I am doing a 2300 acre boundary survey where I have one course, half mile long line, with a fence that meanders onto the subject property. The meander amounts to about 2.68 acres. I'm not sure how this could have happened because you can clearly see from one point to the other and there is no evidence indicating alternate line interpretations. Both ends of the fenced line end at the monuments but for some reason an angle point 500 feet from the south end is 110 feet or so east.
I have never liked the word encroachment and avoid using it if at all possible.
Somebody have a better way to say it?
Simply state, "Fence _.__' over or East of property line, area in use by others."
The fence may in fact predate creation of the property line. It appears clear that the property line was intended to go from where the fence starts to where it ends. Whether the property line it was intended to follow the fence or the fence was intended to follow the property line is unclear.
Have you determined who built the fence and when?
Paul in PA
The halves of the northeast quarter section date back to original patents, that line has been there since day one.
I like your note Paul.
I have had a situation similar to this where a fence was occupied to. Bigger area, but the fence bowed onto both properties. I seem to recall having a note stating something to the effect of "land in subject parcel's title being occupied by adjoiner" and "land in adjoiner's title being occupied by subject parcel". In that case I was able to find the remains of old stake and stones which had originally (c1790) marked the line.
It seems like there should be a better word, but I haven't been able to come up with it. Encroachment does strongly imply an invasion of someone's rights as opposed of a physical location. It has almost become of 'word of art' to the survey profession. (Kind of like the use of monument as a verb). Just because something has a legal interpretation, doesn't mean that the same word can't mean something else in another profession (or maybe it does).
Having boldly said it is a "word of art", I, too, am wary of using it. We have required language in Colorado for our infamous "ILC"s where the surveyor is supposed to certify that "there are no encroachments except as shown", and that language is dictated by statute. Of course I could show an improvement crossing the boundary line, and not label it as an encroachment; but it would still be "shown" I guess.
I got started calling it a " Fence Intrusion" or "Fence Protrusion" as a result of a seminar I attended many years ago.
Can't remember who taught the seminar.
James
Is there a ridge line in the area of the angle point that prevents line of site between the two corners? I've seen it quite often where the landowners are fully aware of their corner positions and there intent is to construct a fence along the line. They'll stand on the ridge where they can see down to both corners and, thinking they can "wiggle in" on line, will set a flag on the ridge to build the fence to.
I'd sure be looking for the reason "why" the fence is not on the line. When dealing with old fences, the physical characteristics of the land are about all you've got to go by.
Encroachment is a legal determination. A survey is a legal document. We are not empowered to make a legal determination but are empowered to show an exact location. Therefore we show a possible encroachment, but label it in terms we are empowered to use.
Paul in PA
I show the boundary and the fence, with distance ties where appropriate. If the person reading the map doesn't know what that means a note won't help them..
JBStahl, post: 359722, member: 427 wrote: Is there a ridge line in the area of the angle point that prevents line of site between the two corners? I've seen it quite often where the landowners are fully aware of their corner positions and there intent is to construct a fence along the line. They'll stand on the ridge where they can see down to both corners and, thinking they can "wiggle in" on line, will set a flag on the ridge to build the fence to.
I'd sure be looking for the reason "why" the fence is not on the line. When dealing with old fences, the physical characteristics of the land are about all you've got to go by.
No ridges, it is nearly as flat as the paper I am drawing it on.
Is it possible at one time you could not see from one point to another? As in, could there have been a block of large trees not worth taking out to put the fence in and the fence simply meandered around the objects and at some later date in time the objects were removed?
Paul in PA, post: 359697, member: 236 wrote: Simply state, "Fence _.__' over or East of property line, area in use by others."Paul in PA
This is probably best. Another variation would be: "Fence is x.xx' east (or whatever direction) from boundary at this location."
2300 acres!!!
Ha. When someone calls about a parcel greater than 1 acre I feel like referring them elsewhere. When it's bigger than 2 acres I do refer them elsewhere!
"This is a portion of my post about an attorney wanting a change on an ALTA survey:"
I do not ever make a statement that any part of my survey is an encroachment.
My ALTA or Title Survey is to show what and where anything is on the property and not make any statement about my opinion of ownership.
The client's and neighbor's deeds declare what they have title to until one of them makes claim beyond those borders.
When a neighbor builds a fence into my client's property it is a fence intrusion.
When my client has built a fence into the neighbor's property it is a fence protrusion.
When my client builds a fence across his own property it is a cross fence to divide the use of his property.
"Always find out who has built the fence"
An encroachment is something that crosses over the line, such as a building or a wall if it crosses the line then turns and runs along the line. A fence all on one side is not an encroachment. It is either owned by the property it is on or it is a trespass.
Why can't you just call it a fence without making a judgment as to encroachment/extrusion/protrusion and just show it as it meanders? It's just a fence.
I don't offer an opinion of what I think it is....trespass, encroachments, etc......, but I do state the facts of what was found along the boundary lines. So I would ask who built the fence or who owns the fence and then note on the plat per property owner's statement fence show is owned by ??? and note the measurements to where it crosses the boundary or how far off the boundary it is.
vern, post: 359689, member: 3436 wrote: I am doing a 2300 acre boundary survey where I have one course, half mile long line, with a fence that meanders onto the subject property. The meander amounts to about 2.68 acres. I'm not sure how this could have happened because you can clearly see from one point to the other and there is no evidence indicating alternate line interpretations. Both ends of the fenced line end at the monuments but for some reason an angle point 500 feet from the south end is 110 feet or so east.
I have never liked the word encroachment and avoid using it if at all possible.
Somebody have a better way to say it?
Note the fence protrusion/intrusions into/onto the tract. It is unknown how long this fence has been in this area or why it is in this area. There is 2.68 acres between the property line and fence. Suggest legal counsel review these findings before any action is taken.
Is that okay? That's what I type.
JaRo, post: 359721, member: 292 wrote: I got started calling it a " Fence Intrusion" or "Fence Protrusion" as a result of a seminar I attended many years ago.
Can't remember who taught the seminar.James
Probably Ken Gold. He is the one, when I was 20, that clued me into the Black's Law Definition of Encroachment, and as such, I have not used it since save one time in a court case where I had personal knowledge that the person knew he was over the line and didn't care.
foggyidea, post: 359810, member: 155 wrote: Why can't you just call it a fence without making a judgment as to encroachment/extrusion/protrusion and just show it as it meanders? It's just a fence.
Don, I think that noting it as a protrusion or intrusion is proper because of unwritten rights that may/may not have been acquired due to the fence standing for any length of time. It may have been built by virtue of mutual mistake. Showing it is, in my professional opinion, proper. Unless a District Court blesses it though, a fence is just a fence but could have ripened into something much more.