Subdivsion Replatting

> Here is the situation:
> Client owns 5 contiguous lots in a platted subdivision.
> He wants to replat the 5 lots into 4 lots of equal size.
> The 5 he owns are lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of block 2 of Sunnyside Subdivision.
> The new property description of each of the replatted lots will be Lot 1x of the replat of Block 2, Sunnyside Subdivision. Lot 2x of the replat of Block 2, Sunnyside Subdivision and so on to the last being Lot 4x of the replat of Block 2, Sunnyside Subdivision. The "x" is customary in the county for relats of platted lots.
> County Land Use official wants a metes and bounds LEGAL description of each replatted lot.
> What is the purpose of having a metes and bounds LEGAL description for each replatted lot?
> The correct PROPERTY description is Lot 1x, of the replat of Block 2, Sunnyside Subdivision.
>
> I just had the conversation with a colleague and I say the correct description is Lot 1x…, not a metes and bounds.
> Whats your take?
>
>
> SD

Why not just write the description as:

All that land, known as Lot # 1x in the Sunnyside Subdivision recorded in XX, more paticularly bounded by the following courses ....

While I agree, the correct legal is the lot (as shown on the subdivision plan, I think they just like to be able to "plot a deed" with their fancy little programs without actually having to read a map.

Suggestion:
Since you told him it only needed to be Lot 1x and Lot 2x, etc.
and he still wants the metes & bounds,
why not let him read a text book on legal descriptions which says that the lot numbers will be enough.
That should let him know you are correct in what you are telling him.
Sometimes they just need to verify what you are saying from a valid source and then they are good with it.

Sure they're not really just asking for a closure report for each lot? That would make more sense. Ask why.

I Would Do It, Even If Not Requested

In all, the legal description should refer to the original subdivision because there are rights, access and otherwise shown on same that most likely are not shown on the replat, plus a proper metes and bounds should also reference parts of the original. You include the metes and bounds to make it clear that it is not an original lot.

Your description should start:

Being Lot 1X of "Replat", (also being Lot 1 and the westerly part of Lot 2 on "Plat"), being more particularly described as;

Beginning at a monument at the SW corner Lot 1X, Replat, also being the SW corner of Lot 1, Plat; thence along _____
1/ North 2° East, 150', thence

n/ ----,---, thence along Street "A"
n+1/ South 88° East, 125', passing a monument at 100', a former corner to former Lots 1 & 2, to a new monument at a common corner to new Lots 1X & 2X; thence leaving Street "A" and along Lot 2X
n+2/ South 2° West,

Lot 1X is all of redevelopers Deed for Lot 1 and the westerly part of developers Deed for Lot 2

Or

Lot 1X is a part of redevelopers Deed for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5

In many juridictions if the redeveloper acquired the 5 lots in various deeds he would be required to merge them prior to submission of a replat.

Besides an unambiguous description the deed should also clarify the chain of title.

The line calls to existing monuments clearly shows they are no longer lot corners.

Paul in PA

I Would Do It, Even If Not Requested

May be state dependent, but in Ohio we would reference the new lot number in the Replat of ... No need for metes-bounds.

Some guys think the term "legal description" is interchangeable with metes-and-bounds description. They don't know the difference and think that the only way to describe property is using bearings and distances.

Perhaps the guy wants some simple kind of bearing-and-distance report for his files. Perhaps if he understands that the recorded plat is the final description of the lot boundaries, and that the legal description on a land transfer should reference that plat, he can have the "metes-and-bounds" report to plug in the locations into his GIS or whatever use he is planning to do with it.

We've been through this before ....

and I still do not understand the reluctance to write a M&B description to go along with the plat. They should not in any way conflict with each other and should contain the same information. One is a picture and the other is a textual description.

How many times have we seen here complaints about a plat not being recorded with a deed. But if a complete M&B description is attached to or contained in the body of a deed then you have the information.

Or I work in some counties where the recorder does a real sloppy job of recording plats and many are not readable, but the M&B is.

I write a M&B for almost every survey plat I complete and am happy to do it. It's not a big deal. And other surveyors do the same.

> I just had the conversation with a colleague and I say the correct description is Lot 1x…, not a metes and bounds.
> Whats your take?

I agree with you. An option we typically use in AZ is to just record the map and the new "property description" would be along the lines of "Lot 1x as depicted on Record of Survey recorded in Book....." etc etc All the pertinent survey and property data would be shown on the map.

Back in MI I would just write the metes & bounds and be done with it. Here they like reference to a map, and it is much smoother IMVHO.

I also agree with above regarding the term "legal description" vs property description. Leave legal to lawyers, leave property to surveyors.

"I just had the conversation with a colleague and I say the correct description is Lot 1x…, not a metes and bounds.

Whats your take?"

You are correct.

“County Land Use official wants a metes and bounds LEGAL description of each replatted lot.”

That’s ridiculous, ask the “official” to contact the County Attorney’s office for clarification of legal description requirements applicable to replats.

Have a great week! B-)

> I just had the conversation with a colleague and I say the correct description is Lot 1x…, not a metes and bounds.
You are correct. As long as the plat map is available to future interested parties.

> County Land Use official wants a metes and bounds LEGAL description of each replatted lot.
In the words of Lili von Shtupp, "Oh, how owdinawy".

Write the legal, calling out the maps you've made and the monuments you've found and set in the manner Paul in PA demonstrated. No sense tilting at windmills.

NEVER!

"County Land Use official wants a metes and bounds LEGAL description of each replatted lot."

NEVER! Just say no... you are the surveyor, not the "County Land Use official"!

County Land Use official

What the heck is that? And why would they have a say in writing a Description?

I'm used to the County Clerk, County Enginerd, County Planner, County Attorney going over my stuff, but Land Use official and a description....makes me think of the meter reader doing a murder investigation.

I'm not sure where you are located but out here in the west, a re-plat is just a subdivision of lots created in another plat and thus filed with the County. The legal description would be 'Lot # of the Plat of XXXX'. Since it is a simultaneous conveyance I would never provide a meets and bounds description unless each line called for the lot line. The boundary is based on the found, undisturbed, original monuments.

John

We've been through this before ....

You write a metes-&-bounds description for each lot in a new subdivision plat?

boundary is based on the found, undisturbed, original mon. ?

Which you will almost never find undisturbed.

Paul in PA

Being all of Lot 1x of the replat of Block 2, Sunnyside Subdivision, recorded in plat book 123, page 456, ______ county registry.

NEVER!

Jim:

This must be Wednesday "Humor" post, don't you think?

We've been through this before ....

You are right, of course. We don't write a M&B for each lot of a 100 lot subdivision - at least initially. But we do write a description any time we do a follow up survey of any individual lot. Nothing changes dimensionally, but we do it anyways.

On the situation that started this thread, I would have done a description of each of the 4 new lots. In my neck of the woods it would be expected.

Good grief.........

Can we assume that your "County Land Use" official would also request a m&b description if an owner of the SE1/4 of Section 23 sold the NW1/4SE1/4 of Section 23???

Isn't the ease of description and identification one of the main purposes of a subdivision?

That is about as stupid as one entity in Idaho trying to require a m&b description of the public roads in a subdivision..........

Maybe they are trying to definitively find out just how many words a picture is worth??:'(