Typical city block with four sides and rectangular shape bordered by streets on N-S-E-W.
City acquires south 10 feet of block to widen street right-of-way.
Seller sells a tract beginning 10 feet north of the southwest corner of the block; thence north, east, south, west to p.o.b.
Surveyor comes along ten years later to locate said tract. Obviously does not read adjoiner's deed. Obviously does not study block history. Starts at the north line of the r-o-w, thinking that is south side of block, then lays out a tract ten feet too far north. All hell breaks loose in the neighborhood. Law suits are filed.
*&$@#&%^$## surveyors!
This situation probably happens more than a person realizes. When an inexperienced surveyor or the field crew knows how to measure, but not do research, then all hell does break loose.
Jim Thorpe told a story just about like that one time. However, in his story, the surveyor laid out a line that cut off the corner of a house, THEN the surveyor helped the owner get a chainsaw and cut off the portion of the house over his line.
Was there title insurance involved?
Warning: The block corner did not move _ Tommy
> Jim Thorpe told a story just about like that one time. However, in his story, the surveyor laid out a line that cut off the corner of a house, THEN the surveyor helped the owner get a chainsaw and cut off the portion of the house over his line.
That has to be the dumbest surveyor of all dumb surveyors.
I used to have a client back in the early 80's who had his line surveyed by another competent surveyor prior to the guy becoming a client. The surveyed line showed one of those above ground spas/Jacuzzis over line. The client, who acted alone, cut the spa down the line.
This guy had deep pockets and probably bought the neighbor a new spa but some of the things people do are just amazingly stupid.
Not sure. But, probably. The extra ten feet put about nine inches of the neighbor's house on the corner tract. If carried up the block to the other homes, there would have been as much as five-feet of some houses on the wrong properties.
This happened about 15 years ago. I stumbled onto this while working on a project in the northeast corner of the block.
Cow
I am wrapping up a parcel map that has a title company involved. At the 11th hour they decided to change the insured boundary from whole lots to portions of lots. The portion area that they wanted to omit from the insurance was a twenty foot wide strip of land that was an easement for road purposes. They wanted me to move my 'distinctive border' back to the twenty foot line.
Normally I would have agreed to this but it would have created a problem with the record.
In 2006 the same title company issued insurance to my client for whole lots which the twenty foot strip was within. If the parcel map filed as portions of lots, a remnant piece of land would have been created.
To clear the rats nest up, we are just dedicating the twenty foot strip to the city even though they did not ask for that to be done when the conditions of approval for the parcel map were issued.
I asked the title officer why in 2006 he had insured whole lots and now wants to just insure portions. His answer to me was "Well, in 2006 we did not have your map as reference"
If you knew how LA County works and the way records are kept here you would be ROFL at the title officers answer.
Paul
Interesting. Bizarre approach to a mere easement. In the case I mentioned, the city had actually purchased the south 10 feet of the block, so was not an easement.
I wonder how that title company feels about excluding areas of other easements.
Cow
> I wonder how that title company feels about excluding areas of other easements.
There are three interior easements that are shown on the parcel map and will be covered under either way of insuring the parcel map.
Here is a quickie picture of it all. TBH I agree that the insured line should be at the twenty foot line and thats what should have taken place in 2006. Since it did not and to avoid future refinancing or sales problems, a formal dedication seems to be the best way to go. Another way would be a correction deed for the 2006 insurance but that just wont happen. Title companies do not like admitting to mistakes.
Wouldn't the surveyor stop and say "Hmmmm...somethins' not right?"
Cow
Preserve the lots as platted, except out the easements for title insurance only, but show the whole lot with all easements on all survey drawings and references. Those original platted lots will always remain discrete lots as platted, they may be further subdivided or ownership lines may shift as well as easements granted, but the anchor for it all is the lot as platted and the underlying ownership is usually the whole lot. Kind of like a section line, they never go away, regardless of ownership or granted easement changes.
jud
You would think he would stop and ponder the situation, but I know of a survey in Tucson where the West boundary was the East R/W line of Oracle Road, and the East line was the platted lot line. The surveyor didn't realize that ten feet had been taken off the lot for R/W, so he started off wrong by ten feet. The rear lot monuments were original lead caps, and obvious, but he didn't find them because he was looking in the wrong place by that same ten feet.
Here is the amazing part. Even after the error was explained to him he didn't correct it because he wouldn't (or couldn't) admit to such a glaring error. Off he went to the SBTR for enforcement, and all because he wouldn't go correct his mistake.
