I had a request for a cost for an ALTA . I sent the prospective client the 2005 standards and asked her to please tell me what she wanted included in the survey. She wrote back...
>Paul,
>The 2005 ALTA Survey items to cover are 2, 3, 4, 6, 7(b)(1), 7(c), 8, 9, 10, 11(a), 13, 14.
>Thanks,
>Carol
I told her that I would do everything except option 6. She then asked me why option 6 would not be included. Basically I told her that option 6 is beyond the expertise of land surveyors and should never have been a part of the standards.
How do you guys handle option 6 when it is requested? I think that this is the very first time that option was ever requested of me.
6. _____ List setback, height, and floor space area restrictions disclosed by applicable zoning or building codes (beyond those required under paragraph 5d of these standards). If none, so state. The source of such information must be disclosed. See “Note” above;
Call the zoning dept., and make sure to note who you talked to.
:coffee:
> 6. _____ List setback, height, and floor space area restrictions disclosed by applicable zoning or building codes (beyond those required under paragraph 5d of these standards). If none, so state. The source of such information must be disclosed. See “Note” above;
>
>
> Call the zoning dept., and make sure to note who you talked to.
>
> :coffee:
The buildings are dated 1939, 1955-1960. A surveyor cannot make a certification based upon anothers interpetation or opinion regarding restrictions in a zoning code.
I show it, including the required source data (including the name of the person I spoke to, if applicable) and the date/time it was received. Then I add a note stating that the information is based on current planning standards, I am not a planning expert, hence I cannot attest to the accuracy of said information and that it should be verified. I've never had anyone question the note.
Like what we do here? Donate
Need a new or refreshed website? Five Point Web Solutions
Looking for a web host? Website Hosting & Management
List those restrictions that are disclosed.
We don't have to certify to undisclosed restrictions.
:coffee:
> > 6. _____ List setback, height, and floor space area restrictions disclosed by applicable zoning or building codes (beyond those required under paragraph 5d of these standards). If none, so state. The source of such information must be disclosed. See “Note” above;
> >
> >
> > Call the zoning dept., and make sure to note who you talked to.
> >
> > :coffee:
>
> The buildings are dated 1939, 1955-1960. A surveyor cannot make a certification based upon anothers interpetation or opinion regarding restrictions in a zoning code.
There is no opinion being given. You just list what the code says, you don't have to say if the building or property complies. I have copied word for word what the codes say right on the face of the ALTA. Most cities have their code online that you can pull what you need directly from it.
No Item #1 -- No monuments to be set ??
> I had a request for a cost for an ALTA . I sent the prospective client the 2005 standards and asked her to please tell me what she wanted included in the survey. She wrote back...
>
> >Paul,
>
> >The 2005 ALTA Survey items to cover are 2, 3, 4, 6, 7(b)(1), 7(c), 8, 9, 10, 11(a), 13, 14.
>
> I told her that I would do everything except option 6. She then asked me why option 6 would not be included. Basically I told her that option 6 is beyond the expertise of land surveyors and should never have been a part of the standards.
> "beyond the expertise of land surveyors"
But no monuments are being set - that's what a surveyor does
I look in the zoning book, find out what zone they are in, call it out in a note, and cite the requirements for that zone.
"This parcel lies within an area designated an R-7 Zone, which has the following requirements: (list follows...)"
The trick is to be sure you have the latest information.....zoning gets revised and variances are issued frequently. Send a letter to the Zoning Agency to be certain.
> . Then I add a note stating that the information is based on current planning standards...
It seems to me that any restrictions noted would have to be based on the zoning code in force at the time the buildings were premitted. Todays code is meaningless since that would only apply to new 2010 construction.
The buildings may very well be in violation using the 2010 code, but they are grand fathered in and violations do not exist.
I'll not include option 6. It's nothing more than word juggling and is of no use to a client and it just adds more liability to the signing surveyor.
No Item #1 -- No monuments to be set ??
Paul practices in California....I'm sure his state standards will dictate what he needs to do in terms of monumentation.
The ALTA spec does not supersede state specs.
No Item #1 -- No monuments to be set ?? - 6th
Dont be so quick to pull the trigger 6th. Here is a copy of an email I sent Carol a day or so ago...
Carol..
These are deed cut parcels so Item 1 is automatically included and a Record of Survey
will be filed with the county. The county fee for this is $ 170. This amount is paid directly to
them and is not a part of my fee.
I will do all of the other items but number 6.
The cost for the ALTA would be $ xxxx.00 fixed fee. The map would be done in 10 days or
less from your approval providing that I have the documents that are listed in the prelim, easements,
parcel descriptions etc.
6th...the list of options was what Carol wanted included.
Table A - Option Six ALTA Standards _ Ryan
>...disclosed by applicable zoning or building codes
Only the 1939 zoning code and the 1955-1960 zoning code would apply. Using the current code is incorrect.
Table A - Option Six ALTA Standards _ Ryan
> Only the 1939 zoning code and the 1955-1960 zoning code would apply. Using the current code is incorrect.
Good point. I don't think I've ever done an ALTA for property that old with option 6 checked so I hadn't even thought of that. In fact, the only times I can remember using option 6 was for empty parcels, now that I think of it...
Like what we do here? Donate
Need a new or refreshed website? Five Point Web Solutions
Looking for a web host? Website Hosting & Management
> > . Then I add a note stating that the information is based on current planning standards...
Naming the zoning is usually easy enough but the setbacks and other restrictions are often far more complex. Some downtown Portland area zoning ordinances go on for 50 pages or more for a single zone, sometimes without naming a fixed setback or FAR at all. Under such circumstances the best you could do is to refer to the zoning ordinance on the face of your map.
Table A - Option Six ALTA Standards _ Ryan
> >...disclosed by applicable zoning or building codes
>
> Only the 1939 zoning code and the 1955-1960 zoning code would apply. Using the current code is incorrect.
That's not necessarily true. What if they're planning improvements on the site that require them to comply with current codes? Obviously, it's up to you.
Table A - Option Six ALTA Standards _ Ryan
> That's not necessarily true.
It is 100% true.
> What if they're planning improvements on the site that require them to comply with current codes?
Then the surveyor is out of the picture and an architect steps in and designs to current code.
No Item #1 -- No monuments to be set ?? - 6th
Of the table A items 6 is not a big deal, just report, that is all that is required.
Current zoning is important because it will let the owner know if they can build their dream builidng inside the setbacks. As for plotting, if there is confusing and uncertainty caused by conflicting language de to changes of code changes over time, then state that the setbacks are not unplottable for thast reason. I don't see any gottchas in item 6. You are correct that this beyond what surveyors usually do except that in Ca. surveyors, can be planners and this is probably true in other states as well.
Having said that, it is up to you really to exclude that item for any reason you like, liabilty is a good one.
> How do you guys handle option 6 when it is requested? I think that this is the very first time that option was ever requested of me.
Paul, your concerns are well place. I've always had difficulty with Item 6 as well. The zoning requirements are entirely dependent upon what has been done on the parcel, its current conditions, and what is proposed to be done.
Another issue I'd have is just how is the surveyor supposed do depict the zoning information? It's not a simple matter of showing a few setback lines or counting a few parking stalls. Setbacks are entirely dependent upon building type, height, etc. They vary with the conditions.
The easiest answer might be to provide a link to the current zoning ordinances with a note that:
"Zoning matters are variable dependent upon the ordinances in place at the time of construction or improvement, current conditions, and proposed construction improvements. The Zoning Department should be consulted prior to planning any modifications or improvements to the subject property. The current zoning ordinances can be found at http:/getazone."
JBS
Table A - Option Six ALTA Standards _ Ryan
It is true. If they are considering improvements, they will want to know what the current restrictions are. It could be a deal breaker.
Item 6 is not asking for historic zoning data. The buildings are there and have been there. That part is a done deal. What a prospective buyer of a commercial property wants to know is what can be done with it. The intent is to show the information current when you issue the survey plat.
You note the current restrictions, state the source from where the info was obtained and the date it was obtained (current as of that date). If you happen to also find the zoning restrictions for the dates of construction and want to add them as well, great. Note that data separately, plainly labeling it as obsolete data applicable for 1939 or 1955, respectively and not current.
When the buyer begins actually planning improvements, the design professional (architect or engineer) will need to look into zoning regs at that time, and they will go a lot deeper into it than just identifying designation, setback, and height restrictions. Your liability doesn't go so far as to the design of future improvements.
> It seems to me that any restrictions noted would have to be based on the zoning code in force at the time the buildings were premitted. Todays code is meaningless since that would only apply to new 2010 construction.
>
> The buildings may very well be in violation using the 2010 code, but they are grand fathered in and violations do not exist.
>
> I'll not include option 6. It's nothing more than word juggling and is of no use to a client and it just adds more liability to the signing surveyor.
It is the regs pertaining to new construction that are of interest. What's built is built, what's there is there. If those buildings are that old and have been in use, then they got their occupancy permits which either implies compliance with the codes current at the time or approved variance from the code. Either way, they are presumed to be grandfathered in.
The only liability you are assuming is based upon your ability to transcribe publicly available information. On this one, you are simply providing that info, similar to referencing a recorded document number. You are not rendering an opinion on the appropriateness of the info.
You are not being asked to find and verify historic zoning info. That is even beyond the ability of many planning departments.