I would guess that he held the rear monuments and used the front for line, but I have no idea why he extended the front line.
I can think of two subdivisions that were created using a "survey control line".
The first was a correction to a rather large subdivision that was wrought with errors and impossibilities. A court order sent in a second surveyor to identify all boundaries by possession and establish a baseline for future surveying.
The second was a subdivision, part of a major golf course, that really was "unsurveyable" without the baseline. It was the first subdivision I can recall ever thinking of "draftsmen going a muck", mathematics was sent to the back of the bus.
How long has the garage/apt been in place? Is this an isolated situation along the block or are there others like it? Did the garage/apt have a permit to build? It was probably permitted and a C/O was issued. That wall mounted AC unit would be hard to miss by any city inspector cruising the area.
That concrete strip does not qualify as an encroachment that is not permitted by the city, it's nothing more than a short driveway apron, as was said.
Looking at that photo it looks like a lot of residential alleys in the LA Area. The survey map however has a lot of shortcomings.
What makes you so sure that the found pipes/rebars represent the alley sideline? Maybe those were just dropped in place by some previous surveyors who did not want to take the time to do complete survey.
>Although there is no record distance for this lot on this plat, you can calculate lot distances based on the overall block boundary.
I am assuming that the no record distance for this lot applies to all of the lots in that tier. Also, to me, in a situation like this, an overall block boundary would extend beyond the alley to the next major right of way and all of the improvements would have to be located that define public improvements as well as evident private survey monuments. It also seems like a safe assumption that if the lot depths were not dimensioned then original lot/block monuments were never set.
Is this survey in Tampa? And if it is, I hope my name is not associated with it....
I can see the "survey control line" is causing confusion. Here's a snip from the 1895 subdivision plat. There is no "survey control line" shown. Just a normal old plat.
Making some assumptions about intended 90 degree angles, you can calculate lot line dims. Since it's a little hard to read, each lot is 42' wide, 89' on the south lot line and 97' on the north lot.
No, it's not you. I've seen your work in the Trinity area and it is top notch. I think I know who this is, but the title block was cut off the drawing I recieved.
Well if that map is the one being retraced I certainly do not get a lot about that plat.
Yeah, I don't get it either.
>...Making some assumptions about intended 90 degree angles...
I fail to see any intention of 90° angles. The intent could also be parallel lines with rights of ways. Split the improvements.
It looks like the intent of that plat is to hold 97' until about the midpoint of the west lot line of Lot 15, then shrink the lot lines to 89' bearing south. Maybe that won't fit what's happened on the ground, but the plat seems pretty clear.
Regardless of how you interpret the plat, it seems pretty clear to me that there are some questions about the survey.
-How do you come up with 93.8’ & 92.2’ as the “calced” sideline dimensions?
-Why would you extend the lot lines some unknown distance past the “calced” and “measured” distance, past the monuments, and into the alley way? Just to include the concrete apron?
-Why isn’t the alleyway even shown on the survey?
-Where are the building ties to the apartment/garage building?
-Even if you accept the three different possibilities for the rear lot line (the “survey control line” and “plat line” and dark line that seems to represent the determined boundary) as some sort of valid interpretation, why are there no dimensions showing the relationship of these lines?
My theory is as Keith stated above. The survey was drawn that way because someone was afraid to show the concrete pad extending into the right-of-way … which should be a none issue anyway. When you retrace the survey using 97’ as the North line, and tapering the remaining lines to the south down to 89’, you find that the face of the wall and “apartment” is within inches of that line (zero setback), and it lines up well with other monuments found to the north and south, and other fencelines. The only monument that doesn’t work well with this is the “FPP” near the NE corner, and it is my opinion that monument was set at a 2’ offset to the east, because the actually corner could not be set due to the wall foundation.
When I was a newly licensed surveyor, I thought every boundary could be established if I tried hard enough and researched and dug up old monuments and stuff. It's not true. Some boundary surveys cannot be done without such ambiguity that multiple solutions have as much chance of being right as several others. What we have to do, and I'm not saying I'm that good at it, is to keep from feeling like we have a gun at our heads to solve every boundary problem with survey methods. Sometimes it takes some co-operation among the property owners and local agencies.
The perfect storm of surveying is when property owners are in a heated battle as to their boundary lines and they are beyond agreeing with each other about anything and they ask us to solve a problem that is unsolvable without their co-operation.
In the case of the boundary shown on the plat TPR posted, it doesn't appear that there is any iron-clad solution but the poor surveyor slob that did the survey tried to put it to rest, but all he did was show how ambiguous the situation is.
I'd be interested in the basis of bearings. Those bearings show the lot is not 90 degrees as the older plan would imply. They didn't just fall from the sky, there looks like there is more info somewhere.
How about the bearings reading Counter Clockwise?
We run the bearings which ever way seems to make the best sense to keep the description simple. In fact, in the case of adjoining tracts with multiple common sides, we may run one clockwise and one counter-clockwise so the common sides carry the same bearings instead of opposites.
