so i did an ALTA a few years back on a site wherein a rather interesting conundrum appeared, and i'm interested in perspectives. i made my calls and went through depositions, multiple meetings with attorneys and title companies from both sides of the transaction, weeks of research in old (1920s-30s) field books from city surveyors and engineers. the case has been settled, the tract sold, and an 80 year old 1 story building will soon be replaced by a 10 story office tower. but i'm curious as to others' initial reactions.
city was platted in 1839. no r.o.w. widths are spec'd on the plat (save for an n.b. stating that all alley widths are 20'). history has dictated (as well as various parol from city staff and surveyors) that 80' is to be held, save for congress avenue.
building is the SW corner lot of a block immediately adjoining the capitol square, and includes the original GLO tract. the lot layout is different from all but one other block along this r.o.w., in that an additional alley exists, thereby narrowing the affected lot width from 46' (typical to almost every other block on this r.o.w.) to 42.8'. IN ADDITION, through the recovery of various block corners, centerline monumentation, old city reference marks, curb lines, etc, there appears a 4' excess, which has apparently all been pushed into this r.o.w., for all practical purposes.
do the survey, find previous surveyor's corners, showing the building to be 1.5' into the r.o.w.. then realize i'd, several years before, done a title on the block immediately across the r.o.w. and could never make sense why the 70s-era plat had absorbed +/-4' from record platted distances.
long story short: after spending about 30K on a survey we did for 5K the ALTA i produced showed the building encroaching into the r.o.w. by 5.5', as opposed to the 1.5' interpreted in the vesting deed. the city itself was entirely non-committal on the issue, stating that i should hold the preponderance of evidence. problem is, whose preponderance? i showed the vesting property lines (which also happened to create encroachment issues with the adjoiner to the east), but the preponderance of evidence along 11 blocks of r.o.w. (as well as various ties 5-6 blocks over along the 11 blocks) shows that there are numerous buildings (some 100+ years old, some 10+ story state office buildings, various large towers and garages developed by my employer at the time, a couple massive churches) that are within an 84' r.o.w., and even within an 80' r.o.w., depending upon which side you establish the 80' from. all centerline monumentation along this very r.o.w., by the way, has been obliterated in the area. the nearest remaining one appears at the intersection of the NW corner of the governor's mansion (one i tied when doing the surveys for the post-arson remodel of that), about 3 blocks south of the site. the city field books helped to locate various bolts and ephemera used as reference points, but a 1927 field book shows, say, an 18' offset from centerline, then a 1932 field book shows the same point to be a 14' offset from centerline. lots of this sort of stuff.
so, what is it? an 80' r.o.w., an 84' r.o.w.? if 80, then who gets to take the excess? and by what process? i'm still stymied by it, especially every time i drive down the road (which is a semi-daily activity).
> so, what is it? an 80' r.o.w., an 84' r.o.w.? if 80, then who gets to take the excess? and by what process? i'm still stymied by it, especially every time i drive down the road (which is a semi-daily activity).
Why not post the lot and block number? This isn't some indeterminate problem. There is a specific, fairly well-documented history behind the locations of boundaries in the original City of Austin (where I assume from your post that the tract in question is situated).
For starters, the original charter of the City of Austin gave the municipal corporation control over the streets and other public places shown upon the city plat. The City has continuously maintained that aside from Congress Avenue, East Avenue and West Avenue, the widths of streets shown upon the 1839 plat by reference to which patents were issued by the Republic and/or State are 80 ft. There is no room for doubt on that point that I'm aware of. The only real questions appear when surveyors fail to find the locations of the street lines that have been recognized since at least the 1870's. As a rule, that is a failure of research and investigation, not some significant boundary problem.
The drawings of every town in this area are void of any dimensions of the widths of roads.
Some do not have dimensions of the blocks.
Thur the years some have been surveyed in feet and others in varas and a few in rods depending upon the person scaling from the original recorded documents.
All that has created a large mess in parts of a couple of towns.
Your nondimensioned road could very well be 83.33ft = 30vr
0.02
> Your nondimensioned road could very well be 83.33ft = 30vr
No, the original City was laid out in feet. There isn't any question about that, really. The plat is dimensioned in feet, not varas. Throughout the original city, when a comprehensive resurvey of the streets was made, beginning in about 1910, what was then very old occupation showed the streets to have 80 ft. widths and perpetuated the locations of streets and blocks. The maps of those resurveys still exist and were used in many cases in establishing the City Engineer's monument lines that have a history of use and acceptance for about a century, in many cases perpetuating much older lines that had been used back into the middle 19th century.
In many cases, the lines of streets in the original city were even fixed by an action of the City Council and the monuments were set according to the ordinance or resolution. Problems did in some cases crop up where streetcar tracks were in place and an offset line was monumented. There are cases where later surveyors didn't know the original offset of the monument line and buildings were incorrectly placed. There are also cases where only one side of a street was established by a City Council action, with the result that the street ended up without a uniform width.
Research is the key to discovering these basic facts and trying to survey boundaries in the original city without adequate research is a great way to discover that the hard way. Nearly all of the City Engineer's field books from the period 1910 forward exist. The older books are in an archive known as the Austin History Center but are time-consuming to search.
The other thing a surveyor who does his or her homework will discover is that before 1910 several City Engineers had different ideas about how to locate street lines, some wanting to lay things out in relation to Congress Avenue without taking into account that the evidence of very early occupation shows the street grid not be be perfectly rectangular. Since the City Engineer gave lines at one time for most pavement and building construction in downtown Austin, one sometimes finds these different ideas perpetuated in the positions of some building and street improvements built between 1870 and about 1909 when George S. Iredell became City Engineer and set about a comprehensive resurvey of the original City.
I don't want to work downtown anywhere. The learning curve for downtown areas in towns one typically does not work in require a huge learning curve that typically can't be budgeted not afforded by the person needing the survey and you're the lucky one that gets to survey the 100 year old house in a transitioning neighborhood two blocks from the square.
Ugh.
Kent- it's block 148. Guess I didn't figure it was pertinent to anyone here but you.
And that was my take- basically, that occupation sort of jenga'd it's way down lavaca and Guadalupe, creating what now looks like a hopscotch board of r.o.w., at least in terms of occupation. And every pitfall you've described I encountered. When I made my determination as to the layout of the block itself (some of which has since been "absorbed" in to the Capitol grounds proper) the east line of the intended conveyance fell within a tenth of the west wall of the Goodwin bldg (which I believe to be the oldest- or one of- original structures remaining downtown).
I love downtown work. Maybe partially because I officed there for years and was literally surrounded by my own work. But it's rarely cut and dry, and tends to be (here, at least) a fascinating opportunity to research and learn some history. Anything to get away from being a cad rat.
> I love downtown work. Maybe partially because I officed there for years and was literally surrounded by my own work. But it's rarely cut and dry, and tends to be (here, at least) a fascinating opportunity to research and learn some history. Anything to get away from being a cad rat.
Give me 800 to 1500 acres of woods to survey any day over the downtown work. Not saying that I hate urban work, but the closer it is to the origins of the town, the more that is required when working there. As long as I'm in my little county, no worries as we have them all worked out. I do not, however, make a point to go to another county's downtown area, unless the money is right.
don't get me wrong- i'd take out in the sticks any day. that's about all i did the first 4 or 5 years after i fell bassackwards into this profession.
life and family circumstances, though, dictated otherwise. if i could get out of town right now i would, unfortunately there's an ex-wife who has some say in things still.
all that said, for being a "city surveyor" for the better part of the last decade, i've enjoyed the downtown stuff the most. give me a downtown block devoid of monuments, with occupation and adjoining blocks indicating 19 different possible outcomes and you can have the 50 strip mall developments i've done in that time.
and though i'm glad to be gone from the place i came to know as "the death star," i do very much appreciate much of the work that was put in front of me in my time there. i have experience (and a work resume) that would be the envy of a ton of guys. and my kids and grandkids- if they even care one iota- will be able to go down to the GLO in a hundred years and see my stamp in all kinds of places. i don't think i've left behind much work to be ashamed of, to this point.
> Kent- it's block 148. Guess I didn't figure it was pertinent to anyone here but you.
>
> And that was my take- basically, that occupation sort of jenga'd it's way down lavaca and Guadalupe, creating what now looks like a hopscotch board of r.o.w., at least in terms of occupation.
There were two streetcar tracks in Lavaca, the street bounding the West side of Block 148 and as I recall the monument line was offset from the centerline. I do know that one of the City surveyors, William K. Kingsbury, told me that he had made a mistake in lines he'd given along Lavaca, apparently using an incorrect offset. You'd have to examine the City field books from the period 1910 to 1920 to find the original offset that was monumented. Later field books will show the later error that Kingsbury made.
Without going through my files to verify this, my recollection is that Lavaca had a regular established centerline with respect to that of Congress, i.e. parallel with the established centerline of Congress and at record distance West of Congress.
> I don't want to work downtown anywhere. The learning curve for downtown areas in towns one typically does not work in require a huge learning curve ...
That ignores the fact that there often are local surveyors who are familiar with the history that anyone locating boundaries in an old city would want to take into account. Many of us are willing to share that knowledge if it is likely to be properly used by a competent surveyor. The trend, however, seems to be toward spending relatively little time on research and an unwillingness to recognize that the pile of history one is trying to excavate can't be done on a schedule or a lowball budget.
