I am surveying a 15 acre property that was subdivided into 12 lots by recorded map in the late 1975. For whatever reason, two out sales were made: both were described by metes and bounds and made only general references to the existence of the recorded map, they did not describe in terms of the subdivision (i.e. "Being Lots 1 and 2, part of Lot 3"). The same landowner has held it since prior to the 1975 division, their vesting deed uses the original description of the full undivided 15 acres, less and except the two out sales. At some point in the intervening years, the current owner had the subdivision 'administratively combined', so from the county's perspective it exists and is taxed as a single parcel.
Today's buyer has no interest in the subdivision, they intend to use the remainder of the parcel as a single tract.
Two questions:
There is a 'dedicated' ROW that connects all these lots. It is unopened, never cleared nor built on. The county states they have no claim or interest in it. NC allows for the original dedicator to abandon it, and the two outsale parcel owners have been contacted and are willing to sign releases. That should be the end of that, right?
An adjoining parcel was surveyed in the mid 90's, that recorded map makes reference to the subdivision, and recovered all of the monuments on their shared line. As part of my survey, should I locate and tie all of the monuments of the subdivision and describe the remainder in terms of it? Or should I retrace the original description and outsales, and describe as though the subdivision did not exist? If so, what do I make of the existing monuments that are all of the now meaningless lot corners?
Thanks for any advice. The obvious answer would be to survey everything, but the delta in fee compared to just retracing the original description is several thousand dollars. Just looking to do right by my client, but obviously not willing to compromise on any minimum standards.
Different states of course, but it's fairly easy with one owner to vacate a subdivision.
However, does the dedicated road pass through the subdivision to access other properties? If so, those stakeholders will need to participate in some fashion even if it's just to be informed and given a chance to protest.
Normally all utilities will need to be identified and protected with easements, the utility companies will need to sign off for the vacations of any easements, ect.
As far as the boundary that will need to be protected so each monument along the line from the 1970's will now be an angle point along the boundary. I can't see how it will be possible to simply straight line between the two boundary corners now that neighbors have relied on those monuments.
The only 3 owners who could have any material interest in the ROW are the 3 involved here, all have been contacted and are agreeable to signing a release, or whatever language the attorney comes up with.
No utilities were installed, the other two lots are vacant. My research didn't locate any easements, but we'll see what title comes up with.
Thanks for your response, my thought as well was to honor the monuments that have been relied on in other surveys. I'm not sure I will though on the other side, where it doesn't appear anyone has tied those monuments since they were set 50 years ago.
I agree with your apparent conclusion. If you know the monuments have been relied on, then they are material. If you know the monuments have not been relied on, then they are immaterial and likely should be removed so as not to cause confusion in the future. If the subdivision is nonexistent, there is no need for it to be monumented.
If the Plat was never recorded and the road was never accepted by the jurisdiction, it does not exist and never has.
I am surveying a 15 acre property that was subdivided into 12 lots by recorded map in the late 1975.
I think this will depend heavily on the laws in your state. Around here, all plats have a dedication of right of way and acceptance by the municipality. If they have neither, chances are high there is no right of way..
There's nothing preventing a survey of the exterior boundaries of a subdivision as long as you note that that is what you're surveying.
Keep in mind that in North Carolina and many other states, the Statute of Frauds requires a deed to transfer any interest in title. Plats are pretty pictures unless explicitly referenced in a deed.
Please make sure you're not one of the many PLSs in North Carolina that doesn't take the time to follow up and make sure clients formalize the new boundaries via deed.
That is likely the case, and NC has a state law specifically for this situation, however the title insurer wished to remove all question and all the owners were agreeable, so why not get something on record.
The parcel is a rectangle about 1800 x 350. The two 350' lines adjoin two different roadways, the ROW connected them. All owners could have in theory have access to either road, so there is something at stake if an owner decided to assert their claim to the ROW in the future. Recording some type of release neutralizes that. In consideration for their release, my owner is agreeing he will access his property exclusively through Road B, while the other two access through Road A. This fits the land and makes everyone happy.
I'm not sure I could sit well with removal. The map is a certified survey and is recorded.. even though no deed references it. I believe the map exists as a useful document, but carries no 'legal' weight. Those lot corners would be the best available evidence of occupation, possession, any lost corners, etc.
You said that the ROW was dedicated, presumably to the town. If the dedication was accepted, transfer of title for the ROW occurred at that point in time. If that is the case, the adjoining owners and the owner of the parent tract no longer have and rights to the right of way area so, signing a release would have no legal effect.
Every legal transaction requires an offer and an acceptance, in this situation, if the ROW was not accepted by whoever the entity noted in the dedication, it is merely a proposed condition that is extinguished as of the date that the subdivision was reconsolidated. If it was formally accepted by the entity it was dedicated to, regardless of what the adjoiners waive, the only way to make that ROW legally disappear is by having the entity that accepted in abandon it by resolution, reversion rights then come into play.
The mere fact is that if the road has not been opened in 50 years, it probably won't be but, the safe route would be to have the entity it was dedicated to abandon it and relinquish their rights in it.
Sounds like everyone has some access from an existing and developed right of way. So I wouldn't see a reason why they couldn't agree to abandon the platted, but not developed, right of way.
In NC, would half the platted right of way along their lots then go to the adjoining metes and bounds lots or would that be different because of not specifically calling out the record plat?
From my understanding of the original post, the ROW existed solely within the platted subdivision. If that is, in fact, the case, the reversion rights would go entirely to the parent tract with nothing added to the adjoining properties.
That may be the case as we don't have the specifics of how the lots are arranged.
From the description of the land, I was envisioning a road platted to run all the way through the middle of the rectangle with 6 lots on each side of the platted road. In what I was envisioning, the metes and bounds lots would be on one end of the rectangle with the platted road between them.
If what you envision is true, again, it would not matter as all of the interior platted lots have been consolidated back into one. Any out parcels sold, at best, would only run to the ROW and likely not the centerline. If they ran to the centerline, it would more than likely have been an easement, not ROW, and still would have no effect of the title lines of the outparcels.
