The fence is ON the line...

I would consider that a commonly and equally owned fence. There should be a big section in your State Statutes about fence ownership.
jud

> I mapped the fence as being "on the lot line". Should this be noted as a possible encroachment or is the fence "on the line"

If "on the lot line" already left the office I'd says that's fine. If not, I suggest you call it just what it is using precise language by saying "lot line corresponds to centerline of fence posts"

This is some ORS, Look at 96.060 for some fun.

96.010 Sharing expenses of partition fence. Whenever there is a fence that is in all respects such as a good husbandman ought to keep on the line of any land, and the person owning or holding a lease for one or more years of the land adjoining thereto makes or has an enclosure on the opposite side of such fence, so that such fence answers the purpose of enclosing the latter’s field, meadow, lot or other enclosure, the latter shall pay the owner of such fence already erected, one-half of the value of so much thereof as serves as a partition fence, such value to be determined by the parties. If they cannot agree, the party aggrieved and entitled to compensation for constructing or repairing the partition fence shall be entitled to recover from the other in a civil action the value of one-half of such fence or half of the value of repairing it before any court having competent jurisdiction in the name of and for the use of the owner or lessee of such fence, together with disbursements and costs of action. The prevailing party shall also recover attorney fees at trial and on appeal, to be adjudged by the court. [Amended by 1981 c.897 §30]

96.020 Failure to repair partition fence. If any party neglects to repair or rebuild such partition fence as is mentioned in ORS 96.010 or the portion thereof which the party ought to maintain, the aggrieved party may complain to a justice of the peace, who, after due notice to each party, shall examine the fence and if the justice of the peace determines it to be insufficient the justice of the peace shall so signify in writing to the delinquent party and direct the latter to repair or rebuild it within such time as the justice of the peace adjudges to be reasonable.

96.030 Repairs by complainant. If a partition fence is not repaired or rebuilt according to the directive mentioned in ORS 96.020, the complainant may repair or rebuild it and recover the value thereof from the delinquent party before any court of competent jurisdiction. The court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action under this section. [Amended by 1981 c.897 §31; 1995 c.618 §54]

96.040 Removal of partition fence. (1) In all cases where the enclosures of two or more persons are divided by a partition fence of any kind and either of the parties thinks it proper to vacate the part of the enclosure of that party or to make a lane or passage between the adjoining enclosures, that party is at liberty to remove the share of that party or part of the partition fence on giving six months’ notice in writing of such intention to the party owning or occupying the adjoining enclosure, or to the agent of the party, if such party is not a resident of the county.

(2) When one party ceases to improve the land of the party or opens the enclosure, the party shall not take away any part of the partition fence belonging to the party and adjoining the next enclosure if the owner or occupant of the adjoining enclosure, within two months after it is ascertained, pays therefor such sum as is agreed upon by the parties or, if they fail to agree, such sum as is adjudged by two disinterested persons, selected by the parties, which two persons, if they fail to agree, may select a third person, and the three persons shall determine such sum. Such partition fence shall not be removed when by so doing it will expose to destruction any crops in such enclosures.

96.050 Gate in partition fence. In all cases where a partition fence exists between the land of two or more persons and a gate is established for passage through their lands, any other person may pass through the gate free, doing no unnecessary damage, and if any such person leaves any such gate open or does other damage to the premises, the person is liable to the aggrieved party in double damages.

96.060 Removal of fence built on another’s land. (1) When any person has built or builds, by mistake and in good faith, a fence on the land of another, such person or the successor in interest of the person may, within one year from the time of discovering the mistake, go upon the land of the other person and remove the fence, doing no unnecessary damage thereby.

(2) The occupant or owner of land whereon a fence has been built by mistake shall not throw down or in any manner disturb such fence during the period which the person who built it is authorized by subsection (1) of this section to remove it.

ENCROACHMENT???

You do not have an encroachment..You have evidence that you retraced correctly.

I just did a survey where three building lines are the lot lines. Two corners are the lot corners.One concrete block wall corner of the abutter is the lot corner of one lot and on a point on the lot line for its westerly extenson.

None of these are encroachers, all of them are evidence. Learn to know what evidence is and call it that.

ENCROACHMENT???

Paul:

I'm with you on this. There is no encroachment.

ENCROACHMENT???

"Learn to know what evidence is and call it that."
EASY bro. I didn't call it an encroachment. No reason to assume I ain't learnt in the art of surveyin'.
I'm actually looking for some way to have this make sense to a layman who says if it's over the line, it's over the line, period.
I think I've settled on something to the effect of: "It is generally accepted that a fence]which occupies a lot line is not considered an encroachment". Simple enough.
No NC statute addresses this matter.
Thanks all!

ENCROACHMENT???I

I am with Mark and Paul. Something to the effect of "fence line is centered on the property line" and let it fly.

Stephen

ENCROACHMENT???I

Technically speaking, there is an encroachment. One that most adjoiners would welcome, but, still an encroachment.

Constructing said fence in downtown Pasadena might cause a problem for an adjoiner planning to construct a multistory brick structure directly along his side of the property line.

In rural America, most adjoiners would be pleased. Unless the posts were painted hot pink and phallic-shaped.

ENCROACHMENT???I

Just whittle down those fence posts until they are as wide as a point and there will be no encroachment.

ENCROACHMENT???

> EASY bro...

Heh Sorry JB. I had just rolled in from Pasadena and was old, hot and tired.. Dang arthritis anyway 🙂

Generally speaking, I would use the phrase that the fence is: on or near the line.

JB, just food for thought...

We are surveyors. We deal in facts.

The facts are: Property line is centered on the posts.

The WIRE is attached to the SIDE of the posts. Thus, the wire is some 3" onto your clients land. The wire is 3" onto your clients land.
This may, and may not constitute an encroachment. However, you should stick to the facts. The fact that the wire is the actual item of retention, ie, it retains/excludes the cows, goats, dogs etc, therefore, it should simply be noted.

Stick to the facts. Calling it an encroachment, calls for a conclusion. The circumstance may, or may not call for that.

So, here is the note, with a leader pointing at the item of intrest:

"Property line is typicly centered on the fence posts, which are typicly 5-1/2" square, (or whatever), and the wire is attached to the East/West side of these posts. Some of the posts, meander a few inches, and or lean, from a perfect straight line."

What if the posts were 36" square, and the wire was attached to the sides?

Remember, the wire is the item of retention/exclusion, and that the post is an accessory, to support the wire.

Nate

If the adjoiner did not want the fence at all on his property, then does it not encroach into his parcel? (3" or 3' doesn't matter)

Depending on which party put up the fence then the fence should be shown over the line by 0.25'.

Surveyors show the facts.

How accurate is your survey? I'm sure your tight enough to show this property line offset to the fence (either 0.2' or 0.3', you pick).

To me the statement "fence on line" means it terminates at the line(0.0' setback), not over.

Great thoughts.
Just wanted to add that I have not used the word "encroachment" on a plat in many years. In my mind, as Nate noted, calling an item an encroachment is stating a conclusion. However, you may be hard-pressed to defend said conclusion.
I simply show items clear of the line or over the line or on the line, and then show dimensions from same to the lot line.
Someone else can go back in time and figure out if two parties agreed to locate a fence in a particular spot to avoid a chestnut tree that died a hundred years ago!
Fence over line by agreement, seen it.
Fence over line by acquiescence, seen it.
Fence over line by function of estopple, seen it.
Fence over line by ruling of a court, seen it.
None would appear to be encroachments.

I have previously added a note stating "the south face of the fence lies 0.3' south of the property line." This is a factual statement that seems pretty clear.

Focusing on minutiae will only draw attention to it and create a problem where none exists. There is no problem having a fence "on" a property line. In fact, that's the best place for one.

There is no physical way to place a fence "on" a property line without some portion of the fence being borne by the adjoining property. Technically, the fabric of the fence should go on the line, but simply digging the post holes would constitute a trespass (if you take the position of a number of the above comments).

If the neighbor wants to construct a brick building on the line, then there's not much reason for maintaining the fence, right?

No one expects the posts to be in perfect "instrument" alignment, nor do they expect them to be perfectly plumb. If you plan on labeling the amount each post is "over" the line, then you'd better get out your plumb-bob and calipers, because each post will vary.

The note on my survey would simply state: "Fence on line."

JBS

I agree. (Seems again to go back to measurement snobbery.....)

> Focusing on minutiae will only draw attention to it and create a problem where none exists. There is no problem having a fence "on" a property line. In fact, that's the best place for one.
>
> There is no physical way to place a fence "on" a property line without some portion of the fence being borne by the adjoining property. Technically, the fabric of the fence should go on the line, but simply digging the post holes would constitute a trespass (if you take the position of a number of the above comments).

While I agree for the most part, I also agree with the question. It should be properly annotated. At a minimum, you should note which side of the fence the fabric is on.

The builder of the fence has absolutely no right to go to the adjoiner's side of the fence and install the fabric on the neighbor's lot (not to mention digging the holes and pouring the concrete). He could have also put the decorative parts on his side and left a more ugly part for the neighbor to look at. The person who didn't build the fence coud disagree with the type of fence going up, he/she could not want the maintenance and upkeep of the unwanted fence (I would think that a fence on the property line would be mutually owned), or the neighbor could decide that he/she doesn't like the fence a month down the road when disputes arise between parties. The solution would have been extremely simple if the neighbor who built the fence had approached his neighbor and got an agreement stating that he would pay for the construction of the fence if the other party agreed, or he could have built the fence on his side of the property line and not had to worry about any approvals at all.

Point being that the surveyor should properly show the fence and which side the fabric is on with the appropriate annotation. I would never use the term "encroachment" in the given scenario, as an encroachment implies more than it crossing the line. (An example is that there may have been permission given at one time, and/or it may be mutually owned, which would not be an encroachment at all)

Wow here a first...

I disagree with JBS. I've always studied your posts JB.

You must state the facts of your survey, the fence is over 0.3'.

If your survey precision is only 0.5'+/-, then maybe you call it on the line. But if its a residential lot and your control is tight show it how you measured it. If it were a 0.1' ehhh, I don't know, but 0.3' why would you not show it.

I would not show an offset to every post, usually just the corners and maybe middle to give a good sence of where the fence is in respect to the property line.

Did H&ll freeze over today???

Forrest