We are writing a legal description for a small (0.3 acre) tract for ROW acquisition. I am referring to the tract being out of, for instance, the J. Jones Survey, Abstract NO. 263, Hays County, Tx. We have the shape files of all surveys/original land grants and abstracts from TNRIS for the whole state that we drop into our drawing to indicate the approximate location of these original survey lines. We have also been to the Texas GLO website doing our due diligence retrieving old maps and original field notes. These original land grants are sometimes 1,000's of acres. Depending on the area in which you are working, in this case, a well developed area, original monuments and lines of evidence of the original land grants have been obliterated/lost (unless you hire Kent!). Kent, if you are watching this thread, that is a compliment!
We have of course tied to the parent tract of which the 0.3 acre tract is coming out of.
We are getting grief from the "plant manager" at the title company because of the location of the approximate survey lines. They say they are incorrect and holding up the closing. He is basing his info on a GLO image. This particular 0.3 acre tract is falling within 500' of the original Grant line. There does appear to be an ambiguity between the sources we are using.
There are of course disclaimers on the TNRIS site, the Texas GLO site, as well as Earth Point on Google earth as to the accuracy of the Grant lines shown.
So the question Texas people- I usually refer to what Survey/Abstract I am out of on the survey plat and field notes, but is it a Board Rule?
Doesn't seem to be in the Practices Act.
i honestly don't know the answer to the particular question.
i always refer to the original grant, and have had this same issue- but's it's always come exclusively from the GIS people at particular municipalities (2 municipalities, to be exact, neither of which lie in hays co.). makes me curious which title company you're working with- most of the local ones here understand the various traps involved with giving specific calls to original corners and lines, which is why- unless i recover the actual called-for corner from the original patent- i always give a "+/-..." rounded to the nearest foot when citing an original grant corner, if it is done at all.
You have to reference it otherwise you can't chase the chain of title. Drop the "approximate" lines and tell the idiot that you find out where lines are and he issues title.
Ask him to have his surveyor call you to discuss why he thinks your professional opinion is wrong.
The only time I will show a Headright boundary line as approximate is when it lies entirely within a large tract of land and there is absolutely nothing remaining of its location. It is generally scaled from some other location I've done.
When they insist that they must absolutely know where the Headright boundary is for any reason, they are informed that the job description has changed from title survey to Headright reconstruction survey, and like you said, may require surveying thousands of acres.
In 1973 at a cost of $2,800 I surveyed one acre of land in the town of Avinger, Texas and measured about a mile out of town to the north and to the south to be able to locate which Headright it was located in because two silver haired ladies just wanted to know which of them was right.
Like Andy Nold, I don't hear too well in a circumstance like that unless it is another surveyor asking me why.
If they want you to prove that the subject tract is inside the parent survey, how hard would it be to located enough of the junior tracts near the original survey corners to e-establish the correct line? I misunderstood your original post in that both your survey lines and the title company lines are BOTH GIS lines. It seems like some GPS ties to junior tracts near the original corners (or static points as you prefer) would help you re-establish the corners. It's my understanding that the Jones Survey is retraceable.
