Notifications
Clear all

Revising ALTA Survey

13 Posts
11 Users
0 Reactions
62 Views
hillsidesurveyor
(@hillsidesurveyor)
Posts: 97
Member
Topic starter
 

We completed an ALTA survey of a commercial site back in early December and all was good with the world. Now the title company would like a few revisions to the ALTA, which we have discussed and I am willing to do for additional payment, but the problem is that the site has changed dramatically since then. (buildings tore down, site grading, new buildings being constructed, etc.)

The title company and owner aren't concerned about the new construction and would only like to see the few minor revisions to the title commitment issues. How would one word the signature block to state that only title verbiage was revised and that all of the existing site conditions were not?

Any suggestions?

thanks,

 
Posted : March 12, 2015 8:38 am
scott-ellis
(@scott-ellis)
Posts: 1181
Member
 

Something like Survey based on field work dated Dec 12, 2014. Survey was revised to show a change in the title commitment at the request of the title company.

 
Posted : March 12, 2015 8:56 am
Dave Ingram
(@dave-ingram)
Posts: 2142
Member
 

Since the changes are significant - don't do it. An ALTA needs to represent what's there as of the last date on your survey.

 
Posted : March 12, 2015 9:01 am
james-fleming
(@james-fleming)
Posts: 5704
Member Debater
 

I've prepared a lot of ALTA surveys for refinancing, bridge loans, etc., while the site is under construction and site conditions are changing daily.

I would note in bold letters across the site drawing "Area Under Construction as of date of revised survey"; then date the certification like this:

This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2011 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on [Use date of field work as show on survey here]

Date of Plat or Map: [Use date of updated drawing here] (Surveyor’s signature, printed name and seal with Registration/License Number)

 
Posted : March 12, 2015 9:02 am
jph
 jph
(@jph)
Posts: 2332
Member
 

Give them an estimate to do the job right.

I hate this kind of BS. Of course they're not, "concerned about the new construction". They just want a stamped plan and nothing that'll delay the closing.

If something seems sketchy, it usually is.

 
Posted : March 12, 2015 9:59 am

tommy-young
(@tommy-young)
Posts: 2402
Member
 

> Give them an estimate to do the job right.

What does that mean?

Are you trying to argue that there is no way for a surveyor to change the verbiage on a recently released plat without verifying the field conditions of the entire survey?

 
Posted : March 12, 2015 10:11 am
sacker2
(@sacker2)
Posts: 152
Member
 

I would not change the survey date, the last date of the field work. I would note the exact change made in your revision block and date as such.

 
Posted : March 12, 2015 10:20 am
jph
 jph
(@jph)
Posts: 2332
Member
 

I'm not saying that at all. It sounds like they haven't done the closing yet, and they want to do it with an ALTA that doesn't show the current conditions. So now is the opportunity to survey the changes, and put out a plan that shows them.

 
Posted : March 12, 2015 10:46 am
james-fleming
(@james-fleming)
Posts: 5704
Member Debater
 

> I'm not saying that at all. It sounds like they haven't done the closing yet, and they want to do it with an ALTA that doesn't show the current conditions.

If it's under construction I'll bet it has nothing to do with closing, but is for modifying of the construction loan(s).

I've worked on projects where I've prepared an ALTA for the initial closing then revised it for the purchaser/developer more than half a dozen times during construction as the financing structure changed.

My favorite was adding to the lenders to "J.P Morgan Chase as administrator for certain unnamed parties"

 
Posted : March 12, 2015 11:06 am
paul-in-pa
(@paul-in-pa)
Posts: 6044
Member
 

It Would Be Best To Remove Improvements No Longer There

Or show no improvements at all with the Note: "Site under Demolition and Construction".

Paul in PA

 
Posted : March 12, 2015 1:37 pm

a-harris
(@a-harris)
Posts: 8761
Member
 

I would never advance any date on a drawing or other paperwork past my last day on the site.

Not even to say I revised a name or misspelling or even put revised on m/d/y.

 
Posted : March 12, 2015 3:05 pm
stephen-johnson
(@stephen-johnson)
Posts: 2342
Member
 

It Would Be Best To Remove Improvements No Longer There

:good:

 
Posted : March 12, 2015 3:23 pm
Marc Anderson
(@marc-anderson)
Posts: 457
Member
 

I think your question is too vague. Are they issuing a new commitment? If this is strictly a Schedule B exceptions issue, the site topo shouldn't matter that much, and with it being within 6 months of the original survey, it's technically not out of date.

I wouldn't change the date of my signature. Any Schedule B changes should be noted as to the date of any changes and the source of the change. I would do this by noting it under the Schedule B exceptions header and also in the title block revisions block.

I would try to make it crystal clear by note the date of the field work did not change.

This is especially important if there's a risk the site grading has disturbed any of the boundary monuments. The ALTA survey is first and foremost just a special case of a boundary survey.

I would hold fast that any changes after 6 months be a new survey, especially with rapidly changing conditions both in the field and apparently the title work.

But that's just me. You will ultimately have to do what you're comfortable with.

 
Posted : March 12, 2015 8:02 pm