously delineated and mapped), ponds, creeks, powerline easement, and about 20 angle points on the boundary.
I'm trying to explain to the client that for a boundary line adjustment, it's not a question of staking one line to draw and stamp, it's a boundary survey of both parcels, including mapping the buildings and the adjoiner's septic tank and field for the county's BLA requirements. He hadn't considered that in order to do a proper survey, the surveyor would have to measure around the adjoiner's acreage.
I referred him to the company that did his plat and his adjoiner's survey, however, I suspect he already talked to them and many other survey firms and balked at the prices, and I suppose the price seems astronomical for "doing one line."
While researching, I found this article on a law firm's web site:
http://beresfordlaw.com/how-to-adjust-property-lines-in-washington-state/
Since the guy isn't building or changing zoning, seems like the "friendly quiet title" would solve his problem. In this instance it does seem like overkill to survey both lots for the one tiny triangle. It doesn't help surveyors help the public if the BLA process is more cumbersome than the quiet title process. On the other hand, both the client and the adjoiner would apparently rather deal with a surveyor and the County than hire two attorneys, even for something "friendly".
Your thoughts, Boss?
Why not do an easement?
Dave Karoly, post: 404743, member: 94 wrote: Why not do an easement?
He wants to own it. What kind of easement would approximate that?
half bubble, post: 404744, member: 175 wrote: He wants to own it. What kind of easement would approximate that?
Easement for whatever he wants to do with it.
half bubble, post: 404740, member: 175 wrote: Boundary Line Adjustment. Guy with a 5000 square foot lot in a recent plat has negotiated with his neighbor, exterior to the plat, to buy a small triangle of land of less than a tenth of an acre, in order to "square up" his lot. Not to build, not for access, no squabble. Recent survey of the adjoiner parcel, too. Same company even.
I got an email from the same guy...
His east line runs N 27-02-49 W and he wants it to be more like N 0-00-00 W.
He's got a tiny little triangle backyard, he just wants a little more space. He just doesn't want to spend the thousands of dollars it will take to do it.
his deed says he bought the property in December 2005. He should've fenced it in 10 years ago; he could've adversely possessed it by now.
HAHAHA
Dougie
I was always taught a BLA should only be used when boundaries weren't ascertainable,
In WA we have Boundary Line Agreements for when the line is uncertain or in dispute, and Boundary Line Adjustments when the lines are certain and simply being changed to suit the adjoiners. Both require an ROS. Both abbreviated BLA for clarity.
RADAR, post: 404754, member: 413 wrote: I got an email from the same guy...
His east line runs N 27-02-49 W and he wants it to be more like N 0-00-00 W.
He's got a tiny little triangle backyard, he just wants a little more space. He just doesn't want to spend the thousands of dollars it will take to do it.
his deed says he bought the property in December 2005. He should've fenced it in 10 years ago; he could've adversely possessed it by now.
HAHAHA
Dougie
Could be he's been trying to get a cheaper survey for 10 years, too.
How much should I charge him, Dougie?
Two thoughts. Anything worth doing is worth doing right and 'friendly' isn't always 'forever'.
BK9196, post: 404756, member: 12217 wrote: I was always taught a BLA should only be used when boundaries weren't ascertainable,
Yea, I think you need to have survey uncertainty for a line of agreement, if not, then you are really performing an adjustment without County/City approval.
If Washington allows subjective uncertainty and the owners don't know where the boundary is located (don't get a survey) then they can agree to a location which is agreeable to them. Have the claimant (the lot owner) sue for quiet title then offer a cash settlement in exchange for the agreed line and get the Judge to order it.
Be careful, though, some States only allow objective uncertainty. If the rear corners of the lot are actually marked then that makes it tougher but if the litigants conveniently ignore those and no one appeals then the judgment should become fixed where they want it.
Perhaps I am not understanding the situation correctly, but how can you quiet title to land you have no valid claim to? I have seen it used to gain title to land inadvertently left unconveyed, or to clear up ambiguous descriptions, but never to circumvent subdivision law. I am obviously not familiar with Washington law, but where I am i think it would not be legal.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
I would think that even in places that allow subjective uncertainty, the County could still take issue with it; yes you can, by law, agree to a random property line, but if the line can be found by a surveyor, and your agreed line is different, you are really moving the line and are subject to the required Boundary Line Adjustment process.
That link I posted details a similar process, no uncertainty needed. These corners are all marked.
I already turned down the job once, he contacted me again at an different email address.
Probably wiser to turn it down again. Itching to survey even though it's not a good business decision.
roger_LS, post: 404767, member: 11550 wrote: I would think that even in places that allow subjective uncertainty, the County could still take issue with it; yes you can, by law, agree to a random property line, but if the line can be found by a surveyor, and your agreed line is different, you are really moving the line and are subject to the required Boundary Line Adjustment process.
I think the County or City would have to intervene in the case before Judgment and I'm not sure they would have standing to do that. They may be able to refuse to issue permits on the non conforming lots.
A recent unpublished subjective uncertainty case apparently had a tough time getting approval through the county in order to come into conformance, it was in Marin County. That was in an old subdivision with no corners found other than a recent survey that measured in new corners. A lot of the problem has to do with title companies, lenders, and county personnel not understanding the function and effect of a boundary line agreement.
half bubble, post: 404768, member: 175 wrote: That link I posted details a similar process, no uncertainty needed. These corners are all marked.
I already turned down the job once, he contacted me again at an different email address.
Probably wiser to turn it down again. Itching to survey even though it's not a good business decision.
Yep, definitely not the solution to the problem, you're probably wise to turn it down. The link is funny, attorneys essentially saying, why waste all that money on expensive surveyors, Record of Surveys and County fees, instead just give it to us! Oh...but be aware, it may cause problems with the County
Don't know about WA but in FL that situation can be cleared up with a quit claim deed with a "Bounded by" description.
I recently saw something similar in New Mexico. The owner of the larger tract gave a Quit Claim deed to the Triangle tract to the owner of the smaller tract . The county was left out totally. The title to the Triangle is no good according to the county but they haven't figured out how to enforce the county ordinance since neither is getting a loan nor needing any new utilities
Slight tangent...
When I get these calls my first question is:
"Have you consulted with the mortgage holders on both properties"?
This stops most of these little deals right in their tracks.
You're messing with the collateral securing a loan and could cause a note to called.
