Florida has new "Standards of Practice" that place some serious new requirements on boundary surveys. According to my continuing education teacher Florida requires a search of the record all the back to the creation of a (new) boundary from its parent parcel. And, the requirement is not only as regards to the client's record boundary line, but the requirement extends to all adjoining land owner common boundaries.
For example you are not only required to search the record back to the (original) creation instrument of the clients North boundary, but you are likewise required to trace the record all the way back to the (original) creation instrument of the adjoiner's South boundary. And, if there is a difference you are required to show the same on your map.
This appears to mandate that the Point of Commencement (Florida rules recognize that every metes and bounds parcel of land has both a Point of Commencement and a Point of Beginning, though one point could be shown to be both the POC and the POB) for each and every adjoining deed would need to be located and the adjoiner's POB verified by retracing the calls all the way in to the adjoiner's POB. Then, after verifying the adjoiner's POB, you would need to run the adjoiner's line/calls until you reach the line common with your client.
The above would seem to be a tremendous benefit to title companies, as it would help to foretell hidden boundary problems. Of course, different surveyors could still argue as to the correctness of most any Point of Commencement (the actual origination point for Florida metes and bounds land descriptions). Once Florida surveyors get wind of this requirement you would think boundary survey costs would rise as a result.
The actual rule is as follows:
5J-17.052 Standards of Practice ?? Boundary Survey Requirements.
(1) Boundaries of Real Property:
(a) The surveyor and mapper shall make a determination of the position of the boundary of real property in complete accord with the real property description shown on the survey map or report and map. In order to ensure adequate and defensible real property boundary locations:
1. Every parcel of land whose boundaries are surveyed shall be made to conform with the record boundaries of such land, taking into account relevant requirements of law concerning whether the survey is original or a resurvey.
2. Prior to making the survey, the licensee shall perform research of records with sufficient scope and depth to identify with reasonable certainty:
a. The location of the record boundaries,
b. Conflicting record and ownership boundary locations within, abutting or affecting the property or access to same,
c. None of the above is intended to require the surveyor to perform a title search.
?ÿ
With regard to 5J-17.052(1)(a)1. The teacher writes, "The rule also admonishes the surveyor to take into account relevant requirements of law concerning original surveys and resurveys. Original survey, although not defined within this rule as defined elsewhere, means a survey executed to locate and describe a real property not previously described in documents conveying an interest in the real property. Examples of an original survey would be a survey used to create a new parcel out of a larger parent tract, to convey the new parcel or a survey to subdivide a larger tract into lots for the conveyance of the new lots. A resurvey is a survey executed to remark, reestablish, restore or delineate the boundary line or corners of a parcel previously created by a deed, survey or subdivision. Examples of a resurvey would be a survey having the purpose of delineating an aliquot part of a section of land within the U.S. Public Land Survey System or a survey to field mark a lot located within a recorded subdivision of land. The laws concerning original surveys and resurvey are found within the body of law known as common law. Legal precedent derived from jurisdictional decisions and similar tribunals create the common law. The State of Florida has some statutory law concerning original surveys found primarily within Chapter 177 Florida Statutes, which deals with the subdivision of land and the preparation of a subdivision plat or map made for recording."
?ÿ
With regard to 5J-17.052(1)(a)2.a The teacher writes, "5J-17.052(1)(a)2.a says research should be sufficient to identify the location of the record boundaries. In doing a boundary survey under these rules, the parcel's record boundary should be taken as a collection of boundary lines (or sides) and not a single unit. Each side of a parcel's boundary is formed at a specific moment in time. The different boundary lines of the parcel may have been created at the same time, or they may have been formed at different times. The description of each boundary line should be examined to determine the time of creation; and the intent of the grantor, the one giving up the land, regarding the location of the line at that time. Boundary location law for written conveyances establishes that the intent of the grantor should be used to determine the locations of boundary lines; the grantor's intent as expressed in the written instrument. This rule means research of the records should go back in time to reveal the recorded conveyance instrument that created the boundary line. Following this practice allows for the location of the boundary founded on the legal principles concerning the conveyance of real property by written conveyance."
?ÿ
With regard to 5J-17.052(1)(a)2.b The teacher writes, "5J-17.052(1)(a)2.b says research should be sufficient to identify conflicting record boundary locations within, abutting, or affecting the property or access to the property. To determine these issues, an examination of the record boundaries of adjoining properties must undergo the same scrutiny as that applied to the subject property. The boundary of an adjoining property which lies adjacent to the subject properties boundary must be evaluated based on the written conveyance that created it."
?ÿ
With regard to 5J-17.052(1)(a)2.b The teacher writes, "5J-17.052(1)(a)2.b also says research should be sufficient to identify different conflicting ownership boundary locations within, abutting, or affecting the property. Ownership boundary locations based on the record involves several important issues. One issue is the validity of conveyances within the public records. An invalid deed does not convey title or ownership. It may represent "color of title", a written instrument that appears to carry title but does not. Other issues which affect property ownership are senior rights and constructive notice. A senior right or title in real property ownership law is based on the legal principle that a grantor cannot convey land that has been conveyed previously to someone else. The act of recording a deed is constrictive notice. Constructive notice is needed in establishing the validity of a written conveyance. The point here is the validity of written instruments within the public records is essential and should be addressed in the boundary survey research process. Surveyors doing boundary surveys may encounter difficulties in the validation of written conveyances. The validation of the written record, including problems and limitations, should be explained in the survey's report or notes."
?ÿ
With regard to 5J-17.052(1)(a)2.c The teacher writes, "5J-17.052(1)(a)2.c says the rule does not intend to require the surveyor to perform a title search. Their intent indeed depends on your definition of a title search. I'm sure you will agree the surveyor must scrutinize the public records for information that affects the location of record boundaries. I am also sure you will agree a typical title search is intended to find encumbrances to the property's title these rules do not ask the surveyor to address."
Sorry, I didn't bother to read all of what the teacher writes. I stopped after reading the regulation. The regulation states, "sufficient scope and depth to identify with reasonable certainty:" and does not state that you must run the deeds all the way back to the original instrument. It looks to me as though the continuing education teacher is stretching his interpretation quite a bit here. "Reasonable certainty" is a phrase that gives you a lot of latitude in making the judgement as to how deep you need to run your research.
That teacher needs to try to work in Tennessee for a while.?ÿ In the last 70 years, nearly all deeds have a derivation clause, however, many before that time did not.?ÿ I'd like to see him take a current bounded deed, and run that sucker back prior to a tax sale deed from 1912 that destroyed the metes and bounds description.
Florida requires a search of the record all the back to the creation of a (new) boundary from its parent parcel. And, the requirement is not only as regards to the client's record boundary line, but the requirement extends to all adjoining land owner common boundaries.
What is the problem here? We typically research clients deed and all adjoiners to verify the properties fit. Many Times I will also trace a deed back to the origin and many times in the history of land sales of a particular property the deed has been reformed/rewritten in a way that eliminates a prior controlling call, easement, or lot line configuration.
For example you are not only required to search the record back to the (original) creation instrument of the clients North boundary, but you are likewise required to trace the record all the way back to the (original) creation instrument of the adjoiner's South boundary. And, if there is a difference you are required to show the same on your map.
Well I would hope your survey accurately depicts the common boundaries of you clients land and leaves no issues or future questions as to differences in the record.
?ÿ
As for your final thoughts below, This all seems like the definition of our job as surveyors if you ask me. Protect the public in the retracement of boundaries created, established and perpetuated by those that came before us. Boundary jobs around here are typically no less than 4k and up and filed with the county. Best of luck in your continuing education!
This appears to mandate that the Point of Commencement (Florida rules recognize that every metes and bounds parcel of land has both a Point of Commencement and a Point of Beginning, though one point could be shown to be both the POC and the POB) for each and every adjoining deed would need to be located and the adjoiner's POB verified by retracing the calls all the way in to the adjoiner's POB. Then, after verifying the adjoiner's POB, you would need to run the adjoiner's line/calls until you reach the line common with your client.
The above would seem to be a tremendous benefit to title companies,(TO THE PUBLIC) as it would help to foretell hidden boundary problems. Of course, different surveyors could still argue as to the correctness of most any Point of Commencement (the actual origination point for Florida metes and bounds land descriptions). Once Florida surveyors get wind of this requirement you would think boundary survey costs would rise as a result.
It is normal to research to the original description because all too many deeds simply will state "all the same property as described in deed recorded in volume ss, page tt as conveyed to Smith and dated 1912".
What Florida has put in their standards of practice is nothing beyond what you need to to for a boundary survey in other states. Your teacher may be getting a little carried away. Nothing in the Florida requirements would force you to trace back a distant boundary of an adjoiner, except it the cases where the boundary you are working on depends on it, and in that case you better be doing it even if the state doesn't make you.?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
That was one of the advantages from the "Olden Days" when most properties had an Abstract of Title" that reflected all transactions that occured ?ÿfrom day one to the present. I haven't seen an Abstract company for a long time.?ÿ
?ÿThe reg reads as I would expect. I don??t see anything of concern here.?ÿ
Yes, pretty standard.?ÿ My question is why it needs to be in a standards of practice.?ÿ How do people get licensed if they don't know how to perform a boundary survey.?ÿ And maybe more troubling, does this mean surveyors in FL are not allowed to do something less than a boundary survey if the client requests it.?ÿ Because that would mean the online companies recently discussed in a?ÿ lawsuit are the only option for a service that lenders are demanding, and it would mean surveyors can't perform gis level utility mapping, rough marking of large tracts for forestry, etc..?ÿ I see some unintended consequences of these good intentioned MTS and standards.?ÿ Measurements are not protected under the license and in todays world anybody can do it with reasonable precision using modern technology, but why regulate surveyors out of the low precision/low accuracy?ÿmarket? Even if there's little money in it there may be some who want to do some of it. And it will be done by someone?ÿif that's what the market wants, regardless of regulations on surveyors.
The continuing education course teacher emphasizes that Florida's new Standards of Practice "...sounds familiar based on previous versions of S.O.P., right...., but hang on to your hats, we are going to be examining requirements that are quite different than earlier versions of S.O.P.! "Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore""
?ÿ
I realize that most all of the posters have a ho hum, same old same old attitude when reviewing the new Florida rules, but if this teacher truly knows what he is saying, then there is some disconnect here.
?ÿ
I will not question this teacher as he is one of the best I have used over the years. I have a lot of respect for him. Also, he makes a point to attend all Board meetings, and asks questions and receives answers from the Board so as to base his teaching both on what the rules say, and on relative thinking of the Board.
?ÿ
Perhaps the elites have always applied the concepts outlined in my initial post to their everyday work products. However, at the risk of being shamed by my superiors, I will confess that since starting in this profession in 1960, I have never felt obligated to obtain deeds of all adjoiners for purposes of study so that I could double run all the common boundaries to find and show all differences. If that has always been your practice, congratulations. Of course there are exceptions with most things, and one exception I have made is when discovering conflicting monumentation, and/or conflicting possession evidence. In those situations I would conduct additional research to find out what was going on.
?ÿ
Also, at risk of additional shaming I will also confess to using the most current deed of record, or the land description provided by the title company, realtor, or other requestor. Seldom have I ever felt the need to trace the entire chain of title back to the parcel's origin. Much less doing the same for each and every adjoiner. Not even in my Florida Supreme Court adverse possession case where I was the prevailing surveyor of record did I do that.
?ÿ
Yes, pretty standard.?ÿ My question is why it needs to be in a standards of practice.?ÿ How do people get licensed if they don't know how to perform a boundary survey.?ÿ?ÿ
Yeah, its kind of insulting that the state has to explain the basics of doing a boundary survey, but after seeing some of the useless crap that some surveyors produce I have to admit, it might be necessary.?ÿ
Using only the description on the current deed or the description supplied by the title company is surveying blind. How can you locate a boundary if you don't know what the boundary is??ÿ In order to place a boundary on the ground you need to understand how it was created.?ÿ
If the new regulations encourage you to do more, maybe they are working, but some the things your teacher said are not supported by the regulations. There is usually no reason, for instance, to research the chain of title of an adjoiner if you are inside a platted subdivision, and there is no reason to investigate an adjoiner's distant boundary if the common boundary is a section line.?ÿ
The regulations require?ÿ research of a "sufficient scope". That is where your professional opinion comes in to play. Sufficient scope will rarely be limited to the current deed and will rarely require a full chain of title search on the adjoiners. Its up to you to determine what is sufficient in each case.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
How many days are some of you willing to spend in the courthouse to survey an acre lot?
How many days are some of you willing to spend in the courthouse to survey an acre lot?
As many as it takes to get it right!
?
How many days are some of you willing to spend in the courthouse to survey an acre lot?
Like Loyal said, "as many as it takes to get it right", with the caveat that sometimes the time or availble money allotted to the project won't allow it. In that case the project won't get done until until the value of the survey to the client and the cost to get it done come into alignment.
The idea that the cost and value of a survey is dependent on the size of the parcel has got to go.
How many days are some of you willing to spend in the courthouse to survey an acre lot?
As many as it takes to get it right!
?
Your definition of right and my definition are completely different.?ÿ If I've got a lot that butts up to a senior line, and both deeds call for the line to be in the same location, the possession matches the deeds, and the descriptions go back several decades, I'm done.?ÿ I'm not in the business of?ÿconducting endless research to create a problem where none exists.
We don't have sections where I work, so?ÿwhen I start having to search the indexes, I have to?ÿsearch the entire fricking county.?ÿ God help me if I'm searching?ÿthe?ÿname Smith or Jones.?ÿ?ÿ The problem only gets worse when the deeds don't give a derivation of title.
?ÿ
How many days are some of you willing to spend in the courthouse to survey an acre lot?
As many as it takes to get it right!
?
Your definition of right and my definition are completely different.?ÿ If I've got a lot that butts up to a senior line, and both deeds call for the line to be in the same location, the possession matches the deeds, and the descriptions go back several decades, I'm done.?ÿ I'm not in the business of?ÿconducting endless research to create a problem where none exists.
We don't have sections where I work, so?ÿwhen I start having to search the indexes, I have to?ÿsearch the entire fricking county.?ÿ God help me if I'm searching?ÿthe?ÿname Smith or Jones.?ÿ?ÿ The problem only gets worse when the deeds don't give a derivation of title.
?ÿ
Based on your hypothetical above, I don't see ANY difference in our definitions. Some surveys are "easy" (especially the research side), and some are real stinkers that might require DAYS of research (maybe even waiting for a few weeks for a Land Entry Case File from the National Archives).
One size NEVER fits all!
Loyal
Standard practice here. ?ÿWe have direct access to the deeds and other documents and, most importantly, the index books that make it relatively easy to chase down the chain of title to the subject tract and its adjoiners. ?ÿNo need to pay others to do this for us. ?ÿI could probably dig out a fairly long list of old projects where adjoining descriptions conflicted with the subject tract.
Good points.?ÿ Not all boundaries require the same level of research.?ÿ Unless there is an official cookbook with a recipe that must be followed.?ÿ It's like telling a mechanic they have to change the brakes every time a car comes into the shop, never mind if the mechanic thinks they need changing, can't take any chances.?ÿ The result is you stop going to the mechanic so often.?ÿ Which leads to more problems than it solves.
How many days are some of you willing to spend in the courthouse to survey an acre lot?
As many as it takes to get it right!
?
Your definition of right and my definition are completely different.?ÿ If I've got a lot that butts up to a senior line, and both deeds call for the line to be in the same location, the possession matches the deeds, and the descriptions go back several decades, I'm done.?ÿ I'm not in the business of?ÿconducting endless research to create a problem where none exists.
We don't have sections where I work, so?ÿwhen I start having to search the indexes, I have to?ÿsearch the entire fricking county.?ÿ God help me if I'm searching?ÿthe?ÿname Smith or Jones.?ÿ?ÿ The problem only gets worse when the deeds don't give a derivation of title.
?ÿ
If you know the description goes back several decades you have already done more research than some. As loyal said, some are easier then others.?ÿ
You might not have sections, which often can make research easier, but you also dont have extensive state and federal land. If there is state or federal land involved you can't rely on the current occupation no matter how far back it goes.?ÿ
