I do so many of these ALTA's you would think that I had seen it all. Yesterday I received a call from my client saying that show the 'proposed site improvements' on an overlay. This site is in a downtown area and the building is built right to the PL. Sidewalks right to the building. Someone responded by saying:
"they always require a site plan overlay. An overlay is to give them all assurance that proposed improvements wont be built over lot lines and to see easements that affect it."
I do not know all the in's and out's of the planned development, but I think they are going to flatten the entire block and rebuild. And they want me to somehow show that with the current building? And then they say it is "A fairly common request". If it is I haven't seen it in the last 10 years of doing ALTA Surveys.
What would the correct response be?
I would suggest that the ALTA survey is a plan representing the current conditions, on the ground, and the rights and easements that exist, of record. That the plan is not to used to represent potential future development.
Then I would offer to do a "proposed plot plan" showing the proposed improvements, BASED on a site plan given to me by the client...
Dtp
Donald T. Poole PLS MA#32662, CFedS#1499 (expired)
How come you let it expire?
Probably the same reason I did, paying for continuing education on something you don't use.
CFedS#1166 (expired)
Jim Frame, post: 338601, member: 10 wrote: How come you let it expire?
It wasn't worth the continuing ed requirements to me. I did it mostly out of curiosity of PLSS standards, with the hope that it might spark some interest in the National Lands that we have on the Cape, and the Indian lands, but nothing transpired from those sectors.
Dtp
ppm, post: 338598, member: 6808 wrote: ...And then they say it is "A fairly common request". If it is I haven't seen it in the last 10 years of doing ALTA Surveys. What would the correct response be?
I've never seen anything of the sorts. I have seen proposed plot plans with an existing ALTA survey ghosted as an underlay, but they were prepared by others (other than the surveyor).
I personally don't think other's pipe dreams belong on such a comprehensive survey of existing conditions.
EDIT: It almost seems as though someone is wanting the surveyor's blessings of the proposed improvements. Be careful.
I bought the book, ate the cover. 🙂
The $1,100 was well spent. There is a good cultural history and unique perspective involved.
After a full study, and gaining a better understanding the downsides, and investigating the market I decided to not take the exam.
PS: it is all printed and in binders, free for the shipping cost.
What Paden said. We survey land and locate what we can see. A designer should be showing his/her "plan".
ppm, post: 338598, member: 6808 wrote: What would the correct response be?
An ALTA survey, by definition, reflects the existing conditions at the time of survey; however we would be more than happy to provide you with an additional services agreement with a fee to prepare an exhibit showing the proposed site improvements.
I had a architect (new) client request an ALTA recently, for a downtown block to be demolished and rebuilt with a multi unit, mixed used development - as is de-rigueur in Portland these days. After some back and forth it emerged, as I initially suspected, that they really wanted now was topographic mapping now which could be upgraded to an ALTA at some future time.
For many architects "ALTA" is just a word they know that they equate to "survey we need". Preparing a design overlay is perfectly appropriate. Making it part of an ALTA isn't.
I'll take you up on that, Peter!
JBrinkworth, post: 338628, member: 6179 wrote: I'll take you up on that, Peter!
Two folks are in line already via PM. first was Stephen Johnson then JBrinkworth. thanks.
maybe I should make a road trip 🙂
JBrinkworth, post: 338628, member: 6179 wrote: I'll take you up on that, Peter!
Two folks are in line already via PM. first was Stephen Johnson then JBrinkworth. thanks.
maybe I should make a road trip 🙂
What would the correct response be?
For it to be an ALTA, it needs to be a snapshot in time based upon the date of field work as so stated in the certification.
I can't imagine a title policy could be taken out and underwritten on proposed work.
ALTA now showing existing, and ALTA at the end showing constructed improvements.
In many of our ALTA's over commercial developments we may end up doing two or three ALTA updates on a site as construction happens.
We do this on many of our ALTA surveys for our energy clients, especially wind clients. We typically prepare three ALTA surveys. The first shows the existing conditions only, the second shows the existing conditions with the "proposed" improvements (sometimes the improvements are our design, sometimes they are from another firm) just be REALLY clear on the drawings about what is proposed and what is existing and who provided the proposed improvements. The third version shows the as-built conditions. We have done this for Wind farms and for transmission line projects, both of which are usually over undeveloped rural land so it is fairly easy to keep the existing and proposed stuff clear. I could see it being a lot more difficult on a developed lot, with lots of existing improvements.
Thank you all for the suggestions. And quickly too. I was able to read all these before my client called to "just make sure you got my email, while I have you on the phone..."
ppm, post: 338598, member: 6808 wrote: I do so many of these ALTA's you would think that I had seen it all. Yesterday I received a call from my client saying that show the 'proposed site improvements' on an overlay. This site is in a downtown area and the building is built right to the PL. Sidewalks right to the building. Someone responded by saying:
"they always require a site plan overlay. An overlay is to give them all assurance that proposed improvements wont be built over lot lines and to see easements that affect it."
I do not know all the in's and out's of the planned development, but I think they are going to flatten the entire block and rebuild. And they want me to somehow show that with the current building? And then they say it is "A fairly common request". If it is I haven't seen it in the last 10 years of doing ALTA Surveys.What would the correct response be?
NO
MD Surveyor, post: 338676, member: 10081 wrote: We do this on many of our ALTA surveys for our energy clients, especially wind clients. We typically prepare three ALTA surveys. The first shows the existing conditions only, the second shows the existing conditions with the "proposed" improvements (sometimes the improvements are our design, sometimes they are from another firm) just be REALLY clear on the drawings about what is proposed and what is existing and who provided the proposed improvements. The third version shows the as-built conditions. We have done this for Wind farms and for transmission line projects, both of which are usually over undeveloped rural land so it is fairly easy to keep the existing and proposed stuff clear. I could see it being a lot more difficult on a developed lot, with lots of existing improvements.
You are violating the ALTA Minimum Standards by showing proposed improvements. You can not title it as an ALTA Survey.
Which standard do you feel we are violating?
The problem is most clients think of an ALTA as a standard to upgrade a survey and not the vehicle created solely to acquire title Insurance. It is not an ALTA if we do not follow the ALTA Guidelines. When the survey stops being an ALTA, we need to stop calling it an ALTA.