I'm doing a survey of lot 1 in a 1980, 3 lot short plat. (In Washington, a short plat is a subdivision with 4 lots or less (9, as of last year).
In 2004, another surveyor, surveyed lots 1 and 2. This short plat was part of a 2 acre lot in a 1923 plat that covered most of a half section with 2 to 10 acre lots. This plat leaves a lot to the imagination when it comes to lines being parallel or not or what bearing they are on. In other words, it only shows a few angles and a lot of dimensions are missing.
The 1980 short plat shows absolutly no ties to any monuments and makes no indication of any monuments being set. The 2004 survey shows 2 monuments in the street and the 6 monuments he set at the corners.
I have done a lot of work in the old plat and when I locate the corners in the 2004 survey, I miss him by over 3 feet. (He also has a 3 foot bust within his survey-the other way).
So what would you do?
TIA
Radar
It depends but I generally favor existing monuments especially in a case with a lot of uncertainty like an old Plat which was basically a diagram.
Just as a plat is its own little universe, a short plat is its own little universe within a plat or other subdivision. Boss says in our area short plats have been traditionally built from two mons. If something inside the short plat or bordering on the exterior of the plat differs from surrounding outside-the-short-plat mons, the inner corners hold the two mons shown on the short plat. The outer ones might yield to senior rights of adjoiners if there is an overlap but unless there is such a conflict, they also hold the two mons shown on the short plat. Which is to say, follow the two mons and check against the nearest local report, never mind what the surrounding old plat says except as a historical note. Judges like the simplicity of two monuments, they don't like math. (How it was explained to me recently, anyhow.)
In other words, leave the errors where you find them.
I re-read and I see the difference is that your original short plat doesn't show any mons, but the 2004 survey shows 2 mons & 6 corners. Are those 2 mons the short plat mons or part of the surrounding subdivision / underlying plat ?
I would get all my thoughts together along with all my field information then call the 2004 surveyor and ask to meet to discuss his survey. First, seek out his information. Perhaps that will tell you what you are missing.....or what it was that he missed. Be questioning, but, not accusatory. Put yourself in his shoes and consider how you would handle this situation if the roles were reversed.
> I re-read and I see the difference is that your original short plat doesn't show any mons, but the 2004 survey shows 2 mons & 6 corners. Are those 2 mons the short plat mons or part of the surrounding subdivision / underlying plat ?
They are part of the underlying plat but then again they aren't. You see, the 1923 plat has no information for the geometry of any of the roads and this lot (The original lot that created the short plat) had a curve in it. There are monuments in the road now, but I don't think there was in 1980, I'm looking into that. I haven't talked to the 2 surveyors; first thing on list, Monday.
I'm OK east/west it's north/south that we differ.
Dugger
> I would get all my thoughts together along with all my field information then call the 2004 surveyor and ask to meet to discuss his survey. First, seek out his information. Perhaps that will tell you what you are missing.....or what it was that he missed.
:good:
That's what I would do.
He may not be aware of an error or something and will what to revise his survey.
I forgot to mention; this is commercial property.
3 feet is a lot of property, when it's commercial property......
> I haven't talked to the 2 surveyors; first thing on list, Monday.
That would be my response. Give em a hollar and see if they can add info to your solution.
> I forgot to mention; this is commercial property.
>
> 3 feet is a lot of property, when it's commercial property......
In Washington, are the laws of property boundary retracement different for each type of property such as agricultural or residential?
> > I forgot to mention; this is commercial property.
> >
> > 3 feet is a lot of property, when it's commercial property......
>
> In Washington, are the laws of property boundary retracement different for each type of property such as agricultural or residential?
My grand pappy used to say: “The law may vary state to state, but self-righteousness transcends all boundaries”
> In Washington, are the laws of property boundary retracement different for each type of property such as agricultural or residential?
Yes,
> WAC 332-130-090:
No agency filings affecting this section since 2003
Field traverse standards for land boundary surveys.
The following standards shall apply to field traverses used in land boundary surveys. Such standards should be considered minimum standards only. Higher levels of precision are expected to be utilized in areas with higher property values or in other situations necessitating higher accuracy.
(1) Linear closures after azimuth adjustment.
(a) City - central and local business and industrial
areas . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:10,000
(b) City - residential and subdivision lots . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:5,000
(c) Section subdivision, new subdivision boundaries for residential lots and interior monument control . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:5,000
(d) Suburban - residential and subdivision lots . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:5,000
(e) Rural - forest land and cultivated areas . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:5,000
(f) Lambert grid traverses . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:10,000
(2) Angular closure.
(a) Where 1:10,000 minimum linear closure is required, the maximum angular error in seconds shall be determined by the formula of 10 ?n, where "n" equals the number of angles in the closed traverse.
(b) Where 1:5,000 minimum linear closure is required, the maximum angular error in seconds shall be determined by the formula of 30 ?n where "n" equals the number of angles in the closed traverse.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 58.24.040(1). 90-06-028 (Order 568), § 332-130-090, filed 3/1/90, effective 4/1/90; 89-11-028 (Order 561), § 332-130-090, filed 5/11/89.]
That wasn't my point, I strive to provide the best possible boundary solution. You can make a very precise measurement to the wrong monument and it is still the wrong monument.
My point was/is; my client owns an expensive piece of property, how is he going to react when I tell him my solution to his boundary is 3' east of the survey his neighbor has?
Or, how do I explain to the board that I accepted monuments that I knew were in the wrong place just because it would have upset my client?
Don't get me wrong, I know the answers to these questions, I'm just making sure that I'm right.
The standards/statutes you quoted have absolutely NOTHING to do with boundary retracement.
> That wasn't my point, I strive to provide the best possible boundary solution. You can make a very precise measurement to the wrong monument and it is still the wrong monument.
>
Absolutely!! That is why the statutes you quoted are completely irrelevent to a boundary retracement solution.
> My point was/is; my client owns an expensive piece of property, how is he going to react when I tell him my solution to his boundary is 3' east of the survey his neighbor has?
>
The "value" of property is relative and has nothing to do with retracement. As to how your client is gonna react, maybe he should have have the survey performed BEFORE buying the expensive property. The landowners do have responsibilities and are presumed to have fulfilled them.
> Or, how do I explain to the board that I accepted monuments that I knew were in the wrong place just because it would have upset my client?
>
What gives your licensing board the authority to adjudicate the boundary between two private landowners? If you are performing surveys, and providing results based on just pleasing your client or anyone else, then I guess any board would and should be conducting an investigation.
Why would you accept monuments that you "know" are in the wrong place? How do you know they are not the true boundary if you do not have all the evidence and properly applied the correct laws? If you are basing your decision solely on measurements based on calculations from a vague plat, I'd guess you are already hanging out there quite a ways.
> Don't get me wrong, I know the answers to these questions, I'm just making sure that I'm right.
Your answer, if you have (or will gather) enough evidence to provide a well reasoned answer should be quite adequate for both the board and the landowners (remember, you are gonna have to explain and support your solution to at least two landowners). From what little I understand about the problem in the original post is that you have a 90 year old plat with little data on it. You then have a 1980 and 2004 retracement of part of the 90 year old plat and some math and measurements and monuments of unknown source and unknown reliance that do not add up mathematically. It sounds like you still have a lot of digging to do if the math and a supposed "bust" is all you have, including getting all the info from the 1980 and 2004 surveyors. But, I could be wrong, I have even less info than you have.
> The standards/statutes you quoted have absolutely NOTHING to do with boundary retracement.
Then why did you ask:
> In Washington, are the laws of property boundary retracement different for each type of property such as agricultural or residential?
I was wondering why you stated the use of the property. Do the laws concerning boundary location vary with the type and value of the property? Of course they don't, therefore whether the value is $1 million per acre or $10 per acre the principles of surveying and the laws remain and are the same.
Call the surveyor and discuss it with him?
Why is this even a question?