Yes. It's called a ProForma ALTA.
Jim in AZ, post: 338683, member: 249 wrote: You are violating the ALTA Minimum Standards by showing proposed improvements. You can not title it as an ALTA Survey.
Were the client to check optional Item 22 (the blank one) and write in "Surveyor shall show the location of proposed infrastructure as provided by the client" would you still feel it is a "violation"?
From a strictly semantic point of view, it's difficult to claim a minimum standard has been violated by adding additional information above and beyond the standard. Were that the intent, might they be better titled "ALTA/NSPS Minimum - Maximum Range of Detail Standards" on the next go around?
Were the client to check optional Item 22 (the blank one) and write in "Surveyor shall show the location of proposed infrastructure as provided by the client" would you still feel it is a "violation"?
From a strictly semantic point of view, it's difficult to claim a minimum standard has been violated by adding additional information above and beyond the standard. Were that the intent, might they be better titled "ALTA/NSPS Minimum - Maximum Range of Detail Standards" on the next go around?
Exactly this. We meet all of the ALTA "Minimum Standards". There is also this language in the standards: Certain properties, including, but not limited to, marinas, campgrounds, trailer parks and leased areas, may present issues outside those normally encountered on an ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey. The scope of work related to such properties should be discussed with the client, lender and insurer, and agreed upon in writing prior to requesting the survey. The request to show the proposed improvements and the manner in which we show them has always been agreed upon by the client, lender and insurer.
James Fleming, post: 338690, member: 136 wrote: Were the client to check optional Item 22 (the blank one) and write in "Surveyor shall show the location of proposed infrastructure as provided by the client" would you still feel it is a "violation"?
From a strictly semantic point of view, it's difficult to claim a minimum standard has been violated by adding additional information above and beyond the standard. Were that the intent, might they be better titled "ALTA/NSPS Minimum - Maximum Range of Detail Standards" on the next go around?
Yes I would. An ALTA Survey is not a stand-alone document. It is the other half of an ALTA Title Insurance policy. It is to be used by the Lender and Insurer in conjunction with the Policy to determine existing conditions. So many folks don't understand this...
Jim in AZ, post: 338707, member: 249 wrote: Yes I would. An ALTA Survey is not a stand-alone document. It is the other half of an ALTA Title Insurance policy. It is to be used by the Lender and Insurer in conjunction with the Policy to determine existing conditions. So many folks don't understand this...
Perhaps you should take it upon yourself to educate ALTA and NSPS because they don't seem to understand it as well as you
http://www.multibriefs.com/briefs/nsps/altaacsmstandards.pdf
James Fleming, post: 338716, member: 136 wrote: Perhaps you should take it upon yourself to educate ALTA and NSPS because they don't seem to understand it as well as you
http://www.multibriefs.com/briefs/nsps/altaacsmstandards.pdf
Although it is not clear in the ALTA Standards, I will certainly accept Gary Kent's opinion on this issue, as I suspect no one is more aware of the intent of Table A Items. So this would mean that we copy the designer Site Plan in as a layer into the ALTA that we prepared and accept the liability for the plan meeting all zoning requirements? I can see why the Title Company would be more than happy to have us on the hook for this.
Has anyone had their Board of Registration give an opinion on this practice? If just because we can do this, should we do this? Personally, it would seem to be cleaner to have the designer reference our ALTA survey on their Site Plan. The Title Companies have a history of allowing Surveyors to take as much liability as possible. I recognize that this may not be an issue where the designer and Surveyor are in the same organization.
lmbrls, post: 338763, member: 6823 wrote: So this would mean that we copy the designer Site Plan in as a layer into the ALTA that we prepared and accept the liability for the plan meeting all zoning requirements?
No. This would mean that the surveyor places the proposed improvements on the survey plan, quotes the source thereof, and lets the other professionals in the process of deciding whether to insure title and issue loans have a plan that they can use as a reference.
lmbrls, post: 338763, member: 6823 wrote: The Title Companies have a history of allowing Surveyors to take as much liability as possible
Conversely, surveyors have a history of offering up additional uncompensated liability to title companies who would be stupid to turn it down.
James Fleming, post: 338768, member: 136 wrote: Conversely, surveyors have a history of offering up additional uncompensated liability to title companies who would be stupid to turn it down.
You got it. I don't blame the Title Company. How many times do we have to say, "I don't care that Surveyors have never had a problem with this. This Surveyor will not do it." It is the Surveyors that go along that make it hard on the rest of us.
The other professional is not certifying the ALTA. If the Client specifies Table A Option 6, are we not responsible?
No more than you would be responsible for placing wetland delineation by others, or zoning information provided by the client or title company, or the flood zone information on the face of the survey...that is I believe you would be responsible for placing the information correctly on the plan. Charge accordingly
However, that is NOT an ALTA
How can you certify to proposed improvements? You can create an "exhibit" with the proposed improvements shown on the survey, but if it's not existing, you can't call it an ALTA. That's what I've been taught and how I respond to title companies.
PLS30820, post: 338781, member: 1439 wrote: How can you certify to proposed improvements? You can create an "exhibit" with the proposed improvements shown on the survey, but if it's not existing, you can't call it an ALTA. (in my own humble experience dealing with big box stores and ALTA's for the last 15 years).
The purpose of the ALTA certification is to limit the surveyors certification to those items shown thereon, which are based on the surveyors professional opinion and not the opinion of others, and which are covered as the surveyors responsibility in the standards.
I would argue that by showing proposed improvements and noting that they were provided by others is no more "certifying to the proposed improvements" then you are certifying to the hydrographic calculations when you quote the flood zone. (In my own humble opinion from dealing with ALTA's on sites like this and this on a daily basis).
But hey, no one is mandating that surveyors do this...only that it is a viable option available to those who wish to do this work, are comfortable with the individual situation, and feel that they are adequately compensated for it. Me, I'd rather deal with a title company and multiple attorney's on a $70,000 ALTA than deal with a homeowner on a $1,200 lot survey some guys are the exact opposite...takes all kinds
I agree that we all have to individually assess our liability tolerance. I prefer the larger projects as well. This has been a useful discussion as I have not had this come up to date. It sounds like it will come up, so we need to prepared for this possibility. I already have a disclaimer in mind and will charge accordingly.
