I go out, 20 yrs ago, and stake a subdivision of 25 lots. My brother and I do it, and we go to alot of trouble to get the final stakes within about 0.02'. We pour our little 'ole hearts out, and do a nice job. Pretty plat, and all.
Fast forward, to 5 yrs ago.
Ridiculous, Fast, and Cheap Surveying (They are the surveyor's version of Dewey, Cheatham, & Howe Lawyers) goes out there, and finds the 2 front pins, on a lot and resets several missing pins in the neighborhood. Fact is, both front pins have been disturbed by utility company, during construction. Now, there are fences, and loads of occupation.
And, I have to go a survey a lot adjoining the one with disturbed pins.
What do I do?
I have BOTH sets of coords, both the original, and the "New" monuments.
Some of the occupation is sort of old.
My question is "Did the lines move?"
This situation is somewhat theoretical, but I do run into this in principal, and this is an easy way to present it.
Nate
Hmmm . . .
Did the lines move to the "replaced" pins?
or . . .
Did the lines not move from there original points, but ownership did?
or . . .
Did the lines and ownership move?
or . . .
Did the utility company(who replaced the pins?) perform an illegal survey?
or . . .
or . . .
hmmm . . .
or, is it spelled scenario?
🙂
Loyal
Same quandary I have. I "grew up" surveying taking several sets of angles at every set up with a "t2". We usually set a stake with a tack, and double-centered the tack on line, and measured to the tack accurately and set the pin at a distance from the tack with a tape measure; then checked the pin in from another point or traversed through it. It sounds like, these days, you just find a pin and accept it, because it has been "honored" or "sanctioned" by the owners. And we all hate "pin-cushioners".
I keep touting that you need to look at 'all' the evidence, but all the evidence, isn't always that simplistic. I can preach it, but I always have doubts when I practice it. Property lines shouldn't change every time a new surveyor surveys it, but also, blunders and sloppiness shouldn't be the standard either.
Can anyone drive a piece of steel in the ground and that becomes the corner until another piece of steel gets driven? Can someone build a fence and that becomes the line, even if the adjacent owner doesn't agree with it, or it doesn't match the deed?
Sounds as if you were the original surveyor for the subdivision, way back 20 years ago.
The actions and responsibility of the license in responsible charge at “Ridiculous, Fast, and Cheap Surveying” company (RFC) do not transfer to your current survey. His subsequent retracement survey was his opinion. Was it a true retracement or just a deed stake-out from disturbed points. I say it probably was not a retracement, as the two monuments used as a basis were not checked against the rest of the world (rest of subdivision). You and the landowners don’t have to accept his boundary resolution.
Just because RFC Surveying didn’t follow the footsteps of the original survey (and verify along the way), doesn’t mean you can’t follow the original footsteps. Would you survey and resolve the issues to the professional standards as indicated in their survey actions, or your own (and State) standards. Just because they messed it up, doesn’t mean you have to perpetuate their problems.
Now, there could be an issue of repose, since a bit of time has passed. If the owners want to keep the (messed-up) boundaries as staked by RFC Surveying, that is their choice. But, you have the obligation to retrace the original boundaries and bring to light possible errors.
The original lines did not move. It’s not your fault there are possible misplaced boundaries by RFC… Rectify the problems that were later created and make some money assisting the owners in re-establishing the true lines.
Jud,
Good One!
The original Lot lines did not move. Did the property lines move? That question is what keeps this board alive and many others in speakers fees!
Joe
Did the lines move? In short, no.
You monumented the subdivision 20 years ago but the lot boundaries weren't established until subsequent actions of landowners established them. Most of them were probably established in reference to the monuments you set originally. Apparently some were not. That doesn't mean that their boundaries need to be "corrected".
The presumption is that those boundaries were established in good faith. Locate the boundaries as established and show record vs measured B&D on your plat.
A thought . . . another scenerio
Let's say the lots are 50.00' wide each. Which were the minimum requirements.
Now, your lots are still 50.00' as you staked them, but lines of occupation no longer agree with the original stakes.
In essense, the property owners, 20 years down the line have moved boundary lines away from the originally staked lines for any number of reasons. This has happened either because of the original monuments being disturbed or just because people do what people do with boundary lines to make things "work out" with neighbors.
Well, adjoining property owners do have the right to set boundaries between one-another.
But . . . just as a point of argument, do property owners have more right to cause lots to become less than compliant(in this case less than 50.00'), than surveyors do, or could this even be an issue regarding these 25 lots? Especially since the lots, originally met requirements.
just wondering
A thought . . . another scenerio
If the lots met statutory requirements at the time of creation, they meet statutory requirements now.
Scenario
“Ridiculous, Fast, and Cheap Surveying” Company
I think they have an office almost everywhere.
The lots are more or less fixed by the original subdivision plan. Ownership of a specific square inch of ground is an entirely different matter.
A thought . . . another scenerio
Ah yes . . . but.
The property owners have now "changed" the lots, by agreement.
So, are they the same lots that were surveyed 20 years ago?
Or is lot 20 now lot 20 plus a part of the original 21, while lot 21 is now not all of the original 21?
Based on you O.P. I feel the lines as they ere established 20 years ago hold.
I would tend to toss the other surveyors rebars and re-set according to original lot lines.
Why, because the original line can be found. It is known, and not ambiguous in anyway. You were the original surveyor, so follow in your own footsteps.
Now, there maybe statutory time frames in your state that I'm not aware of which may change things, but just because another surveyor apparently screwed up doesn't make it right.
A thought . . . another scenerio
They haven't "changed" anything. The established their boundary. The owner of Lot 20 still owns Lot 20 and the owner of Lot 21 still owns Lot 21.
A thought . . . another scenerio
I couldn't disagree more.
All the lots are where they were staked 20 years ago. There's nothing in this scenerio that leads me to believe this has changed. Pins may be missing and/or disturbed, but their correct locations can be determined correctly, regardless of the presence of disturbed pin locations.
Now . . . as far as land ownership, sure, it's possible that ownership lines may have changed, but the lot lines don't magically move because the property owners didn't know where they should be and "changed"(agreed to lines as best they could), the lines to where they "think" the lines were located.
If the owners are agreeing to lines that they "know" aren't the correct lines, well then, the owners are actually performing a transaction . . . a transfer of property.
A thought . . . another scenerio
Are we sliding into the concept that the section subdivision lines are only from the 1/4 section corners and the c 1/4 is at the true intersection point and nowhere else?
A thought . . . another scenerio
Not really, there Keith, BUT, what if the BLM set a SPM (Single Proportionate Measure) 1/4 cor, at a mid pt, in 1932 and then somebody used it to subdivide the section, and then the mon got destroyed, and then replaced at it's "ACTUAL" mid pt, which is 5' from where the actual mon used to be?
I go with where the actual mon was. That IS the 1/4 cor.
N
A thought . . . another scenerio
Nate,
No problem and you are right.
I was talking about section subdivision corners.
Keith
A thought . . . another scenerio
The owners didn't "know" where the corners were. It doesn't matter that a surveyor could come out and put them back where they belong, but that the landowners didn't know where they were.
Actually, in this case, they relied on a surveyor's rendition of where those corners were located. They established their boundary in good faith reliance on that location. You'd be hard-pressed to find a judge in any court that would support upsetting those lines. Why then do surveyors feel obligated to do so in order to satisfy their incessant urges to fit everything together perfectly, "where it should have been"?
Scenario
1. Thank you for the spelling correction.
2. The monuments control when found in their original and undisturbed locations. Prove the monuments moved due to utility work and you no longer have the original monuments.
Scenario
> 2. The monuments control when found in their original and undisturbed locations.
"Unwritten rights" of possession trump all.
