I really get some interesting surveys. It seems, like ones that look like a slam dunk, collect the check and move on, have more hidden surprises than the ones that appear complex on the surface.
The lot I was given the job to do the survey for is a small LA lot. The assessor dimensions are 41' NS x 147' EW. The plan for this lot is to do a "Small Lot Subdivision" where three separate parcels will be created and will be sold, house and land, in fee simple after the map records.
The City passed an ordinance for parcels like these, quite a few exist in Los Angeles and the city is really giving the developer breaks in regards to setbacks. Special subdivisions have special needs.
Anyway...
The lot is a deed cut lot out of a larger lot, so a RS will need to be filed. I make a call to the title company and request all the deeds. Soon after my request, four deeds arrive in my email, the subject lot and the three adjoiners.
As I am going through each deed I notice that the subject deed has an exception on it, which is very strange since the assessor description reads " The SE 41' of the SW 147' of Lot 3...", the deed however reads " The southwesterly 147 feet of lot 3, except the southeasterly 43 feet".
The original Lot 3 had dimensions of 295 feet NW-SE x 123 feet NE-SW.
So, it appears that instead of a 41 foot wide lot, it's now an 80 foot wide lot.
I email the partners of the project asking if escrow had closed. The reply I get back was a happy "YES! Closed yesterday!"
Uhoh!!
I call the Title Officer and ask her if the deed had recorded, again, a bright happy "Why Yes! Recorded yesterday". I dropped the bomb and told her that the legal is wrong. We chat a bit and she agrees..the deed has a busted legal and she has previous deeds with the same description going back into the 90's.
Naturally, no matter how far back one goes with an errant deed, wrong is wrong and it now has to be corrected.
For those wondering, if the 80 foot width was used then the tenant to the hard SE of the parcel would lose his home and be left with a 2' wide x 147' strip of land.
The one bright glimmer in this situation is that the loan docs had yet to be recorded...
The title officer said that in such a situation like this where a scriveners error is involved, the usual course for the title company is to just insure with a correct description.
The next morning I pick the job up again and start reviewing the rest of the four deeds I had received in my email. When I cam across the busted legal I was just focused on that and left the other deeds alone.
I am reviewing the last deed, which is the rear line abutter, and it's reads " The NW half of the NE half of Lot 3...". So, half of 295' is 147.5 feet. The errant deed has a 147 foot depth, a half foot is missing!
Now we have two issues. A busted deed that needs a rewrite and a six inch gap in the rear.
I email the title officer again, and tell her that a 6 inch gap exists. I also let her know that I will be surveying the lot that day and will be locating the rear line improvements.
Here is a picture of what the rear line looks like..
Well..the image looks pretty good..
I made 6 measurements to the NW face of that concrete screen wall on the right side of the image, from two positions. Five of the measurements gave me +/- 0.01', a straight and continuous wall line.
The NW corner of that wall is 0.06' east of the rear line of the guy on Rocky Road, the SW area where the deed line of the subject parcel would hit shows the NW face of the wall 0.02' over...The NW face of that wall is the monument for the adjoiners deed and fits the 295' block split to a T.
So you're the title officer who has to write a new deed description and faced with a gap...What would you do?
Sorry about the boundary mess, but I like the tree block!
Suppose you are the Title Officer.. Jim
I kinda like these types 🙂
I have a few tree types I will email to you Jim. I have been looking for a nice palm type that could scale decently with a trunk size but have yet to find or create one that does that.
So Jim...you're the Title Officer, what would you do ?
Don't tell Woolley, If I was the Title Company I would insure the gap in your client. It's a significant figures problem, 147 vs 147.5. That's what it looks like to me just off of the cuff.
You note says APN 012 is using it but it looks like 013 is using it?
It seems like these things are never simple. We have a Section (with an appellate decision no less) with all 8 original corners in. Simple right? Ha ha, nope.
> You note says APN 012 is using it but it looks like 013 is using it?
GAH! Darn cut/paste stings me again. David, APN 12 is occupying, maintaining etc the strip area.
Suppose you are the Title Officer.. David
BTW I like your approach, though the significant figures part may work up north, but not down south..
Suppose you are the Title Officer.. David
Yes, I realize the atmosphere you work in down there.
Your client does have full measure so it's more of an academic problem. Whoever winds up with the rear lot will probably never know there is a 6" wide gap in their flower bed up against that wall.
Up here a lot of the monuments themselves are 6" wide; we try to find all of the monuments that are supposed to be there then analyze the situation. Half a foot may or may not matter, it depends.
In timberland the functional boundary can be wider just because the main question is whose tree is whose? We blaze trees up to 3' from the boundary facing the boundary and line trees going in and out of the tree. Line trees are jointly owned and trees with blazes facing the line are owned by one or the other property. Sometimes we blaze trees further away than 3' in areas with fewer large trees (sometimes called "saw logs") because the goal is to mark ownership of trees in the vicinity of the line.
Suppose you are the Title Officer.. Jim
> I kinda like these types 🙂
My comment was semi-facetious, as I'm the creator of the one with the bumpy exterior. I released it into the wild years ago; I don't recall if I sent it to you directly, but I might well have. In any event, use it in good health!
Suppose you are the Title Officer.. Jim
When I have a group of trees I usually draw a closed polyline around the outermost driplines then convert to a revision cloud.
Lately I have been delegating topos to my licensed subordinate employee/crew member. He runs the rod and tells me how he wants it coded. Works great!
.. David
> Your client does have full measure so it's more of an academic problem. Whoever winds up with the rear lot will probably never know there is a 6" wide gap in their flower bed up against that wall.
It's more than a class test problem David. The future plan for the parcel is a subdivision and the current legal is completely wrong, everyone involved agrees with that.
This is an LS forum. Here is a real life issue and no one other than you has offered up any hint of a solution.
OK David, how would you write the new legal?
The current one says
"The SW'LY 147 feet of Lot 3, Block 15, Old Toms Subdivision, MB 3 page 88... EXCEPT the SE'ly 43 feet"
Write a new legal that covers the title company, adjoiners and closes the gap. To me, it's a simple solution.
.. David
Paul-
I was a little confused where this parcel is NW-SE in the lot. It looks like it is the NW 41 feet (you said the Assessor calls it the SE 41'). Given that this is a Lot that probably isn't exactly 123'x295' it is important to maintain the SR-JR relationship with its companions to its SE (I assume there are two). It appears there used to be two exceptions to the southeast and one of them got dropped off at some point?
It could be as simple as "The northwest 41' of Lot 3, excepting there from the Northeast half of Lot 3." But it may be something like "Lot 3 excepting therefrom the southeast 82', also excepting the northeast half of Lot 3."
If the title company is willing to insure that then all is covered.
-Dave
.. David
My apologies about the confusion David.
The only area that has an issue now (the title company is issuing a new legal that eliminates the extra 39 feet in width ) is the 6 inch deep gap.
I suggested that the new legal should be written with bounding calls, i.e.
"That portion of Lot 3 described as follows.
Bounded on the Northwest by the Southerly line of lot 2, bounded on the Southeast by the Northwest line of grant deed recorded Aug 20, 19xx as Inst No. xx=8563874, O.R., bounded on the southwest by the northeast line of
grant deed recorded july 6, 1953 as inst no. 5870..."
The important issue is that the harmony of the area remains the same.
Im close to just doing an RS in this manner, but holding the NW line of that screen wall as being the NW line of the rear yard adjoiner and showing rec/meas on the map. Prorating is minimal, and in this situation it will not even be part of the solution.
A JR/SR search may yield other results, but what's important is whats happening now, now what was written maybe 80 or 90 years ago.
.. David
No problem there.
Shouldn't it be bounded on the northeast by the southwest line of...?
That is if you are talking about the block split line.
I wouldn't know the right answer. Just here to :good: your survey posts.
RJ
> I wouldn't know the right answer. Just here to :good: your survey posts.
I was browsing some posts on the CLSA forum yesterday about gaps. One poster in particular, a D Wooley, had a lot to say on it..very wordy guy. Anyway, he made some comments that I was thinking about since I read his opinions.
He was very adamant about pursuing certain channels to close a gap and not to use common sense, at least that's the way I took it.
He said that there are three different ways to get the proper paperwork on record before a surveyor could monument what the surveyor believes to be the correct position of the 'boundary'.
1. Do a lot line adjustment, city involvement.
2. A title company write a new description closing the gap.
3. A quiet title action.
Mr Wooley also believes that a gap that is based on record documents, such as deeds that do not meet, is a strip of land that was never sold by the grantor.
With that thought in mind, lets think about his three ways of obtaining the proper records so the gap no longer exists.
Lot line adjustment
In Los Angeles a LLA is accomplished via the city. Much expense and as long as 4+ years to finalize.
My question on that procedure is this, how can a LLA be performed when the grantor or heirs cannot be located?
You need two parties, at the minimum, to adjust a common lot line but if there is a gap between two properties, how does a LLA adjustment finalize without the original grantor or the heirs being a party to it?
Title Company Re Write
Since Mr Wooleys stance is that the gap portion still remains the unsold possession of the grantor, how would a re write by a title company close a gap? Is there some California law that allows an insurance company to take what is not theirs to take, write a document with that portion of land included, record it and close the gap?
None that I am aware of.
Quiet Title
This seems to be the only viable way to close a gap, expensive and probably time consuming as well. Never being a party to an action like this I can only speculate what is involved.
Also, does the gap really exist is one party is being taxed for the strip? What about the taxation area conflicting with the actual deed boundary, like in the case I am involved with. The tax assessor will not allow nontaxable areas to exist on their maps, so if someone is paying taxes on a portion of land that is not included in their deed limits, is that taxation really valid to obtain that strip by the party that is taxed in error?
Common Sense
I favor this action myself.
.. David
> Shouldn't it be bounded on the northeast by the southwest line of...?
Speedy legal David, but you get the idea.
RJ
The way I look at it is this:
It is a question of fact, how many parcels do you have? In the simplest case, that would be 2 parcels or 3 parcels?
If there are 2 parcels then there is 1 boundary which is what we do.
The law is a human thing invented, owned and operated by humans. How the law is operated obviously varies from place to place even in the same State. Somehow this idea grew up that there are these unintentional strips of ownership out there that Surveyors better not touch (like the third rail of the BART system). I view it as my job to locate boundaries and I don't expect that Deed descriptions will be perfectly accurate or perfectly complete.
If the problem can be explained to the Title Company and they are willing to insure the strip then that should be sufficient.
QT seems like using a 10lb hammer to kill flies. My wife said, "there is a fly in the kitchen." So I got the 10lb hammer out of the truck to deal with it. That cost me a lot of dollars to fix the holes in the wall, broken cabinets and smashed dishes and glasses.
Boundary Line Adjustment isn't really necessary because no boundary is being adjusted; the LS is simply retracing the boundary line that already exists.
Any time there is an ambiguity the potential exists for misbehavior by a third party. If the third party gets a Q/C Deed from the original grantor to the strip then the true owner of the strip does have a remedy known as "slander of title action."
LLA
> Lot line adjustment
>
> In Los Angeles a LLA is accomplished via the city. Much expense and as long as 4+ years to finalize.
>
Wow,4 years. incredible. This should be quick and inexpensive solution for clearing up title issues such as yours and encroachments, etc. The LLA process in CA is way overdue for revision to get it back to what it was intended for.
Sorry for the hijack.
Paul
"Common Sense
I favor this action myself."
I don't think I would write it off as simple common sense. It's a retracement survey, and I would imagine in every sense that would include field and record research to establish whether the error is a simple scriveners error, or possibly in your situation, where ROSs are a required function, there wasn't some established error in an ROS that had been recited in the time line...who knows.
And yes, I don't believe a title policy can legally rectify a gap or overlap any more than MERS is in compliance with legally established recording statutes.
The economic realities of these situations are something they pay you Registereds the big dollars for.:-)
RJ
> "Common Sense
>
> I favor this action myself."
What I meant was that it appears, in this situation, common sense would dictate the line of use and possession would be the nw face of the wall.
I discussed this with one LS who has been around quite a while, he is 87 and still goes to the field, handles city processing for the condos etc he is doing..in other words, he's not standing around drooling on his old KE transit, his opinion was as mine, the wall is the line and the gap simply does not exist.
It's simply logical.
Much as I would like to finish the RS and move on, I cannot at this point. Since were doing a subdivision I have to wait for the title company to make a decision. If the end depth is 147 ' or 147.5' I really don't care, I just want to job to move ahead. As it stands, we cannot do a single thing as far as progressing.