Tom Adams, post: 330392, member: 7285 wrote: It protects the public in my eyes if a seller had to show the boundaries of what s/he is selling. Adding that cost onto the sale of the house, is a drop in the bucket. One would have to come from a protection of the public perspective to get anything going on something like this. (or maybe it's unconstitutional...I don't know, I just think it's a good idea)
It's not really a public protection thing, as these are private parties buying and selling private properties. Buyer beware, etc.
Private plumbing, water and septic, become a matter of public protection because you can affect others with your actions, even on your own property.
Norman Oklahoma, post: 330399, member: 9981 wrote: When the cost of a title insurance premium is greater than the cost of a (proper) survey you will see a lot more surveys being done. For now it is more economic for the public to buy title insurance, and for the insurance company to pay off now and then.
Except that it's SOP for the Title Company in my neck of the woods to include "encroachments, boundary issues, and other matters that an accurate survey would disclose" as a Schedule B item, so they're off the hook if such problems are discovered.
Mike Marks, post: 330415, member: 1108 wrote: Except that it's SOP for the Title Company in my neck of the woods to include "encroachments, boundary issues, and other matters that an accurate survey would disclose" as a Schedule B item, so they're off the hook if such problems are discovered.
Title insurance doesn't pay off for any survey issues here, the only thing title insurance pays off for is when they make a mistake filing a deed, you are basically paying for the title companies liability insurance.
I don't ever see them wanting surveys, only when the buyer forces the issue.
JPH, post: 330401, member: 6636 wrote: It's not really a public protection thing, as these are private parties buying and selling private properties. Buyer beware, etc.
Private plumbing, water and septic, become a matter of public protection because you can affect others with your actions, even on your own property.
Good point. What I think should be done, will never get done. You can have a home inspection prior to buying but around here, those inspectors don't have to be licensed, and they write huge disclaimers so they aren't liable for missing any harmful concerns. And also to your point, I am would be more concerned about things like plumbing and septic than exactly where my property line is.
but to my point, surveying is related to protecting the public and is one big reason we are a licensed profession
In Colorado:
ÛÏIn order to safeguard life, health, and property, and to promote the public welfare, the practice of professional land surveying in Colorado is hereby declared to be subject to regulation.Û
MightyMoe, post: 330421, member: 700 wrote: Title insurance doesn't pay off for any survey issues here, the only thing title insurance pays off for is when they make a mistake filing a deed, you are basically paying for the title companies liability insurance.
I don't ever see them wanting surveys, only when the buyer forces the issue.
Title insurance is not required either BUT almost everybody thinks it is. They pay out about 2% of the premiums they collect in claims. Just about like taking candy from a baby except with this the baby just hands it over! Title insurance is a worst screw job than Obendocare.
'round here it would be required by the lender or title insurer. Sometimes they will accept an old survey and sometimes not. That in and of itself seems to be subjective. I've seen no standard period beyond which they won't accept the old survey.
I'll admit that in certain cases it seems crazy that a lot in a filed map subdivision would have to be resurveyed every time it sells. However, there may be new encroachments, etc that the title insurer will want to be made aware of.
The survey requirements here are to remove the survey exception from the sched b. Banks require it for the lenders policy. Below is an excerpt from a title commitment last week, this is the standard language I see. I do not make the certifications that they want however. My survey exceeded the premium amount by a good bit too.
Prior to Closing a current survey of the property must be obtained. If the survey reveals any encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes or other adverse matters, they may appear as exceptions in the Policy
Item 2 of Schedule B will be amended to read "Any Shortages in Area" in the Loan Policy if the Company is furnished a current survey prepared by an approved licensed surveyor who certifies that there are no discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines or any encroachments or protrusions, or any overlapping improvements. When amending the "area and boundary" exception in the Loan Policy, the Company may rely upon a copy of a prior survey and affidavit by the borrower on residential property if the borrower executes an acceptable affidavit. The Company may except to matters shown on the survey or the affidavit.
Item 2 of Schedule B will be amended to read "Any Shortages in Area" in the Owner's Title Policy if an additional 15% premium is paid and if the Company is furnished a current survey prepared by an approved licensed surveyor who certifies with an adequate certification that there are no discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines or any encroachments or protrusions, or any overlapping of improvements.
Of this total amount 15% will be paid to the policy issuing Title Insurance Company: 85% will be retained by the issuing Title Insurance Agent; and the remainder of the estimated premium will be paid to other parties as follows:
LRDay, post: 330440, member: 571 wrote: Title insurance is not required either BUT almost everybody thinks it is. They pay out about 2% of the premiums they collect in claims. Just about like taking candy from a baby except with this the baby just hands it over! Title insurance is a worst screw job than Obendocare.
2%? wow, I never would have thought it was anywhere near that high, I figured more like .2% or something
MightyMoe, post: 330462, member: 700 wrote: 2%? wow, I never would have thought it was anywhere near that high, I figured more like .2% or something
Yah, I would agree with the 0.2% number. The few times I've seen Title Companies get popped big time is when they miss something clearly of record which wrecks the owner's intended use of the parcel, or totally mess up who owns what and other owners with an interest in the sold property pop up, missing signatories, etc.
Am I wrong here? My understanding of the Title Company business is they have massive "plants" which are an indexed duplicate of what's at the Courthouse and complete records concerning prior policies. When a sale is pending, they assume the last Title Policy they issued for the parcel was perfect, copy its Schedule B items and only search for later documents at the courthouse. Only a few *big* Title Companies maintain plants (costly) for their area, but they rent them out to the little players in the industry for a tidy sidestream profit. I've always been stunned they can make money charging only $900+- to assume such a huge long term risk, but it's a statistical game they play, 1000 uncontested policies (one million dollars worth of fees) pays for the two bad ones they get burnt on.
Nice business to be in, sort of like the health, car, home and life insurance businesses.
I agree.
Title companies would rather have some simple sketch from someone that is willing to take on all the liability if anything happens down the line.
They do not want a real survey that shows all the details of a competent survey that tells no lies and shows everything good and bad that affects the sale and possible no sale of the property.
Most policies are so watered down with exemptions and on their liability to the people insured by their policies no real compensation is being paid out anymore.
The extent of their losses and payouts are far less than those of the policy holders.
The safeguards of the system are weaker than they tell the public and that is who we are supposed to be serving.
Jim in AZ, post: 330379, member: 249 wrote: Isn't that strange? But they don't mind handing over 3.5% to a Realtor? Never understood it...
If it were only 3.5% .... Around here it's 6 or 7 %.
The incredibly stupid part is that the buyer pays for the lender to have a policy and never realize they have no coverage for themselves unless they specifically request it and pay a relatively small added fee.
JPH, post: 330401, member: 6636 wrote: It's not really a public protection thing, as these are private parties buying and selling private properties. Buyer beware, etc.
Private plumbing, water and septic, become a matter of public protection because you can affect others with your actions, even on your own property.
Doing some research on mortgage inspection surveys I came across this thread. Hence the late response about a small part of the topic - public protection.
JPH -
It's not a public protection thing when the property in question is an island. If you are surveying an island it is clearly not a public protection issue. It's simply between the buyer and the seller. If you are making a represention of the boundary/boundaries of a lot in a subdivision, there are probably 4 adjoiners (maybe just 3) that are impacted by the survey - for better or worse they are impacted. The adjoiners are part of the public. Uninvolved members of society minding their own business.
If the survey was performed incompetently and introduces conflict that doesn't actually exist - the adjoiners - the Public - is harmed. The right of adjoiners to peacebly enjoy their property may be impacted. At the very least this will cost them time. It will most likely cost them money. Rarely it leads to physical altercation or murder. The courts may become involved. The police may be involved. All of this impacts the Public.
-
Boundaries are part of a complex web of land ownership - each boundary line impacts multiple parties - it all impacts the public.
Nearly all title policies issued here contain the survey exception, i.e., they are only insuring ÛÏtitleÛ, not location (yes, very few buyers of property understand this fact). Any boundary problems such as encroachments, shortage/overage of area, uncertain boundary locations, etc., are not concerns of the title company as they are not covered under its title policy. Nearly all of the value mortgaged lies in the house, therefore the mortgage companies apparently really arenÛªt concerned with menial details like location, area, or potential boundary disputes. The only time the mortgage companies get worried is when the house isnÛªt on the parcel insured (which has happened a few times), and/or there isnÛªt legal access. These problems may only be discovered after foreclosure, and many times not even then.
Until either the power players (title companies, attorneyÛªs, mortgage providers, realtors, etc.) that can substantially influence public policy are convinced that surveys can not only protect the uniformed buying and selling public, but can help them support their own bottom lines, things just are not going to change.
I am from California. I do not recall a single survey being required for a residential sale.
............ (exception, there was one unusual type of Government Guaranteed loan, I forget the acronym. We did One survey because of that program, rare and very expensive/wasteful for the consumer)
In Oregon we did a bunch of those quickie Mortgage Surveys.
generally I consider them of little value to the consumer... I do recall discovering a construction loan driven one that disclosed a foundation on the wrong lot
We did many ALTA surveys (all commercial). A thorough in depth investigation such as that has value... less is just a burden on the consumer.
Lenders have the right to require anything they want. It is their money that is at risk.
Government intervention requiring a survey would be Wrong.
Those that don't understand the sales documents and risks would not understand the survey either.
Norman Oklahoma, post: 330399, member: 9981 wrote: For now it is more economic for the public to buy title insurance, and for the insurance company to pay off now and then.
"Now and then" being "just about never." Title insurance covers title, not improvement location. Unless you spring for an ALTA policy -- in which case the title company will require an ALTA survey -- title insurance is mostly a scam, at least in California. The title companies churn a lot of paper and collect a lot of fees, but near as I can tell that's about it.
Back on topic: add California to the list of states in which no survey is required for a real estate transaction. And for the overwhelming majority of in-town subdivision lot transactions, a survey doesn't add anywhere near enough value to justify the cost. Surveys are more common here for rural properties, though they only occur in a small percentage of transactions.
It would bring the real estate industry to a complete standstill here
I find the title companies are mostly only good for providing copies of deeds. If you get a good title officer, they can track down a solid chain of title for a property. But a lot of times, I'm explaining to the title companies what they are supposed to do.
I see protection of the public as an ethics thing. They need to be protected from unlicensed surveying, and to be ensured that the surveyor they hire has been tested and meets the minimum standard. And if something happens, they have a board to complain to, some avenue for them to pursue, for some kind of justice, etc.
The protection isn't to make sure that they're actually buying the full acre the deed, seller, and realtor say they are. It isn't to make sure their shed is on their lot.
These are private issues between buyers and sellers, landowners and their direct abutters. It isn't something that governments should be getting involved in when it's a private sale between two private parties.
