Would you complete this survey ?

It looks like no one has relied on the yellow plat lines except for whoever set one iron of unknown origin that would seem to do injustice to the lot owners. I think of words like harmony, reliance, and your name linebender, and I'd look for all possible reasons to ignore the offending iron.

Bill93 (not an LS)

Of course an opinion can't be rendered on the lines without performing the survey. If I were retained to give an opinion I certainly would. The situation you have is pretty common.

Things to consider:

First, it would be astounding if those blocks were laid out at the same time by the same surveyor and the 1923 plan lines actually remained contiguous or on the same bearing across the planned streets. I don't think I've ever seen it happen, but it is possible like all things. And even if they were there is going to be measurement error usually quantified in feet rather than tenths or hundredths due to equipment and procedures of the time.

Second, the structures built at or near the time of the actual setting of original survey stakes in a block like this are usually fairly parrallel with the lot lines. These structures in your picture seem to confirm number one consideration above.

Third, the preponderance of monument evidence in the block is, per your statements, indicating number one and two considerations above are true in this case.

Fourth, an interpretation that most closely matches the deed intentions will be preferred. If your solution requires shorting one lot 4 feet when there is plenty of room in the block for all lots to receive the required deed frontage (in 1923 rough measurement) then you probably should look for another solution.

Fifth, it is not unusual to see iron pipes in these situations that are not called for. They may have been placed during a survey or by a landowner to memorialize the rotting wooden stake. But there are usually a few that landowners have set by their own rough measuring from some other pipe or stake and these will stick out as being more in error than the majority of the others. This is probably what you have discovered in this case and it probably needs to be rejected.

So, I would provide the map and explain that both lots have substantiall what the deeds call for. Set a pin and show them the line. Explain to the one that any claim they have to the other pipe is in my opinion outside the deeds but they are free to retain another surveyor for a second opinion. Explain the court process and costs and that an agreement can be used to avoid that process. Tell them to contact me if I can be of further assistance.

But yes, I think it wrong and unprofessional to tell them an agreement "must" be entered into that would deprive them of due process at the worst but certainly deprive them of the professional opinion they retained me for.

Lines On A 1923 Map ?

Probably don't even have bearings.

I see houses, driveways and walkways square to the easterly road. Those are all evidence of what was created. That errant iron may represent what was intended, but you are required to consider the "prepondance of evidence.

Paul in PA

A note re the offending iron. This iron was fd and accepted by the only recorded survey in the block 40 years ago and is shown on the extension of the lot line across the street. It appears that 1977 was about the date of discovery by the owner of lot 2 that the marked line clips the corner of the house. The owner of lot 2 acquired the south 4 ft of lot one to the north in 1977. Right or wrong, that situation was resolved to the owners satisfaction in 1977. It seems that resolving that conflict on the north line 40 years ago has left an conflict on the south line for today.

Would I complete this survey? Absolutely. It looks like it could be a fun challenge. Sounds like your well on your way but have only defined the problem so far. You've gathered some of the evidence, determined what "should have been done," and found a few potential survey monuments that are in conflict with one another, most in harmony. If you feel you have enough information to reach a conclusion, then do it. That's what you're being paid for. If not, then don't do it. Instead, gather the evidence necessary to make the determination.

You've said a couple of things that make me cringe (or at least raise an eyebrow). First, I wouldn't worry too much about the yellow lines. They're an extension of evidence from outside your block. I'd first concern myself with what's inside the block. Second, remember that you're retracing lines that were created in 1923. I presume that the structures, driveways, and fences were established at or near that time? That would be an extremely important part of the equation, but you haven't mentioned it. Are the improvements the best available evidence to corroborate the survey evidence that you are recovering?

Once you've completed your retracement task, you're ready to begin your analysis of the conflicting improvements. Do you have evidence whether the landowners have relied upon the lines as you've retraced them, or is there evidence that they relied upon something else? Have the actions of the owners established the lines contrary to the surveyed boundaries? If so, it's a good time to stop what you're doing and begin to gather more evidence. You need to reconstruct the evidence once you've gathered it. This is the point where your contract clause will make the difference between making money on a difficult survey or losing money because you've committed yourself under a poorly written contract.

You said one particularly interesting thing.
>There is no other evidence or testimony of the establishment of the line between 2 and 3.
I look at the aerial photo and can immediately see "other evidence." There are improvements throughout the block which should be considered. There are improvements on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 which should be considered. You're talking about evidence that is approaching 88 years old. It's not going to be easy to find. That doesn't mean, however, that it doesn't exist.

You also said one thing that sent a chill down my back.
>Right now the owner of lot 3 likes the iron and the owner of lot 2 likes the called for frontage (no surprise).
I would surmise from that statement that the owners have already been told that there is a conflict and they've already begun to posture themselves. Who let the cat out of the bag? At this point, it's apparent that no determination has been made where the boundary is. That determination can't be made until all the evidence has been gathered and considered. What I see is a most common mistake made by surveyors. Rather than focus on gathering evidence, they go off telling the owners what they've found and what the problem is. In doing that, they are giving information to the owners which will, no doubt, taint their perception and their testimony. You should be asking the landowners, not telling them anything at this stage of the survey. Follow the rules of evidence and the rules of civil procedure. Ask direct questions not leading questions. Gather evidence, don't reveal it. The methods we use to gather evidence can be crucial down the road.

You say that "Neither owner was aware of the iron at the NW of 3." However, "Right now the owner of lot 3 likes the iron." Who's deciding this line, the owner or the surveyor? Sounds like the landowners' perception has already been tainted by the disclosure of evidence that they were never aware of, never relied upon, or never utilized to establish their boundary. Perhaps their predecessor might have, but they didn't. That's what happens when the evidence recovery process goes awry.

The primary questions you asked were:
>What would you do? Set a new mark at the NW of 3 at proportion or honor the uncalled for iron that short lot 2 by 4 ft? Or show the owners your findings and offer to help them document their choice?
Well, I certainly wouldn't set a "new mark" until I know where the boundary is. It doesn't seem that you know yet, or you wouldn't be asking (at least, I know that I don't know). There's lot more investigation that needs to be done to determine where the boundary has been established. Set a "new monument" at this point, and you're wrong no matter where you set it. Either Lot 2 will think it's wrong, or Lot 3 will think it's wrong. There's no winning. Setting a point will merely force the landowners to either sue each other or sue you. Either way, you're left with "defending your survey" which makes you an interested party instead of a disinterested party that the surveyor should remain.

You've defined a problem. That's all. You've recovered some of the conflicting evidence. That's all. So, do you now "show the owners your findings and offer to help them document their choice?" No way! Determining boundaries isn't a coin toss! It's not a matter of letting the landowners "guess" just because you're not comfortable "guessing" for them. Surveyors should not shirk their duty in such a manner. You haven't finished your job. You've been hired to determine the boundary location, do your job. Yes, that will require a lot more investigation than you've presented here. Maybe you've already done that investigation and just haven't posted the full results in the interest of space. I'm just going on what has been posted (yes I've read the 1977 post, too, but I'll respond to that one later).

Surveying land boundaries is serious business. It takes a high degree of skill, knowledge and ability. The tougher the survey, the higher the degree. Surveyors have too long, been coping out on the tough surveys, because they either don't know how, or they're tired of losing money on them. Why should we lose money when a higher degree of our skills are required? There's a better way.

JBS

> A note re the offending iron. This iron was fd and accepted by the only recorded survey in the block 40 years ago and is shown on the extension of the lot line across the street. It appears that 1977 was about the date of discovery by the owner of lot 2 that the marked line clips the corner of the house. The owner of lot 2 acquired the south 4 ft of lot one to the north in 1977. Right or wrong, that situation was resolved to the owners satisfaction in 1977. It seems that resolving that conflict on the north line 40 years ago has left an conflict on the south line for today.

It's hard for me to imagine that the houses would have been so indiscriminately placed as to have their corner clipped by the lot line. I understand that the survey was done, and the property owners were told where the survey had determined the line. But, was that line was being determined 53 years after the fact. The homes were already in place and the survey clearly conflicted with those improvements. What did the landowners who constructed those homes rely upon to determine the placement of their homes? They relied upon something, and it's a guarantee that it wasn't a 1977 survey.

Yes, it's apparent that the landowners' solution to fix the problem disclosed by the 1977 survey was to purchase 4 feet of the north-adjoining lot. Easier solution than moving a 50-year-old house (just guessing). What makes us think that the 1977 survey correctly retraced the boundaries? Just because it fits with an extension from across the street, doesn't mean that it fit with the improvements on the lot or the adjoining lots. In fact, it's pretty obvious that it didn't.

Are we about to make the same mistake as was made in 1977? Harmony isn't "making the same mistake over and over."

JBS

It's not easy to post all your investigation facts and keep people interested. It's also hard not to disclose the unknown iron when the two owners are standing there watching you dig it up. I told the owners I needed to do more investigation before I could complete the survey.

I appreciate the responses because they are some of the same things I wanted to look at. The most compelling being that the structures were built "square" with the sidelines. I wonder why the 1977 survey didn't consider it? The next is that the plat seems to imply that it intended to design as many 50 ft wide lots as possible even though the numbers on the frontage don't work for that. (I found the iron by pulling 50 normal to the south line). The other fact I did not include was that there are 2 plats- one at the city and one at county records. Neither bear the signature of the surveyor. The one at the city shows the lots as the yellow line and the one at the county which should be official has the lots cocked a little. The black line in this image is the marked line that makes a 50 ft lot and the red would be the proportioned location. I thought I would mention BLA as a solution because I have read others say that a BLA is required when the line doesn't agree with the plat. The black line will show 54 ft meas. and 50.3 record fronting lot 3. The question I raised would have probably been better asked is a BLA needed to finish the survey? It is interesting that the markers fronting lot 3 to the east do measure 50.3 ft.

The line on the south of lot 3 is well established.

Looks to me like the black line superimposes a marked visible boundary. If I remember the photo correctly, occupation lines are parallel within reason. Would be careful with showing them being off individually, if you do show them being off, make sure you show them all because they as a whole seem to reflect intent, or you disrupt harmony and cloud the title. The original layout is probably best represented by the occupation and I would be very reluctant in this case to argue with it. One line being off would be something different.

jud

> The black line in this image is the marked line that makes a 50 ft lot and the red would be the proportioned location.
Sure looks from the photo that the recovered monument and the "marked line that makes a 50 ft lot" are clear indications of reliance upon the monument. One thing's usually certain, proportioned distances to non-existent points are rarely relied upon. The rule of apportionment is a rule of last resort. I doubt that's going to be the answer as you seem to be surveying a well-established neighborhood.
>I thought I would mention BLA as a solution because I have read others say that a BLA is required when the line doesn't agree with the plat.
I would not recommend a BLA when the boundary has been established along a line that reasonably fits with monuments on the ground and the plat (at least one of them?). I firmly believe that, if the line is determinable and has been occupied on the ground in accordance with that determination, there is rarely a need for a BLA. What is needed is a survey that shows the location of the boundaries, the record and measured values, the evidence recovered and a narrative explaining the method used to determine the boundaries. You're dealing with a boundary location issue, not a title issue.

BLA's are designed for situations when the boundary is uncertain or ambiguous. Conflicting evidence doesn't equate to uncertainty. The rules of law are given to us to assist in resolving the conflicting evidence and determining, from the evidence and the establishment doctrines, the position of the boundary. If a surveyor can do that, then there is no need for the BLA. If there are alternate boundaries (not alternate misinterpretations) or the boundary is indeterminate, then there is reason for the BLA.

BLA's are also designed to settle disputes over boundaries. A dispute isn't equated with conflicting evidence; it's an actual dispute. The settlement agreement between the disputing neighbors can be reduced to a BLA to which they agree to conform their line. The agreement doesn't create a new line and it doesn't affect their title. The agreed boundary defines the extent of their title.

JBS

Some folks have already mentioned the improvements and that those may be the best evidence of where the lines were in 1923. I would completely agree with this statement.

When faced with a similar situation, I have shot each corner on the front of each house (obviously shooting all other evidence too) on the entire block. I can then use those building corners and get a good alignment for the setback (and subsequently offset it for the R.O.W. line). You will also start to get a picture of what the sideyard distances were intended to be and how they fit the fences and other improvements. Most architects/builders will use a round number (6', 5', 10', etc.) for a sideyard distance, at least on one side. You can then begin to piece the lots back together.

I can't tell you how valuable this technique is. It has worked every time for me. What better evidence do you have from 1923?

This type of forensic surveying is sorely underutilized in my opinion. Most surveyors are caught up in almost guessing at which iron is original, or has been relied on the most, or which fits his/her theory the best. While that type of analysis is needed, it's only a part of the overall analysis, and in my opinion, certainly not the best evidence of the original subdivision, at least in cases such as this.

Good suggestions Glen. I have a question for you or anyone. There are two houses in this block that were constructed before the subdivision. One happens to be in lot 3. Have you found that houses built before the subdivision are more or less apt to indicate subdivision lot shape? Or no difference. The rest of the houses were built between 1932 and 1950.

> Good suggestions Glen. I have a question for you or anyone. There are two houses in this block that were constructed before the subdivision. One happens to be in lot 3. Have you found that houses built before the subdivision are more or less apt to indicate subdivision lot shape? Or no difference. The rest of the houses were built between 1932 and 1950.

I also agree with Glen's point and have found the same to be true. Anything constructed at or near the time of the original division is usually the best indicator of where the original lines were known to exist at the time.

It would seem to depend upon who built it, how long before the subdivision, and whether the plan was in place prior to construction. Bottom line is, which came first; the plan or the house. A house which came first couldn't rely on a non-existent plan; however the plan could have been formed around the house, too.

The physical placement of the house compared with the surrounding subsequent houses may contain a clue. Also, look to the two plans you said exist. Did one precede the other?

One thing is pretty certain. The plan wouldn't be expected to encroach upon or conflict with the existing home.

JBS

The two maps are essentially the same, the difference is the one at the city that shows the lines extending looks like it was drawn by a draftsman with drafting tools and the supposedly official one that shows the lots slighlty askew looks like it was drawn by a third grader with crayons. Another interesting omission is that there is not a straight line anywhere on the exterior of the block and there is no information on either map indicating radius, degree or any elements of curve definition. Also the record dist. on the lot lines that are straight in between the streets are lucky to be within 5 ft. in 100 to 200 ft. This in a city where they have a hissy if you turn in measurements that deviate from the original plat without a boundary line adjustment. But that's another topic.

> The two maps are essentially the same, the difference is the one at the city that shows the lines extending looks like it was drawn by a draftsman with drafting tools and the supposedly official one that shows the lots slighlty askew looks like it was drawn by a third grader with crayons. Another interesting omission is that there is not a straight line anywhere on the exterior of the block and there is no information on either map indicating radius, degree or any elements of curve definition. Also the record dist. on the lot lines that are straight in between the streets are lucky to be within 5 ft. in 100 to 200 ft. This in a city where they have a hissy if you turn in measurements that deviate from the original plat without a boundary line adjustment. But that's another topic.

Mr. Bender,

I would agree with JB's response above yours. It's hard to say whether the pre-subdivision house would agree with the plat or not, and I've found the case to be differing depending upon the circumstances (where've you heard that before?).

However, while I do not know if the street curbs were in before the plat, I would compare your building alignment line with the curb line also, and then compare that to the pre-subdivision house. Again, as JB mentioned, look at this house in light of everything around it and see what sticks out at you. I would say that there's a great possibility that this particular house was also setbck from the R.O.W. line a certain distance, regardless of whether the street was improved at the time.