Jp7191, post: 386667, member: 1617 wrote: I'm interested too!
Cameron, to what effort do you go through to determine dedicated and accepted? I never thought about it much until surveying in Oregon, where there are a lot of very old rural roads that were petitioned for in the late 1800's. Surveyors have been setting monuments along a 20', 25Ûª, or 30' offset of the physical center line for many years without a word about the document that created it or mention of the physical location compared to the described location if it can be ascertained. I got caught up in doing the same for a while but it gives me a lot of hart burn. I recently took part in an open hearing process Oregon has to "Legalize" a road location. Basically to fix the road at the surveyed location and quit claim any part outside of the fixed area back to the abutters. This was the first legalization done in our County in last 25 years they tell me. Jp
Jp, the bulk of my work is in the urban setting so most of the time it's pretty cut and dry as to the dedication by the private party and subsequent acceptance by the jurisdiction working on behalf of the public. When I've run into the situation you describe in rural areas there was a document recorded in the late 1800's taking either an easement or fee simple property for the County's use for roads. In every case I can remember these takes were defined as some distance, usually 30', on either side of the section and/or quarter section lines within a particular Township so the ROW is defined by the PLSS.
When I am asked to state if the street or road is public or private, I tell the client or the title company I will be glad to as soon as they provide me with the documentation that verifies it.
If they insist I give credit to who ever is insisting. Per the "client/attorney/title company the roads as shown hereon are Public.
Jim in AZ, post: 386669, member: 249 wrote: I would say "Why didn't you hire Bock & Clark?"
I was once told by an Attorney that "the surveyor on their last project did it." I asked them for a copy of that survey. They sent it to me, and after contacting the beligerant surveyor who prepared it, turned him into the board. I believe he sells cars now, and the attorney knows it.
i told an attorney the same thing, and added "good luck when they figure out, 20 stories into that building, that they're a foot into the right-of-way."
Meanwhile in TN.
TN Code 62-18-124
(d) A licensed land surveyor during the conduct of a boundary survey where there is discovered, or reasonably should have been discovered, any major apparent discrepancy as defined by the board between the deed descriptions of adjoiners, evidence of use or possession not consistent with deed descriptions or otherwise has notice that there is an adverse claim across a boundary, shall notify the affected adjoiners. Notice to nonresident or absentee owners will be by mail to the current address used for mailing property tax notices. In cases in which the landowner does not reside on the property, reasonable effort shall mean notification by certified mail.
Bruce Small, post: 386645, member: 1201 wrote: Attorney(s) sent me a letter requesting changes to my survey drawing of a shopping center. From the first two comments it was obvious they had not looked closely at the survey drawing because the streets were indeed labeled public and all the curb returns for the entrances were shown. The third comment was a request for a list of encroachments.
I replied by stating why as a land surveyor I couldn't do that and using Gary Kent's examples. Their reply was it was too near to closing to quibble so they would let it slide this time, made it clear I was less than cooperative, and they had never had any surveyor decline this request. They used Bock & Clark as an example of a cooperative firm.
Rhetorical question: What do you say to an attorney who holds up Bock & Clark as an exemplar (meaning, the gold standard).
Answer: I kept my mouth shut, but I had a few private thoughts.
I've been having it out with them too and they always say everyone else is doing why won't you. I think they are lying.
makerofmaps, post: 386675, member: 9079 wrote: Meanwhile in TN.
TN Code 62-18-124
(d) A licensed land surveyor during the conduct of a boundary survey where there is discovered, or reasonably should have been discovered, any major apparent discrepancy as defined by the board between the deed descriptions of adjoiners, evidence of use or possession not consistent with deed descriptions or otherwise has notice that there is an adverse claim across a boundary, shall notify the affected adjoiners. Notice to nonresident or absentee owners will be by mail to the current address used for mailing property tax notices. In cases in which the landowner does not reside on the property, reasonable effort shall mean notification by certified mail.
That's a pretty unique rule I would imagine. Is TN the only state with that in the their rules?
The way my pea brain works, me certifying a road is public is like me certifying someone has good title. Just because there are documents, did all the right people sign them? Are corporate resolutions filed? I just prefer to stay away from those potential problems.
makerofmaps, post: 386675, member: 9079 wrote: Meanwhile in TN.
TN Code 62-18-124
(d) A licensed land surveyor during the conduct of a boundary survey where there is discovered, or reasonably should have been discovered, any major apparent discrepancy as defined by the board between the deed descriptions of adjoiners, evidence of use or possession not consistent with deed descriptions or otherwise has notice that there is an adverse claim across a boundary, shall notify the affected adjoiners. Notice to nonresident or absentee owners will be by mail to the current address used for mailing property tax notices. In cases in which the landowner does not reside on the property, reasonable effort shall mean notification by certified mail.
That rule came about because jackleg surveyors were doing "stealth" surveys and placing corner monuments across long standing possession lines and keeping quiet about it. Years go by and the affected landowner has no clue that the neigbor is obtaining color of title against him.
I think it's a good rule. If you put a line in conflict with were the neighbor thinks it is, you have to tell them.
Lamon Miller, post: 386688, member: 553 wrote: The way my pea brain works, me certifying a road is public is like me certifying someone has good title. Just because there are documents, did all the right people sign them? Are corporate resolutions filed? I just prefer to stay away from those potential problems.
Good point. I guess I always looked at it similarly to the easements I plot. If I show it and label it with the recording information of the document that purports to have created it I'm good. If someone wants to then challenge the validity of the document itself more power to them.
I also show easements as per the recorded documents but I don't certify as to their legal existence.
I can understand CYA when it comes to ALTA's and attorneys... but am I understanding some of these comments that you wouldn't be comfortable labeling the adjacent roadways as public roads?? I'm pretty sure that most of Bruce's clients are in modern subdivisions in the city. As are the majority of ALTA's I might guess. How often are you doing ALTA surveys on rural lands that have sketchy access to public roadways?? If I'm missing something, please let me know. AJ
I don't feel like by labeling a street with the intent of the document that supposedly created it is "certifying" it's legal existence. I'm merely disclosing what the public record has to say about it. Around here public accesses easements are common place and by plotting and labeling them the way the language in the creating document did shouldn't add any more or less liability to the survey and me. It's also common place for there to be documents that restrict access to public ROW. If it weren't public ROW in the first place why would, for example, the Highway Dept. feel the need to create a document specifically preventing access to it? Agree to disagree I guess :clink:
For 35+ years I had always assumed that if there were a DOT set of plans that essentially represented the location of the roadway on the ground, and agreed within reason with DOT monumentation that it was a "public roadway." Then I was retained to perform a major ALTA survey straddling an access road at a standard interchange. The DOT plans showed about a 1,000 corredor for this access road, which had been constructed circa 1965, and it was monumented with both DOT and private survey monuments which essentially matche the plans. During the course of our work I discovered that the entire access road had been constructed å±180' away from the location in the DEED. Apparently over the course of 45 years, NO one had ever reviewed the underlying DEED! The DOT recorded an abandonment document covering the DEED location, then recorded a corrective deed covering the constructed location - all without the knowledge, approval or signature of the underlying landowner! So - be careful what you think is a "public roadway"!
Jim in AZ, post: 386700, member: 249 wrote: For 35+ years I had always assumed that if there were a DOT set of plans that essentially represented the location of the roadway on the ground, and agreed within reason with DOT monumentation that it was a "public roadway." Then I was retained to perform a major ALTA survey straddling an access road at a standard interchange. The DOT plans showed about a 1,000 corredor for this access road, which had been constructed circa 1965, and it was monumented with both DOT and private survey monuments which essentially matche the plans. During the course of our work I discovered that the entire access road had been constructed å±180' away from the location in the DEED. Apparently over the course of 45 years, NO one had ever reviewed the underlying DEED! The DOT recorded an abandonment document covering the DEED location, then recorded a corrective deed covering the constructed location - all without the knowledge, approval or signature of the underlying landowner! So - be careful what you think is a "public roadway"!
You did what you were supposed to have done, shown what the public record said not what some set of plans did. The whole corrective deed thing is kind of sketchy though...but I guess if it had been being used for 45 years the way it was no one was really hurt by the correction process. Did you ever figure out why the error occurred?
Cameron Watson PLS, post: 386701, member: 11407 wrote: You did what you were supposed to have done, shown what the public record said not what some set of plans did. The whole corrective deed thing is kind of sketchy though...but I guess if it had been being used for 45 years the way it was no one was really hurt by the correction process. Did you ever figure out why the error occurred?
Very sketchy - invalid according to an attorney friend. The problem arose from an erroneous course that somehow snuck into the description in the deed. Never could make any sense out of it.
Jim in AZ, post: 386702, member: 249 wrote: Very sketchy - invalid according to an attorney friend. The problem arose from an erroneous course that somehow snuck into the description in the deed. Never could make any sense out of it.
Bet you were puckered a little bit and quadruple checked EVERYTHING before making that call...I really dislike not agreeing with DOT monuments!:mask::mask::mask:
Andy J, post: 386694, member: 44 wrote: I can understand CYA when it comes to ALTA's and attorneys... but am I understanding some of these comments that you wouldn't be comfortable labeling the adjacent roadways as public roads?? I'm pretty sure that most of Bruce's clients are in modern subdivisions in the city. As are the majority of ALTA's I might guess. How often are you doing ALTA surveys on rural lands that have sketchy access to public roadways?? If I'm missing something, please let me know. AJ
Around here we do ALTA surveys in urban areas that abut public roads that have existed since 1623. Good luck finding the right document. Luckily we have statutes that define at what point a road becomes public, even without the document that says so.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
I've got a US Highway crossing a county line where the deed runs diagonally across the section. The fenced road does the same thing for 3/4 of the distance and then curves away from the deeded RoW as ithe approaches the County Line. Client did not wish to fix the problem so we moved the easement to a location where the road and r.o.w. Were concurrent.
Regarding labelling encroachments on ALTAs. Just being over a boundary line doesn't necessarily make something an encroachment. If the adjoiner has given so much as verbal permission it isn't an encroachment. But putting the word encroachment on the map can, potentially, queer the real estate deal. And if that happens, and the "encroachment" isn't a bona fide encroachment, the surveyor can be held liable for the financial losses suffered by the vender. At that point in the proceedings lawyers are already involved so you can count on it.
A story was told at a recent convention of a surveyor doing an ALTA who found a bearing in the legal description that had a bearing direction swap. You know, the bearing read S and W when it should have been S and E. There was apparently all sorts of supporting evidence for it, blah blah. No problem there. He draws his boundary using the corrected bearing and everything is hunky dory. Except he also draws in the "bad" bearing with a dotted line. The dotted line goes through the building. Somebody sees this line going through the building. Long story short, the deal dies because of the furor over the meaningless dotted line. The proposed sale price of the property ran into the millions and the vendor was left holding the bag. Surveyor was sued. Successfully. Now out of business.
Just be careful what you put on your maps. I've always used "Potential Encroachment" but just now I'm thinking of changing that to "Item of Interest".
Cameron Watson PLS, post: 386703, member: 11407 wrote: Bet you were puckered a little bit and quadruple checked EVERYTHING before making that call...I really dislike not agreeing with DOT monuments!:mask::mask::mask:
Oh yeah! Quintuple checked. I know for a fact that at least 7 private surveyors had staked parcels abutting the erroneous location - no one had apparently ever read the deed itself!
