The ROW portion of Table A Item 17 is limited to just that, potential changes in ROW. Not every negative or positive thing that may or may not occur associated with the subject property. If the Client wants to pay me to do a little additional investigative work I'll do it and share my results and/or opinions. I don't see anything in Item 17 that says you have to plot such results and/or opinions. If I were awarded the contract for the job I'm using as an example in this discussion and the Client wanted me to include Item 17, my note would read something like "Table A Item 17 - Per Jefferson County Assessor Map 39-142 dated July 2, 2019 there appears to be a proposed change to the street right-of-way along the west side of the subject property." In this particular case a phone call was made to the Client to make them aware of the situation before we even sent our proposal . It's a potential deal killer but that doesn't have any bearing on how I would approach the presentation of the ALTA Survey if they wanted me to include 17.
There is no doubt that Table A Item 17 contemplates us investigating proposed changes. You seem starkly opposed to doing so which is perfectly acceptable to me. How do you convey this stance to Clients when they want to include this item?
In nearly 40 years I do not recall there ever being such a situation arise on this item. It would be more likely to occur in areas of rapid growth, where you may be. Any growth is welcomed here because there is so little of it. Cities will give away their great-grandchildren's inheritances for a shot at getting a snake-oil plant to move in. Roadblocks tend to be eliminated ASAP. But, property rights are extremely important, so keeping the neighbors happy is essential.
IF I were to be in such a situation and IF the client insisted on its inclusion, I would insist on having a letter from the client (reviewed by my attorney) removing any liability for adding "dreams" to what is real. As an example, nearly seven years ago I performed an ALTA on what was intended to be a small hotel/convention center/restaurant site that would be a significant addition to the city that had desperately recruited the developer. The city told the developer the current two-lane plus turning lane road would become a divided four-lane road. Everyone involved has been dragging their feet in every conceivable way all hoping someone would find a pot of gold dropping from the sky. The hotel and convention center MAY complete construction in the Spring of 2020. Despite major recruiting efforts there has been no restaurant found to commit to building such an establishment on this site. A couple of weeks ago the newspaper reported the city had once again been turned down for funding to modify the road. Maybe in another year or two this might happen, but I'm not holding my breath.
Once again we find from this site that what is the real world for a contributor here may be the opposite of the real world for other contributors. Remember, our motto is "It depends." That is part of why this site is so fascinating. We all can learn from others.
I have a lot of maps out there with things on them that were real at the time and are now "Blue Sky". Changing setbacks, parcels conveyed out of previous surveys, etc.. I've even put out "proposed subdivision" maps that never happened. Tiniest burgs and largest cities.
The ALTA item is not asking the surveyor to guarantee what will happen in the future, heck we don't even guarantee the boundary (just give a professional opinion). And it's not even asking for a professional opinion, it just asks the surveyor to investigate and share information from a municipality if it's available.
It is up to the client to decide what (if any) affect that has on their plans.
I do understand what you're saying. But I don't see the problem as long as you have the documentation to prove you're not just passing on rumors, or your own gut feelings about what might happen in the future.
Did an EZ stop once where it turned out the design was over the ROW line. Turns out it was an old turnpike toll road which was 6 rods instead of the usual 4 rod state highway. The entire main street of this small burg was built to a 4 rod line (stores, houses, everything in the ROW). I had documentation from DOT that an abandonment was being considered to take care of the problem. I passed it on. I thought they made a wise decision not to rely on that, and redesigned to 6 rod width. But it's their call, not mine.
There is a small town nearby that has a State Highway running through the middle of it with a weird ROW circumstance. In about 1935 the city went through a condemnation action along one side of an existing street to then allow the DOT to convert that city street into a highway. Strips and wedges within lots were condemned for highway purposes. The highway plans show a straight ROW on that side being so many feet from the center line of the project. Their line is from two to 15 feet closer to the center line than the numerous condemnation documents. The DOT does not claim anything beyond their uniform line. The city has ignored the discrepancy SO FAR. No one pays taxes on this remnants.
When a bank decided to build along the highway our drawing showed two ROW lines and had a note explaining both. Fortunately, they kept everything where it should be. The main question was what happens if a big pothole appears in the driveway. Do they tell the city to fix it or the DOT?
This is not about unconstitutional takings.
it is about a commercial entity getting an ALTA on a developable property and they want to know what the required right of way width will be (which may or may not require granting more right of way). Most Cities and Counties have a general plan which indicates the class of each street and what R/W width that requires. If there is a nexus to a development permit they can require the dedication; it's not a taking. They can't make the owner dedicate R/W on its property across town without compensation but they can on property that the developer is developing.
Use any legal term you prefer, but demanding that a portion of a tract be given up in order to use the remainder is a taking without compensation. If the entity (municipality or whatever) needs it to further their general goals which affect more than the one property, then they need to purchase it from the owner. Telling some little old lady she can't replace the lean-to on her 90 year-old garage that blew away in a wind storm unless she signs over a chunk of her property to the entity (Snidely Whiplash in disguise) is a taking without compensation. All property owners should be treated equally whether or not they have the term "developer" assigned to them. It is easy to see the foolishness when it's the little old lady and a simple lean-to worth a few hundred dollars but the heart turns to stone if it's someone who might improve the neighborhood and generate taxable revenues that will benefit the entity.
If there is a nexus to a development the agency can require certain things.
if that hurts your feelings, I can't help that.
See the Nolan/Dolan US Supreme Court cases. There has to be a sufficient nexus between the project and the condition of approval (for example, requiring additional r/w) and the condition has to be roughly proportional (a few feet of r/w vs. half the property, for example). Requiring more r/w in the case of repairing a shed would probably not meet the test but a major shopping center which requires extensive street improvements including more r/w to handle the additional traffic probably would meet the legal requirement.