Property Line Width

I was asked once to determine what percentage of a tree, that straddled the line, belonged to my client. I declined.

LRDay, post: 397630, member: 571 wrote: [SARCASM]Sort of depends on the pincushions at the ends of the line![/SARCASM]

Or the punch marks on the same cap

Rich., post: 397466, member: 10450 wrote: "How wide is a property line? Like 6 inches?" - Mr. Architect trying to figure out how close he is to a setback requirement.

Quite amazing.

Really, there is no such thing as a property "line", but rather a more or less vertical plane where one's property rights stop and start....:cool:

Boundary lines are a foot wide. Whenever you stake a set-back for building always come 0.5' off the center of the boundary line before staking the building. Tell all architects this as well.

I never really thought about the width of a property line, in my mind I always figured it was the width of the point on the range pole, or a string line ran between the two points to build a straight fence.

This is my side, this is our common line, this is your side, of the property line.

It has to have 0 width. How can it be anything other than zero? If it is not zero, then there could be an area associated with it along its length. Who owns that area?

"A line has no width"

I have been laughing at this thread ever since the first few posts.
"How Wide is a line?"
"How long is a line?"
"How tall is a building?"
"How reverent was that preacher?"
"How un truthful, was that lie?"
"How hot was that water?"
"How hard did he hit?"
"How long was that stick?"
"How Long's that mile?"
"How Wide's that river?"
Dunno, till me measure it!!
🙂

Hey, [USER=10211]@FrancisH[/USER], maybe this thread's for you!

My property line runs through my neighbor's yard so I need an easement so I can get to it. It would be a lot more convenient if my property line was 2 or 3 feet wide so I could walk along it and maintain it that way.

Could somebody go get me a box of grid squares?

Actually a boundary is not a line. It is a line segmemt. Lines are infinitely long and are infinitely thin. Refer your architect to a high school geometry text.

0, anything other than that is off the line. Now I usually show building offsets to the nearest tenth of a foot because any smaller then that is like using thousandths on you plat.

I'm still trying to figure out how much the line weighs based on the line weight. Once I get that figured out I'll get back with you on the width. Since it's 0 by definition, they should all be invisible.

I weighed one one time. It was a HEAVY line weight!

billvhill, post: 398281, member: 8398 wrote: 0, anything other than that is off the line. Now I usually show building offsets to the nearest tenth of a foot because any smaller then that is like using thousandths on you plat.

On an ALTA Survey...which building corner do you dimension? The foundation? The outer corner of the brick veneer? the corner of the upper wall (sometimes in several inches from the brick cap)?

aliquot, post: 398275, member: 2486 wrote: Actually a boundary is not a line. It is a line segmemt. Lines are infinitely long and are infinitely thin. Refer your architect to a high school geometry text.

Legally a boundary is not even a line; it is a mysterious legal entity of abstract dimension. A boundary is presumed to be straight between monuments but how straight is straight? If it is not possible or practical to stake a perfectly straight line then there must be some allowance for wandering of the boundary. A boundary is where two contiguous estates meet so logically it must be of zero width but the law is based in experience, not logic.

Tom Adams, post: 397716, member: 7285 wrote: Boundary lines are a foot wide. Whenever you stake a set-back for building always come 0.5' off the center of the boundary line before staking the building. Tell all architects this as well.

Jokes aside, there is some logic to looking at things this way in certain situations. For example, in Rich's previous post "Monuments v. Record" there was a question of whether to hold or reject the stone monument at his client's NW corner. If the point were to be rejected, the neighboring property to the West would get full record measurement. If you were surveying the property to the West, I might recommend that they hold back to this monument just to allow for any differences of opinion that may come up with a future surveyor. It is a safer approach. After all, there were differences of opinion right here on this forum about how to handle the situation.

Another way of looking at it. Lean over and kiss your wife. Your property just adjoined her property and you created a property line. Was there anything in between your lips. No! So a property line has no width. If it did, you would have to place a piece of wax paper between the two of you next time you kissed her. Don't think so! A property line is where two or more objects make contact with no voids in between (in theory).

dhunter, post: 398370, member: 286 wrote: Another way of looking at it. Lean over and kiss your wife. Your property just adjoined her property and you created a property line. Was there anything in between your lips. No! So a property line has no width. If it did, you would have to place a piece of wax paper between the two of you next time you kissed her. Don't think so! A property line is where two or more objects make contact with no voids in between (in theory).

I carry around a box of wax paper for this exact reason!

Williwaw, post: 398285, member: 7066 wrote: I'm still trying to figure out how much the line weighs based on the line weight. Once I get that figured out I'll get back with you on the width. Since it's 0 by definition, they should all be invisible.

You mean the property lines by you aren't visible?