Nevertheless the monument so placed is not controlling, the deed dimension is, until, perhaps, the monument has been in place long enough, and the adjoiners have done enough things in reliance upon it, to constitute evidence of an unwritten agreement.?ÿ
Hmm, I'd have think about that. I assume you meant the monument *you* placed at 1,000.00' based on the Deed.?ÿ I also assume you filed a ROS at the Courthouse which is required when placing a monument per Deed record where none existed before, which serves notice to the public.?ÿ I could argue that your monument, if placed without blunder,?ÿ is the original monument and supersedes bearings & distances shown on the Deed upon filing of your Survey which set it, as you are the "original" surveyor which placed the Deed on the ground by a proper Survey.?ÿ?ÿ
OTOH I could construe you mean a monument you find which is not mentioned in the deed and has no record at the Courthouse.?ÿ If its location is reasonable (which may mean within 10-20' or more of Deed B&D), owners & adjoinders have relied upon it for decades and state so, and other evidence, I'd be inclined to accept it and once my Survey is filed *it* monuments the true corner immediately.?ÿ One caveat is don't state on your map "Fd IP, no record, accepted by unwritten rights doctrine";?ÿ it's the purview of the Courts to determine whether unwritten rights exist.?ÿ Of course your acceptance of it can be contested but by whom??ÿ Not the owner & adjoinders who are in repose, maybe later some jackleg surveyor will reject your acceptance of the monument and pincushion a new one at precisely 1,000.00' +- a tenth or two, confusing the owners and creating a discrepancy where there is none.
If your assertion concerns the first scenario, i.e. you set an original monument @ 1,000.00', do you actually inform your client it's only your opinion;?ÿ it'll take decades before its provenance is proven and will involve the Courts to establish unwritten rights (adverse possession, acceptance by acquiescence, etc.) if a problem crops up??ÿ That's absurd; clients should be able to unequivocally trust your work.
Please advise,?ÿ I really don't understand what you're saying.
?ÿ
I have no problem showing a 999.98 foot line with ten lots as 100.00 each. There are ten equal distances, all of which round to 100.00 feet. Artificially changing the overall or making one lot a different distance obscures the intent for ten equal lots on the monumented line. There is no statutory authority in Idaho to make me draft it different.
If the minimum lot size is 100 feet wide, I would suppose some might argue that you can only fit 9 in there.
That is why the code should include significant digits. Does 100 mean anything greater than 99.5? or does it mean anything greater than 99.9999999999999? OR does it mean anything that can be stated with 100% confidence to be greater than 100 feet?
This seems pedantic, until you actually find this being argued in Seattle lots that were nominally platted at 50 feet. They are "really" 49.5 or 49.9 or whatever after the block is broken down. What if, in the code, we have minimum widths of 50 feet in the code.
So can I build a house on a lot platted at 50 feet in 1925, and now we can see it is really 49.95? (number may be different, but the example actually has come up more than once)
Nevertheless the monument so placed is not controlling, the deed dimension is, until, perhaps, the monument has been in place long enough, and the adjoiners have done enough things in reliance upon it, to constitute evidence of an unwritten agreement.?ÿ
?ÿ I could argue that your monument, if placed without blunder,?ÿ is the original monument and supersedes bearings & distances shown on the Deed upon filing of your Survey which set it, as you are the "original" surveyor which placed the Deed on the ground by a proper Survey.?ÿ?ÿ
That is my thought as well. Where I place the rebar is where the corner is. Where I place the monument is the centerline of the street. Why would I place them anywhere else? And the monuments always hold over the deed distances.?ÿ
There is only one person that has to accept the location, and that is the signer of the plat, which they accept when they dedicate it, at least from my understanding.
This adds to the question of the putative 50 minimum lots. What if sloppy surveyor (as part of the original plat) monuments one 50.1' wide and the next 49.9' wide? What if awesome survey monuments some at 50.001' and others at 49.999' Is the Lot still 50' wide?
Significant digits are important.
Software plus field procedures that produce a lovely topographic drawing that does not recognize curb and gutter and includes contours running through buildings or in other ways does not represent reality (V-shaped contours on natural surfaces) are a bane on our profession.?ÿ Do the job correctly or don't do it at all.?ÿ Blaming bad products on poorly selected software or improper field procedures is pathetic.?ÿ Fix the product to represent reality before letting it leave your shop.
Auto-anything is based on assumptions used by the software designers.?ÿ Those assumptions may be fine for certain applications but not necessarily adequate for the level of precision expected by the end user.
Yes. That is when your survey expires!
Please give me a call, and I will give you a price to update it.
I have no problem showing a 999.98 foot line with ten lots as 100.00 each. There are ten equal distances, all of which round to 100.00 feet. Artificially changing the overall or making one lot a different distance obscures the intent for ten equal lots on the monumented line. There is no statutory authority in Idaho to make me draft it different.
If the minimum lot size is 100 feet wide, I would suppose some might argue that you can only fit 9 in there.
That is why the code should include significant digits. Does 100 mean anything greater than 99.5? or does it mean anything greater than 99.9999999999999? OR does it mean anything that can be stated with 100% confidence to be greater than 100 feet?
This seems pedantic, until you actually find this being argued in Seattle lots that were nominally platted at 50 feet. They are "really" 49.5 or 49.9 or whatever after the block is broken down. What if, in the code, we have minimum widths of 50 feet in the code.
So can I build a house on a lot platted at 50 feet in 1925, and now we can see it is really 49.95? (number may be different, but the example actually has come up more than once)
The Lot is the width shown on the original Plat. Your measurement is just a more precise definition of what ??50 feet? means.
Congress put this concept into the Federal statute regarding the returns of the Deputies and the numbers on the Official Plats, that they are true regardless of later measurements.
Software plus field procedures that produce a lovely topographic drawing that does not recognize curb and gutter and includes contours running through buildings or in other ways does not represent reality (V-shaped contours on natural surfaces) are a bane on our profession.?ÿ Do the job correctly or don't do it at all.?ÿ Blaming bad products on poorly selected software or improper field procedures is pathetic.?ÿ Fix the product to represent reality before letting it leave your shop.
Auto-anything is based on assumptions used by the software designers.?ÿ Those assumptions may be fine for certain applications but not necessarily adequate for the level of precision expected by the end user.
Are you hand drawing contours??ÿ?ÿ
You would think that would be the case...and an aliquot part down to a nominal 5 acres used to work, meaning that such a subdivision met the minimum of 5 acres. No longer true around here.
Hmm, I'd have think about that. I assume you meant the monument *you* placed at 1,000.00' based on the Deed.?ÿ I also assume you filed a ROS at the Courthouse which is required when placing a monument per Deed record where none existed before, which serves notice to the public.?ÿ I could argue that your monument, if placed without blunder,?ÿ is the original monument and supersedes bearings & distances shown on the Deed upon filing of your Survey which set it, as you are the "original" surveyor which placed the Deed on the ground by a proper Survey.?ÿ?ÿ
Requirements to record surveys vary from state to state.?ÿ Oregon requires that surveys and plats be filed with the County Surveyor, whose office is not always in the courthouse.
If you can produce case law about the original surveyor theory please do. I have yet to see any,?ÿ although I have heard the theory being promoted on these pages regularly. What I have seen is that uncalled for monuments do not control boundaries.?ÿ
OTOH I could construe you mean a monument you find which is not mentioned in the deed and has no record at the Courthouse....
Which is worse - accepting and monumenting a boundary on the basis of an uncalled for monument, perhaps not of record,?ÿ that is not in compliance with record dimensions, or monumenting a boundary based on clearly defined lines of occupation, even if not in compliance with record dimensions, on the basis of apparent unwritten agreement.?ÿ ?ÿ
If I find an iron many feet from an deed dimensioned position I first have to ask if it just goat stake, then if it is undisturbed and in it's original position, then if any of the adjoining property owners, or their predecessors, know of its existence.?ÿ If there is evidence of occupation I might consider it evidence of a practical location, and therefore the terminus of some long ago surveyor's measurement, which I might accept on that basis. But I'm going to have to weigh that against everything else I uncover. If there is a corresponding well defined line of occupation I would advise my clients that they should continue the occupation.?ÿ If not I would probably, after thoroughly checking out the adjoiners deeds, including junior /senior rights, monument the deed dimensions and?ÿ advise them that an ambiguity exists and that they should seek legal advise.
Thankfully, in over 30 years of practice, I have never had to do that. Maybe I'm lucky that the surveys around here have a long history of being pretty good overall, and that a large portion of my area is platted - the monuments I find of those are therefore called for and controlling. Also - descriptions that are obviously prepared from dimensions shown on a survey, which survey monumented the lots, which was sometimes done in the past?ÿ . What I would never do is simply accept a found but uncalled for iron without further analysis on the basis that it was set by the "first surveyor".
I can point to a 1916 Oregon case in which monuments were found that were uncalled for in the deeds - although there was testimony that showed that they had been placed by the subdivider - that were not accepted as controlling because no purchaser had been made aware of their presence.?ÿ ?ÿ I have a Washington case in mind from 2010 that said that monuments?ÿ alone in an overgrown location, remote from dwellings, were not sufficient to put adjoiners on notice of a marked boundary. There are plenty of others where found monuments were held on the basis of having been relied on for many years by adjoiners (ie/practical locations), but never because they were set by the "first surveyor".?ÿ ?ÿ
?ÿ ?ÿ
?ÿ
Software plus field procedures that produce a lovely topographic drawing that does not recognize curb and gutter and includes contours running through buildings or in other ways does not represent reality (V-shaped contours on natural surfaces) are a bane on our profession.?ÿ Do the job correctly or don't do it at all.?ÿ Blaming bad products on poorly selected software or improper field procedures is pathetic.?ÿ Fix the product to represent reality before letting it leave your shop.
Auto-anything is based on assumptions used by the software designers.?ÿ Those assumptions may be fine for certain applications but not necessarily adequate for the level of precision expected by the end user.
Good topographic field procedures when surveying improved property involves shooting break lines along TOC and shooting curb depressions for roadways, flowline and TOfCut of ditches, line breaks at building pads,?ÿ accurate shots of drop inlets and intersection curb returns.?ÿ When encoded properly their "raw"?ÿ data allows you to offset the TOC and create parallel flowline and lip alignments, and automagically fix contours through building pads.?ÿ Also is important is the crew flags non-topographic shots, like sewer inverts, top of wall, etc., so they don't screw up the topography.
Get good fieldwork data, load it up into MStn/ACAD, clean up the glitches and have the field surveyor review it for any anomalies and bing-bang send it to engineering (the end user) and they're overjoyed it's so accurate.
I find it difficult to believe anybody's doing topography surveys of commercial properties without a Field to Finish computer workflow.
@dmyhill?ÿ
Fixing erroneous information should be the norm instead of pretending that it is not erroneous.?ÿ It is obvious to other people.?ÿ Why put out something that encourages them to question the legitimacy of the rest of your information?
That is my thought as well. Where I place the rebar is where the corner is. Where I place the monument is the centerline of the street. Why would I place them anywhere else? And the monuments always hold over the deed distances.?ÿ
There a circumstances where buyers and sellers want a property to be of an exact dimension. How do they do that??ÿ?ÿ
Suppose you are the owner of a piece of property and you want to sell off exactly 100 feet of it. Not 99.9 feet, not 100.1 feet. Exactly 100 feet. Maybe land values are so high that it is priced by the square foot.?ÿ It happens. Your buyer intends to build a zero setback building of exactly 100' dimension. That happens too.
So you have a deed written that describes the property as exactly 100.00'.?ÿ
Then the buyer makes the mistake of hiring a surveyor who monuments the corners. Every time another surveyor measures those monuments the property dimension changes. One week it is 100.04', next it is 99.96'. Your buyer runs into problems getting his construction permitted because his building won't fit on a 99.96' lot. The bank will not finance a building that is less than 100.00 feet and kills the deal. Your buyer is out about a half million plus in development costs and sues you for it.?ÿ
That is what happens with this scenario that the property dimension changes if you make the mistake of monumenting it.
If you want to have monuments control the boundaries you call for them in the description. You can call for monuments to be set subsequent to the sale if you need to.?ÿ If you do not call for monuments they do not control. Words mean things, especially in a legal description.
Anticipating the objections - once this 100.00' building is built, presuming a good faith effort to keep it as close to that boundary as is possible, it is going to be allowed to stand. It may measure out to be 0.04' over the theoretical line. The adjoining owner is just going to have to deal with that when that property is developed.?ÿ ?ÿThe title line will remain at the exact dimension.?ÿ ?ÿ
It is not an error.
It??s an approximation of precision.
@mark-mayer one time back in the early 1990s I was working for the typical small time land development firm, apartments, housing tracts, strip malls??architect comes into the office all out of breath because he changed the overall dimension on a 250 foot long apartment building by 1/2?. My boss said don??t worry about it, those things are built by carpenters 10 or 12 feet at a time, no way you??ll ever notice your half inch.
If the owner of the remainder parcel watched his grantee build his ??100 foot wide building? without objection it will be almost impossible to find a court that will rule the boundary is inside the wall. Practicality meets reality.
So, there was this Latin professor -- we'll call him Dr. Smith -- who owned a beautiful collie dog. Dr. Smith?ÿloved?ÿthis dog. So convinced was he that this dog was the smartest and most beautiful canine that had ever lived, he named her "Gloria Mundis."
As it happened, Dr. Smith had a neighbor who had the truly annoying habit of cutting through Smith's yard each morning on the way to the bus stop. Dr. Smith had asked him repeatedly to stop cutting across his yard, to no avail. Dr. Smith gave his annoying neighbor the nickname "Transit" for his habit of passing through Dr. Smith's yard each morning.
One fine morning, Dr. Smith happened to be outside walking his dog when he his neighbor came strolling through the yard. Something inside Dr. Smith snapped. Pointing at his neighbor, Dr. Smith yelled, "Sic Transit, Gloria Mundis!"
If the owner of the remainder parcel watched his grantee build his ??100 foot wide building? without objection it will be almost impossible to find a court that will rule the boundary is inside the wall. Practicality meets reality.
What I'm really saying with that comment is that the chances of going to court over 0.04' is practically nil. If ever someone did I suspect that the judge would be annoyed with the complainant and rule against them. If the firm of Karoly-Mayer and Assoc. was hired to do an ALTA of the situation we would show the boundary dimension as 100.00' and that the building wall was on the line.?ÿ But, if you take plans of a 100.00' foot building to the planning department to put on a 99.96' lot?ÿ you are not going to get a permit. That is reality hitting practicality.
That is my thought as well. Where I place the rebar is where the corner is. Where I place the monument is the centerline of the street. Why would I place them anywhere else? And the monuments always hold over the deed distances.?ÿ
There a circumstances where buyers and sellers want a property to be of an exact dimension. How do they do that??ÿ?ÿ
Suppose you are the owner of a piece of property and you want to sell off exactly 100 feet of it. Not 99.9 feet, not 100.1 feet. Exactly 100 feet. Maybe land values are so high that it is priced by the square foot.?ÿ It happens. Your buyer intends to build a zero setback building of exactly 100' dimension. That happens too.
So you have a deed written that describes the property as exactly 100.00'.?ÿ
Then the buyer makes the mistake of hiring a surveyor who monuments the corners. Every time another surveyor measures those monuments the property dimension changes. One week it is 100.04', next it is 99.96'. Your buyer runs into problems getting his construction permitted because his building won't fit on a 99.96' lot. The bank will not finance a building that is less than 100.00 feet and kills the deal. Your buyer is out about a half million plus in development costs and sues you for it.?ÿ
That is what happens with this scenario that the property dimension changes if you make the mistake of monumenting it.
If you want to have monuments control the boundaries you call for them in the description. You can call for monuments to be set subsequent to the sale if you need to.?ÿ If you do not call for monuments they do not control. Words mean things, especially in a legal description.
Anticipating the objections - once this 100.00' building is built, presuming a good faith effort to keep it as close to that boundary as is possible, it is going to be allowed to stand. It may measure out to be 0.04' over the theoretical line. The adjoining owner is just going to have to deal with that when that property is developed.?ÿ ?ÿThe title line will remain at the exact dimension.?ÿ ?ÿ
"exact dimension" = what does that even mean? That always involves precision. And, if we say it is 0.01' in every 100 feet, that is fine, but you cannot do that with a total station (at least none I have ever worked with), RTK. A calibrated and certified steel tape or "chain" might do the job, if you had the right people running it.
This is where we get back to the "deed" staking. Trust me, I completely understand the arguments, I worked with both sides for decades. I am not choosing a side, but I think that the next time someone says "deed staker" as a pejorative, they should take a look at your post. It is a real world issue with a political/govt class that is less educated in science and more educated in (I have no idea what).
The situation always calls for judgement. I remember doing what we call an "airspace" condo, and they are essentially lots of land that can be built on, and in this case with zero lot lines. The question was whether we should set monuments on those zero lot lines. The experienced surveyor in charge did not do that. We staked the foundations, but we never set "corner" monuments. The lot line runs through that foundation right there...that is the monument. In fact, he argued essentially what you do...the monuments can only mess things up.
Anyway, the priority of calls matters, and your argument that we need, at times, to let our bearings and distances be the priority is not bad advice.
If you plat a lot, of course, and show the corners set, then those corners are part of the legal description: Lot 1 of Plat XXXX, and that is what I was referring to above...
