q about a lot survey

I assume that 180 was meant to be 80.

Monuments over numbers. Follow the original footsteps even if they aren't what the paper says, or the LS's plan (he wasn't the owner). Put the corner where you think it was unless that raises issues versus what the owners have done. Record your plat with (R) and (M) values.

There is no sense upsetting the neighborhood of 10-year old houses by trying to move everyone's line 2.5 feet. Re-read Cooley.

my $0.00

> here's a good question:
>
> you do a mortgage survey on lot 20 block 1. lot 20 is the far east lot in block 1 in a subdivision that was drawn in cad ten years ago and has plat a width of 81.5' in the front(south side) and 82.5' in the back(north side). there are ten lots to the west - lots 10 - 19. they all have a width of eighty front & back shown on the plat for their individual widths and they all show to be 90deg rectangular lots with a 120' depth (eighty is the plat dimension of the individual lots) but the overall length shown on the north line of block 1 is 885.00'. you find the block corners measuring 885.00' along the north side (rear of lots) and you find the platted 80' wide lots to be staked at 80.00'....but your lot 20 measures to be 85.00' wide along the north side (the remaining 85' of the overall distance). and it measures 84.00 between the irons in the front... so you're thinking "how can it be off?" it was done in cad. so you call the original surveyor and he says " yea lot 10 was supposed to be 82.5' (it shows to be 80.00' wide on the plat) wide but when my guys went out there and staked it they went 80.00' from 10 down and didn't note that they had a 2.5' excess at the end" -----the iron rods remained and houses were all built on the 80' lots 10-19.
>
> now you are to survey lot 20. you find iron rods at 80' intervals with original caps to the west. you find a capped rods on your lot 20 at the NEC, SWC, and an IR at the SEC with no cap. you find nothing at your NWC of lot 20 but 180' west from the NWC of lot 20 you find a capped rod. how do you set the NWC of lot 20 and what do you do about the extra 2.5' width in the front and back of lot 20? remember lot 10 is staked at 80' wide also but is the lot that the surveyor who's stamp is on the recorded plat said was in error...there are no replats or correction plats.

My 2 cents.

You show it at 80' wide. And a dashed line at 82.5. The fact is, that the buyers of the lot purchased a lot. And, that the corners were set wrong. And, so they took possession, while it was wrong. (Like buying a car that needs paint.)

And, you file a REPORT of survey, with all the above stuff that you wrote above, on it. And let somebody else sort it out. LEGALLY, they own to them monuments, and have color of title, to the 2.5', or 1.5'.... Whats the date on this stuff. We need a time reference to what happened when..

I think that the offending surveyor should file a replat, and leave things alone... or move them, after talking to EVERYBODY.

But if you simply document it, you have covered your rear, and you have done a service, of letting all know what is going on.

N

The original Surveyor's testimony which contradicts the Plat and original stakes is not admissible.

See the Parole Evidence Rule.

Lot 20 is 85' wide.

oops... i meant 160 (2 80' lots down)

i agree.. the surveyor should have filed a replat the first time he knew of it. it sounded like he knew for some time.

i agree too.. i proceeded as if i never talked to him. i just wanted an idea of what actually happened without having to resurvey the whole subdivision.

the year the file was filed was in 2004.

i went out there about two weeks ago.

here's another bit of info... the owner of the lot (the seller) was the owner of the property that was subdivided. he retained 2 lots when the subdivision was put in - lot 20 and lot 17

i set my corner at 90deg from front 110' back from swc of lot 20. and noted several of the original corners that i found with "IRF with yellow cap stamped XXXX" (didn''t have X's, it had his reg #. then noted the discrepancy in distances. then showed measured distance and plat distances in parenthesis.

If there is no error in the east block line (which isn't clear at this point), it looks like a classic Barrett v. Perkins case (113 Minn. 480; 1911) In that case there was a 25-foot shortage in the plat. The court's finding was that the grantor intended the even-dimensioned lots to have their record dimensions, and to place the excess or deficiency in the odd-dimensioned lot at the end of the block.

Why throw all that into the mix? Just show the lot as 85 feet how it is and always has been. So there is an error. All the other lots are monumented and have their area and are occupied. Leave the remainder where is is. Is there really some problem here?

Your only authority in retracement

Your only authority when surveying an existing parcel for which boundaries have been previously established is to identify the lines and corners, according to the best of all the available evidence you can find or obtain, in the same positions as placed by the original surveyor.

If the evidence shows that the lots were laid out on the ground at 80, 80, 80, ... 85, even though the plat indicates 82.5, 80, 80, 80, ... 82.5, then that most easterly lot is 85' wide regardless of what the plat shows.

Courts in most jurisdictions have been quite consistent in viewing the plat as being intended to reflect the survey actually made on the ground. That is true even though many, if not most jurisdictions approve the final map before lot corners are set.

The reason for that is to protect the rights of the landowners. The landowners, the house builders, landscapers, fence builders, pretty much everyone but surveyors are going to rely on the marks on the ground if they are visible and aren't expected to make measurements to verify that the surveyor, the expert at marking boundaries, did his job correctly. The courts do not want to make landowners who reasonably rely on surveyors monuments to later be penalized for mistakes made by the original surveyor.

It is up to surveyors who follow later to recognize when such mistakes were made, and to then protect the landowners from needless controversy by not "fixing" that which is now past the time for fixing.

The map of a subdivision is a plan for the location of the lots within it. The survey you perform is an as-built of the lots (or a lot) as it was actually originally made, regardless of level of conformance to the original plan.

Your only authority in retracement

:good: :good:

Absolutely! The courts have told us this for many decades, if not centuries. The many treatises on surveying have told us this for nearly the same amount of time. Believe it or not there is a reason the courts and "experts" have been trying to pound these simple principles into our heads - it is what we are not only supposed to do, it is what we are EXPECTED to do.

Our job isn't to lay out the boundaries as they should have been laid out, our responsibility is to find the boundaries where they have been established.