What controls?

If you were in WA, I would reference this paper:

?ÿ

https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1172&context=sulr

?ÿ

and from that paper is an older reference:

Limitations.-The only purpose of the foregoing rules of construction is to enable us to reach the probable intent of the parties in order that we may give it effect; and if these rules were not somewhat flexible and capable of modification by the circumstances of any particular case, they would in many instances defeat the actual intent....
R. SKELTON, THE LEGAL ELEMENTS OF BOUNDARIES AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES ?? 73 (3)
(1930).

?ÿ

Is there acreage listed on the plat? If so is it consistent with a 50' or 33' ROW? I would guess the matching acreage would show the true intent and it could be argued the other (50' label or 33' pins) was in error. If those pins have not yet been relied upon, I'm guessing a court would side with the matching acreage.

@lurker Areas agree with the 50ƒ?? on the plat, on paper any way.

Even though we refer to monuments controlling, there are exceptions and I believe a court would find?ÿ the 50' ROW to be the intent. As long as no one has relied on the 33' monuments, the 50' ROW would be the equitable resolution in my opinion and I think in the court's opinion also. Now if there has been reliance on the monuments for any reason whatsoever, I have no guess what a court might rule. If utilities have been installed behind the 33' monuments, there would have been reliance on the pins and maybe they would hold. If utilities are installed consistent with a 50' ROW and acreage is 50' and the plat says 50', then I think the pins are meaningless.

Several years ago we did a widening design for a State Route.?ÿ The plans (both construction and right-of-way) called for 50 feet from centerline.?ÿ Right-of-way monuments were set 50 feet from centerline.?ÿ BUT the right-of-way deeds called for 30 feet from centerline.?ÿ I brought it to the attention of the client's attorney because the original right-of-way had been bought in the 1930s.?ÿ Just to be on the safe side, and to avoid litigation, the State accepted the 60 foot right right-of-way.

Andy

Was thinking maybe a Section line easement, but you're on a 16th, so in the words of Emily Littela, "never mind"

A valid dedication requires an offer to dedicate by the owners of the property being subdivided and an acceptance of the dedication for the public by the governmental agency having platting authority.?ÿ This is usually in the wording of the certificate of ownership and dedication and the certificate accepting the plat and dedications.?ÿ ?ÿIf the only location information for the right away is the dimensioning or label of width of the intended dedication was 50 feet, most certainly IMHO the ADOT&PF will assert the full 50' as the width. I have seen this many times during my tenure at the Central Region of ADOT&PF.?ÿ Does this ROW have ADOT&PF ROW mapping for this road in the area of interest??ÿ The ROW mapping will confirm the State's assertion of the ROW location.?ÿ ?ÿThe land owners only relief IMHO is a quiet title action to assert 33' ROW being the subdivider's intent.?ÿ ?ÿIf there is no ROW mapping by ADOT&PF I would put a inquiry in writing to the Regional ROW Engineering Supervisor requesting what the State asserts for ROW.?ÿ ?ÿThe current holder of that position is a good guy and Land Surveyor, and was one of my employees and mentorees when I was the Regional Locations Chief.?ÿ ?ÿ

?ÿI won't rabbit trail to dedications in the Unorganized Borough prior to the ADNR being the platting authority for the UOB when plats only had the offer to dedicate, and no acceptance of the dedication because there were no approval and acceptance certificates as by your description that does not apply here.?ÿ However there was legislative action to retroactively accept all of those plats dedications to clear adjoiners title and clear the issue of ROW validity.?ÿ?ÿ

@northernsurveyor?ÿ

Posted by: @northernsurveyor

?ÿIf the only location information for the right away is the dimensioning or label of width of the intended dedication was 50 feet, most certainly IMHO the ADOT&PF will assert the full 50' as the width.

And, if that is what is needed for a road, then it would seem to be useful to everyone.

?ÿ

If they haven't been relied on...and the decision is to not hold them as the ROW, do you still honor them as monuments to the sidelines?

?ÿ

And, while you make a determination, you still have to show the found corners. I suppose the ambiguity remains regardless of your decisions.

@northernsurveyor Iƒ??ll get ahold of BK at AKDOT and see what he has to say about it. Trying not to open a can of worms or at least give be my client a heads up of conditions on the ground, which is part of the mission after all. Thanks

@dmyhill Yes, hold them for the sidelines.?ÿ By all means show them as recovered where they where they were set.?ÿ

In Alaska this is not an uncommon situation.?ÿ Prior to Statehood in 1959 the highways and ROW were under the management of the US Bureau of Public Roads (BPR).?ÿ The majority of the roads that got constructed were based on unsurveyed Public Land Orders or Congressional Acts (such as the 47 Act where only a notice of utilization was posted).?ÿ ?ÿVery few were surveyed and?ÿ mapped, like almost none. The pre-statehood land ownership status was like 98% Federal.?ÿ ?ÿThe ROW of these PLOs followed the constructed highways, feeder roads and local roads.?ÿ ?ÿJust after the Statehood finalized bringing Alaska into the Union the BPR issued the State a Quit Claim Deed to all of the Federal ROW, listing only road name category of Primary Highway, Feeder Road or Local Road and a width with a charge to the State to survey and map the ROW.?ÿ ?ÿ1959-2021 and that job is still not done.?ÿ The complexity of applying the PLOs, looking at entry dates into the federal lands and trying to determine where the road centerline was at the date of Statehood was not really understood by many Licensed Surveyors and BLM doing federal surveys.?ÿ ?ÿ The DOT&PF is required by their primary Highway Improvement funding agency FHWA to assert the full and correct existing ROW so that at some future date the ADOT&PF wasn't coming back to FHWA with project funding request to re-acquire what they really owned at one time had the proper research and ROW determination been done correctly.?ÿ ?ÿThe ADOT&PF developed the knowledge and procedures to do this very well over the years.?ÿ ?ÿConsequently there are many surveys that were done by either the PLS surveyors or the BLM that either did not know the complexities?ÿ of what PLO or Congressional Act applied, so the surveys adjoining State highways and road were not correct in either alignment or width.?ÿ ?ÿWith no ROW mapping for most of the early years of Statehood, particularly if the ADOT&PF or the predecessor agency the Division of Highways was not contacted to get a determination of what ROW applied to a particular adjoining property, it was a setup of surveys that were relied on for Federal Patent conveyance or private fee title transfer be found later to not have correctly identified the Sate's ROW interests.?ÿ The Title Companies learned quickly of their liability relying on the federal or private surveys by multiple lawsuits and payouts and started some 50 years ago listing exceptions in title policies and insurance to any federal or state ROW that my exist and not be shown on the latest survey of record.?ÿ?ÿ

When I became BLM Cadastral Chief in 2009 I brought with me the knowledge of 20 years of private licensure with a considerable amount of experience as a DOT&PF contractor, an IRWA?ÿ SR training, and then 4 years as the ADOT&PF Regional Survey (Locations) Chief.?ÿ ?ÿI trained BLM staff and insisted the ROW be fully researched and included in the federal Survey Instructions prior to approving them .?ÿ ?ÿJust think what happened in prior years of Statehood and and Territorial status with the GLO and BLM.?ÿ Trying not to brag, but it is a very specialized and complex process to fully research the ROW as its not all the same even for the same road or highway as ROW is based on different controlling law.?ÿ Can't really belittle the early PLSs as there was no real knowledge of how this whole packet of worms worked other than involve the highway agency and get them to issue opinion if there was no official mapping.?ÿ But your answer may be "its 50' wide except where it is not"?ÿ ?ÿNot really a joke, it might take a huge amount of time and research by DOT to render a specific answer.?ÿ?ÿ

Then comes our OP @williwaw who has an almost insane task of trying to stake an easement that adjoins the State ROW and conflicting old surveys and I'm guessing doesn't have months (or years) of time and money to do the research if there is no ROW mapping?ÿ and not have a utility build infrastructure in either the valid ROW or on private property.?ÿ ?ÿ Title reports useless, can't rely on prior federal or private surveys and no ROW mapping showing the refined ROW location by the State agency asserts based on extensive ROW research and perhaps a contractor mobilizing equipment and cable on the site.?ÿ I enjoy the challenge of complex ROW research and mapping but not under limited time and budget?ÿ and aggressive construction schedule.?ÿ ?ÿClassic case of pay me now or pay me later.?ÿ ?ÿLater is here.

For me, 48 years of surveying in the private, state and federal arena.?ÿ ?ÿGlad I'm retired, but glad I can help those surveyors?ÿ in the trenches trying to get it done and get it right.?ÿ ?ÿThis "novel" of a post is just a snapshot of the Alaska ROW issues, there are now many good papers and presentations available for reference?ÿ but it is a tough job the present day surveyors are faced with.

@williwaw my nickname for him was RTK because of middle initial T.?ÿ ?ÿHe likes it.?ÿ Tell him hello and I chimed in.?ÿ?ÿ

Note on plat:

Legal r/w is 50'. Built r/w is 33'.?ÿ

Probably, it was a design change, near the end of work, to accommodate the brave new world. I believe the change was reflected on paper, but application on the ground was simply being reserved for later. The developer did not wish to expend the resources to make the r/w conform on the ground, to the plat. But, it's 50'.

Yours truly, surveyor, emeritus,

Nate

Out of curiosity, what is going on with the other side of the 16th line??ÿ Is there a subdivision over there too?

Based on the O.P. only, the Plat dedicated 50ƒ?? and monuments were set on a different line (33ƒ??). Normally monuments control but I believe this falls within an exception where the monuments ?ÿ were set to mark a different line.

50', if the plat dedicated 50 feet and you are sure that the 1/16th line is the boundary and you know where the 1/16th line is, then 50 feet off that line. The monuments become reference monuments or WC's. Much like the crosses in some local subdivisions set on the BOC for line.?ÿ

I'm with Nate on this one, there was an attempt possibly to make a 66' wide road and they couldn't come to an agreement with the neighbor and made it 50' off the boundary line at the last minute in the platting process. The monuments weren't moved over. Guessing of course, but I've seen similar FUBARs.

I don't see going over the dedication, I wouldn't go to the DOT or anyone else, my experience with DOT's/county/city is that they will go after the dedicated ROW if they are involved.?ÿ

A couple years back I engaged in a debate, principally with a certain Montana DOT Surveyor (now retired form gov't service), about whether to hold the monuments along a right of way line or the full quoted width of the right of way. In the circumstance then at hand the difference between monuments and quoted width was well under a foot.?ÿ

I argued then that the public gets the full width quoted, that the monuments on both sides of the road should be used to develop a centerline, from which right of way lines are offset. It is a universal principle that the public cannot be adversely possessed against because the public can't be expected to be conscious of the location of individual monuments.?ÿIt is not the placing of monuments by the surveyor that gives them the controlling dignity. It is what the adjoining landowners and other interested parties think about them and do in reliance upon them that make them what they are.?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ

I have more digging to do both figuratively and literally. Need to take a look at the date of entry to see if the original parent parcel was subject to a PLO that would dictate a width for the right of way and search 17' back into the woods behind the corners I tied. One small detail that I initially glossed over was the original surveyor noted on the plat that he set 5/8" rebar for corners. What I located were 1/2", which initially made me confident they were originals since that would be consistent with what was typically set back in the 70's. I best get to it because in another month or two the snow will be 5' deep around there. Clearing the utility easement back in there is going to piss some people off so I'd best not leap to any conclusions without something solid to rest my case on. Thanks everyone for your thoughts on the matter. They don't pay me the big bucks to get things wrong.

Posted by: @norman-oklahoma

A couple years back I engaged in a debate, principally with a certain Montana DOT Surveyor (now retired form gov't service), about whether to hold the monuments along a right of way line or the full quoted width of the right of way. In the circumstance then at hand the difference between monuments and quoted width was well under a foot.?ÿ

I argued then that the public gets the full width quoted, that the monuments on both sides of the road should be used to develop a centerline, from which right of way lines are offset. It is a universal principle that the public cannot be adversely possessed against because the public can't be expected to be conscious of the location of individual monuments.?ÿIt is not the placing of monuments by the surveyor that gives them the controlling dignity. It is what the adjoining landowners and other interested parties think about them and do in reliance upon them that make them what they are.?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ

Every time this subject comes up someone claims that DOT gets the full width rearrdless of monuments, and everytime the proponent of that idea fails to come up with a convincing legal president that would treat a goverment interest in land for ROW purposes any different in than a government interest in land for any other purpose.

The monuments hold just like they do for any other boundary.?ÿ

And just like any other boundary there are exceptions, like gross error (perhaps applicable to the OP).?ÿ

The principle of holding monuntation is not the same as the theory of adverse possession. Monumnets hold either because they are original, or through the idea of bona fide rights , or related theories. If it were based on adverse possesion, monuments on the boundary of any goverment land would be meaningless.?ÿ

Land owners who own land bound by ROWs have just as much right to depend on the mountings they see as those who own land bound by public land.?ÿ

@aliquot And there you have it. The chicken or the egg. Protect the plat or honor the monuments. Intent verses what was actually done. I'm absolutely confident that I've pinpointed the math error in the plat dimension that led to the corners in question. The platted dimensions match the recovered corners within .1', but instead of being 50' off the 1/16 line,?ÿ they were computed to 33' off the 1/16 line, meaning the platted east west lot lines are 17' long. Was this an accident, a math error or actually intentional. Curiously this 17' provided the developer with the exact number to provide the area of each lot to be ... 43,560 sq ft. of usable area. I'm just suggesting that someone might have played a little numbers game to meet the minimum lot size requirement by borrowing 17' of ROW to make that magic number and squeeze out an extra lot. I suspect that this was not an error but rather a deception.?ÿ