I always use "appears to encroach". I like that better than"violates" as a note. And I would tell him to look at the drawing and do his own job.
Tell this to the Lawyer
We have made an agreement with our lawyers. We agreed to quit practicing law if they would agree to give up surveying.
I'm curious ...
I favor the words "intrusion" and "protrusion"
Based upon my experience, which was acquired from a client’s perspective during a 33 year career that recently ended, I venture to say that roughly half of the surveyors that make ALTA surveys generally share your concern regarding use of the word encroachment. And, there is little doubt in my mind that the general aversion of these surveyors to using the term was probably due at least in part to the learned opinions of the authors of “Evidence and Procedures”. While I generally hold these authors in rather high regard, I believe that “potential encroachment” should be an acceptable term to describe/label a “protrusion” beyond a boundary. In my opinion, it is far better to have an indignant client/attorney prove to your satisfaction that something isn’t an encroachment than to bear some responsibility for not having adequately disclosed it.
At the risk of stating the obvious, completion of an ALTA survey is often time consuming, with the delay sometimes being a function of the timely completion of the title work. And, before the transaction that is driving the need for the survey can be closed, sometimes the title work must be updated after the survey is completed, which in turn could result in the need for an updated survey. As a result, all parties concerned with the transaction are potentially subject to grow anxious as the closing deadline draws near. Therefore, anything that you can do to facilitate the project is appreciated more than you might think. Leastwise, that has been my experience.
Speaking from a client’s perspective, a table of encroachments is particularly useful when the plat of the survey is very busy, and it is also helpful when their locations are boldly noted. It is very frustrating for the reviewer, regardless of his expertise, to have to hunt for potential problems when they could have been plainly identified on the survey. If there are no encroachments, then it is helpful to concisely state this fact without words of limitation such as “except as shown hereon”; thereby eliminating the need for hunting for something that does not exist.
"Potential Encroachment" Is That Like "Potential Pregnancy"?
It either is or it isn't.
Whatever it is, it is not my job as a surveyor.
And I am surprised, per all those fenceline surveyors out there, is not a structure more durable than a fence?
Paul in PA
No Encroachments except as shown is way too big a statement for a simple surveyor to make. How about this instead.
" All surface improvements on the subject tract are located within the boundary as surveyed except as follows:
1. The garage structure at the southeast corner of the tract has been constructed 1.5 feet across the south property line.
2. The balcony on the east building overhangs 4.0 feet into the right of way of Main Street.
3. The wooden fence at the west property line meanders plus or minus 0.5 feet either side of the surveyed property line."
> In Florida we use, or some of us at least, the term "apparent physical use". I have created the table you are being asked for using "apparent physical use" instead the "E" word, and don't be hesitant to charge for this effort.
>
> Rule 5J-17.052(2)(c)3. All apparent physical use onto or from adjoining property must be indicated, with the extent of such use shown or noted upon the map.
In WA:
58.09.090
When record of survey not required.
(1) A record of survey is not required of any survey:
(a) When it has been made by a public officer in his or her official capacity and a reproducible copy thereof has been filed with the county engineer of the county in which the land is located. A map so filed shall be indexed and kept available for public inspection. A record of survey shall not be required of a survey made by the United States bureau of land management. A state agency conducting surveys to carry out the program of the agency shall not be required to use a land surveyor as defined by this chapter;
(b) When it is of a preliminary nature;
(c) When a map is in preparation for recording or shall have been recorded in the county under any local subdivision or platting law or ordinance;
(d) When it is a retracement or resurvey of boundaries of platted lots, tracts, or parcels shown on a filed or recorded and surveyed subdivision plat or filed or recorded and surveyed short subdivision plat in which monuments have been set to mark all corners of the block or street centerline intersections, provided that no discrepancy is found as compared to said recorded information or information revealed on other subsequent public survey map records, such as a record of survey or city or county engineer's map. If a discrepancy is found, that discrepancy must be clearly shown on the face of the required new record of survey. For purposes of this exemption, the term discrepancy shall include:
(i) A nonexisting or displaced original or replacement monument from which the parcel is defined and which nonexistence or displacement has not been previously revealed in the public record;
(ii) A departure from proportionate measure solutions which has not been revealed in the public record;
(iii) The presence of any physical evidence of encroachment or overlap by occupation or improvement; or
(iv) Differences in linear and/or angular measurement between all controlling monuments that would indicate differences in spatial relationship between said controlling monuments in excess of 0.50 feet when compared with all locations of public record: That is, if these measurements agree with any previously existing public record plat or map within the stated tolerance, a discrepancy will not be deemed to exist under this subsection.
(2) Surveys exempted by foregoing subsections of this section shall require filing of a record of corner information pursuant to RCW 58.09.040(2).
[2010 c 8 § 18004; 1992 c 106 § 1; 1973 c 50 § 9.]
so, I guess one would have to at least decide if there is evidence, if not decide upon whether something is an actual encroachment.
OK, Ellis, But Whose Wooden Fence Is It?
Not as simple as it sounds.
Paul in PA
OK, Ellis, But Whose Wooden Fence Is It?
Same answer as who owns the property - who cares - not me the surveyor. This is where the property is bounded and that is as far as my expertise will let me go.
Good Answer
Paul in PA
I'm curious ...
Intrusion/protrusion ! I like it.
We also avoid "encroachment". Too much baggage.