Our office did a property boundary for a ranch 30+ years ago. It was sold with our boundary and developed as a Subdivision, lots, streets, multiple phases. Anyway, we were hired by an adjacent landowner to survey along the east line of the Subdivision and found some of the lots got staked across the common line. Then, while surveying the lots to see if there might be a fix to the issue we found the south line has issues. The odd thing was that the company that did the surveying work for the subdivision along those lines were surveying to their own monuments that we had accepted for the ranch boundary.
Stuff happens!!!!
There was a late 1980's era aluminum cap for the SE corner of the phase on the south side of an old fence corner that we accepted for the ranch boundary, the surveyor for the Subdivision recorded accepting the same monument which makes sense since it was his monument. However, there was a newer cap north of it on the north side of the fence corner with the same LS#. Two caps still in the ground about 2 feet apart, one the old cap, one 10 years newer two feet north; same #.
It appears that lots got rotated somehow which shoved the east line of the subdivision lots across the common line. Of course it couldn't have been the other way leaving a gap. The worst thing about it was that the corners went out into a field across the fence line which runs along the property line. The old fencer got the line straight.?ÿ
The county and the developer are allowing us to file quit claims and the developer only wants one monument out there so we dragged everyone around and showed them. The lots are undeveloped which is a plus but they have been sold, which means there are other owners involved and they are on board.?ÿ
One job leading to another.?ÿ
We see that in New England, with stonewalls and wire fences.?ÿ The old plan shows 1000' of stonewall along the boundary.?ÿ The next survey creates a subdivision that runs lot lines from the street to the stonewall boundary, and depending on the experience of the field crew and/or direction from the LS or office tech, you may get rods/pipes for the rear lot corners short of the stonewall, or past it, where the stonewall meandered or bowed.
The lots are undeveloped
excellent! everyone got lucky this time
@jph?ÿ
When I'd see a subdivision lot corner 5' on the opposite side of the stonewall from the subdivision I always wondered if a little bell went off as they crossed the wall to set the monument.
I worked in NY prior to GPS.?ÿ I doubt crap like that has gotten better.
The final survey resulted in removing 5 monuments. The new monuments for the Subdivision along my client's west boundary fell under the old fence line, for the double monuments the newer one was pulled.
The final survey resulted in removing 5 monuments. The new monuments for the Subdivision along my client's west boundary fell under the old fence line, for the double monuments the newer one was pulled.
that's great.
will some sort of record be filed to tell the tale to future surveyors and future land owners?
in a perfect world those occupation lines ought to be shown on the maps, but in my experience and practice that's very rare.
?ÿ
Yes quit claim deeds to clean up the lots and a ROS for the survey east of the Subdivision which.
Not sure what you mean by occupation, these are unoccupied lots and the three occupation lines follow the Subdivision plat geometry, the caps don't but the occupation does.?ÿ
The west line of my client's land is along a section line. That section line bounded two territorial patents, presumably the fence has existed on the section line since the 1880's. I know it was in place in the 1950's from old photos and it was on line and in place for sure in the 1980s. Having monuments across the section line into a cultivated field wasn't going to fly. It's simply happenstance that the survey was requested now, otherwise when the lots got built out it might have been messy.?ÿ
Yes quit claim deeds to clean up the lots and a ROS for the survey east of the Subdivision which.
Not sure what you mean by occupation, these are unoccupied lots and the three occupation lines follow the Subdivision plat geometry, the caps don't but the occupation does.?ÿ
The west line of my client's land is along a section line. That section line bounded two territorial patents, presumably the fence has existed on the section line since the 1880's. I know it was in place in the 1950's from old photos and it was on line and in place for sure in the 1980s. Having monuments across the section line into a cultivated field wasn't going to fly. It's simply happenstance that the survey was requested now, otherwise when the lots got built out it might have been messy.?ÿ
I was thinking about the old fences and/or other signs of occupation like the cultivation.
it was understood that the new lots were undeveloped.
hopefully future owners that get title to "lot 17, shady acres" will be aware that the platted dimensions are not correct. I have little faith in title companies to alert them, and cash buyers often don't get a tittle policy.
Such as when an estate is probated, the atty. just copies the granting deed.
anyway, Job well done!
?ÿ