I'm working on a project that involves a strip of land acquired in 1940 by the State of Texas in fee simple for a state highway. While much of the strip has a uniform 100 ft. width, 50 ft. to both sides of the centerline, at some curves, the limit of the fee parcel acquired runs along the CHORD of the curve from PC to PT, not the arc of the curve. Both the approved strip map and the actual right-of-way deed reflect these deviations from uniform width, where they occur.
Apparently, at some time more than twenty years ago, the surveyors resurveying a strip of land along this state highway quit bothering to examine the strip map and right-of-way deed, preferring to just assume that the highway right-of-way was of a uniform width and to describe the boundary of the tract adjoining the highway accordingly. Whoops.
Morals to this story: (1) ALWAYS examine the official right-of-way map and ALWAYS examine the instrument by which the State acquired the land or easement for the highway. (2) NEVER assume that a prior surveyor did that and simply adopt his or her determination.
> One sage late surveyor who taught many classes in our state for many years cautioned that there is no adverse possession against a public ROW, so the original instruments (including pre-statehood commissioners minutes establishing a county road) are king.
Yes, that's the rub. While many blunders may get blurred and adjusted in decades of reciprocal actions by adjoining landowners, the State's rights to the land purchased remain what they were from the beginning, regardless.
If The Road Was Built On An Arc, Then The ROW Is An Arc
Chords defeat the intent of a road. The description is defective and I agree with the surveyors who recognized the common sense in accepting the use of curves in a road.
Practically every Colonial road was described in straight lines, accepted use of same has proven otherwise.
Paul in PA
If The Road Was Built On An Arc, Then The ROW Is An Arc
> Chords defeat the intent of a road. The description is defective and I agree with the surveyors who recognized the common sense in accepting the use of curves in a road.
Bzzz! I'm so sorry, but that's the wrong answer. The language of the deed, consistent with the depiction on the right-of-way map from which the deed was written means that the deed conveyed the land within the boundaries as described. In this case, there isn't any room whatsoever to argue that the deed didn't really, really mean what it said.
Where the pavement was actually constructed within the land that the State bought has really nothing to do with interpreting the clear language of the conveyance that transferred ownership of a strip of land of considerably more than the uniform width through certain curves.
My guess is that the reason for running the boundary of the fee strip along the chords on the insides of the curves was to try to improve sight distance. At one time, there probably was even a directive from the Chief Engineer on that point since I've seen that practice followed in at least two different districts of the Highway Department.
I've seen surveys that didn't even realize there was a ROW map or ROW markers, much less recorded deeds for ROW. Geeze to get the center line they surveyed the edge of asphalt and made it up from there. I contact UDOT get the plans and ROW maps and find the ROW markers, most sticking out of the ground.
Our county roads are a different thing, as the county has no survey records for the roads (I've looked everywhere they would let me). Next for a winter project I'm going to read the commissioner records for a hundred years or so. I expect to find some interesting stuff.
The curves must be low delta or the outside chord would completely wipe out the road width.
> The curves must be low delta or the outside chord would completely wipe out the road width.
No, the outside curves were described as curves. The boundary follows the chord on the INSIDE of certain centerline curves.
If The Road Was Built On An Arc, Then The ROW Is An Arc
Caltrans is allergic to uniform right-of-way width after 1945 or so. The centerline is not a centerline, it's a layout line.
They are influenced by all sorts of things like slope banks and drainage culverts.
19th century county roads are centerline descriptions with no curves but that is not the same as an explicit right-of-way Deed.
If The Road Was Built On An Arc, Then The ROW Is An Arc
> Caltrans is allergic to uniform right-of-way after width 1945 or so. The centerline is not a centerline, it's a layout line.
>
> They are influenced by all sorts of things like slope banks and drainage culverts.
The substitution of the chord for the arc on the insides of certain curves as the boundary of the fee tract acquired by the State is fortunately somewhat uncommon. I am also aware of some rights-of-way where the map shows a curve, but the deed followed the chord. Either way, the surveyor needs to examine both.
If The Road Was Built On An Arc, Then The ROW Is An Arc
You did not say the chord was only on the inside.
Statutes sometimes override deeds and that area could be reclaimable as an excess taking.
Paul in PA
I've never seen this in a ROW acquisition but to some degree it makes sense to me. It's quite possible they wanted the portion between the centerline and the chord for future widening purposes, improving sight distance, and/or other reasons which escape this vacuum-tube mind for now (still early and more caffeine needed)...
ETA: I agree 1000% that one must NEVER assume the prior surveyor did their "due diligent" research and ALWAYS do your own.
The only superior evidence is that which you haven't yet found.
Section corner reporting is very similar
One of the biggest headaches today comes with the filing of section corner reports with the State. Yes, it is wonderful that they exist and can be accessed. The problem comes with those who obtain copies of said reports, then blindly follow behind the dumba$$ who sent it in. Saying a lion is tame does not make it so.
There may be 20 section corner reports available for the same corner. Do you really suppose the latest surveyor takes all 20 reports with him to the corner for verification. No, they grab which ever one appears to represent the latest "find". They ignore the stack of surveys on file with the county documenting the existence of the corner and its use at that time. There may be five different monuments all purporting to be a single corner. The surveyor needs to form an opinion on ALL prior work tied to the "corner" before grabbing something and running off to quickly finish their low bid job.
The ease with acquiring these reports from the State encourages ignorant surveyors to skip doing any local research, thus perpetuating ignorance.
If The Road Was Built On An Arc, Then The ROW Is An Arc
> You did not say the chord was only on the inside.
I certainly think it's a reasonable inference from what was stated, though, i.e.:
> While much of the strip has a uniform 100 ft. width, 50 ft. to both sides of the centerline, at some curves, the limit of the fee parcel acquired runs along the CHORD of the curve from PC to PT, not the arc of the curve. Both the approved strip map and the actual right-of-way deed reflect these deviations from uniform width, where they occur. -
While researching right of way of a State Route here I came across one where the map said 50 feet from centerline and the right of way monuments were set at 50 feet from centerline BUT the deed said 40 feet from centerline. The County was purchasing additional right of way for widening and I brought it to their attention. They prepared their deeds using the 50 feet from center shown and later had to "re-buy" the additional 10 feet. Some times you just do what you have to do and the client has to do THEIR part.
Andy
It looks like they didn't do what Kent described here:
(look hard.. you might see some Karoly flagging)