This survey was conducted on the ground on xx/xx/xxxx and that to my knowledge and belief this map is substantially correct as noted hereon and that unless otherwise depicted or noted hereon: A) All buildings have been located; B)Buildings do not violate municipal setback requirements or deed restrictions pertaining to the location of buildings; other than those depicted or noted hereon.
Signed
Joe The Surveyor
(ok...if you're a CT surveyor...no comments please..)
In a word ... NO.
On a few occasions I have had to deal with municipal officials and setback requirements. Those things blow like the wind. Those officials change (sometimes frequently). There is no telling what new day will bring a new someone down at city hall who will proclaim that a certain building violates their setback requirements.
Larry P
True, some setback ordinances and their interpretations are subject to the whims of the highly-trained counter jockeys at the planning departments. But, sometimes it is actually possible to read the ordinance and determine that a building conforms to the requirements no matter what the interpretation is, though, so I wouldn't say I would never sign a statement like that. As far as the deed restrictions, it would be a real good idea to state what deeds were provided, by whom, and that according to those specific documents, the building is in conformance, again, if that determination can be made without ambiguity.
I was involved as a witness in a lawsuit recently where the setback from a property line to one corner of a building was an issue. The interpretation had to be made whether the corner of the concrete foundation or the corner of the stucco was the "building corner". The foundation conformed and the stucco did not. The City ruled that the foundation was what was inspected for conformance, so that was the "corner". In a case like that, no way would I state that the building conforms without a ruling like that from the local agency that I could refer to in the statement on the survey.
Nope.
I can not certify that something meets zoning standards. Only the zoning department can do that. I can certify that it appears to meet the current setbacks as defined in that certain letter of zoning conditions prepared by the city of xxx zoning department dated xxxx.
> This survey was conducted on the ground on xx/xx/xxxx and that to my knowledge and belief this map is substantially correct as noted hereon and that unless otherwise depicted or noted hereon: A) All buildings have been located; B)Buildings do not violate municipal setback requirements or deed restrictions pertaining to the location of buildings; other than those depicted or noted hereon.
Heck, you're only certifying that what you "know and believe" is "substantially" correct. Seems like a loophole you could drive a truck through. 😉
Seriously, around here the zoning, land use, and subdivision regulations are so interrelated that most surveyors who do any land development work consider themselves planning consultants as well; and are just as, if not more, familiar with zoning regulations than any of the other land use professions.
How much money are we talking about?;-)
> B)Buildings do not violate municipal setback requirements or deed restrictions pertaining to the location of buildings; other than those depicted or noted hereon.
>
Maybe if you qualified it. We can't foresee any future changes.
B)Buildings do not violate municipal setback requirements or deed restrictions, as they exist on this date, pertaining to the location of buildings, ; other than those depicted or noted hereon.
No. I stopped using certification language by "others" years ago. The only certification language I use is an ALTA Certification, when performing an ALTA, or regulatory agencies such as HUD. Florida does not require you to have a certification on your survey as your Signature and Seal are your certification.
On our mortgage inspections, we have one of two sentences in the Notes:
"The buildings depicted above did conform with setback requirements of local zoning at time of construction."
"Except as shown, the buildings depicted above did conform with setback requirements of local zoning at time of construction."
But only on the MI's. I've never used this language on a BRS, Site Plan, As-built, etc.
> This survey was conducted on the ground on xx/xx/xxxx and that to my knowledge and belief this map is substantially correct as noted hereon and that unless otherwise depicted or noted hereon: A) All buildings have been located; B)Buildings do not violate municipal setback requirements or deed restrictions pertaining to the location of buildings; other than those depicted or noted hereon.
>
>
> Signed
>
>
> Joe The Surveyor
>
>
> (ok...if you're a CT surveyor...no comments please..)
I wouldn't ever word it that way, but I would sign that with a few additions. First, noting the particular section and date of the UDC (universal development code) for whatever town you're in would do nicely. This the puts everyone on notice what "rules" you were using for that survey. It also, should the rules change, give proof for the landowners to use those lines as a non-conforming use (grandfather clause).
As far as the deed restrictions go, show them and the vol/pg where they're recorded.
This isn't a trick question is it? I have a section on the plat called "NOTES" and that is where I give a short narrative of items like setbacks, deed restrictions, etc. I don't put it in the certification.
FWIW, I would say it this way
I, Kristopher Morgan do hereby state that this plat represents a boundary survey made on the ground for someone, that there are no conflicts, protrusions or intrusions, except as shown hereon, and that in accordance with the information and the instructions furnished me, same correctly represents the facts as found at the time of the survey.
__________________________
Kristopher Morgan
RPLS 5655
Date
It's true, sometimes the setback is just a number.
In some of the commercial zones in Sacramento County the setback varies depending the percentage of landscaping out front or something complex like that.
Also the building may have been built years ago under a previous version of the code so although it doesn't comply with today's zoning code it may be a legal so-called non-conforming use.
This certification is found in our MTS (blue pages)
So, its not a trick question.
I posted it because it had the 'two' evil words...ZONING & ENCROACHMENTS.
I have no problem signing this.
Larry,
Its in our MTS (blue pages).
Joe! Read again....
This survey was conducted on the ground on xx/xx/xxxx and that to my knowledge and belief this map is substantially correct as noted hereon and that unless otherwise depicted or noted hereon: A) All buildings have been located; B)Buildings do not violate municipal setback requirements or deed restrictions pertaining to the location of buildings; other than those depicted or noted hereon.
I am having trouble finding the word encroachment or zoning...
I don't see any problems with the certification, so long as you've verified the conditions..
Joe! Read again....
> This survey was conducted on the ground on xx/xx/xxxx and that to my knowledge and belief this map is substantially correct as noted hereon and that unless otherwise depicted or noted hereon: A) All buildings have been located; B)Buildings do not violate municipal setback requirements or deed restrictions pertaining to the location of buildings; other than those depicted or noted hereon.
>
> I am having trouble finding the word encroachment or zoning...
>
> I don't see any problems with the certification, so long as you've verified the conditions..
B says "municipal setback requirements" which around here anyway is a zoning issue, but I see your point.
I'll post our property survey decription...
I see now that it is in the MTS.
Wow. You are being asked to certify things that are subject to the interpretation of someone else and their interpretation can change for any or no reason whatsoever.
I think I see a job for the CT Professional Society. They need to lobby hard for this to change.
Larry P
I respectfully disagree Larry. I have no problem taking the lead in determining such things.
Heard to convey over a message board...but next time we see each other...we'll chat about it over your favorite beverage...my treat.
A) All buildings have been located; B)Buildings do not violate municipal setback requirements or deed restrictions pertaining to the location of buildings; other than those depicted or noted hereon.
So, in order to sign these types of certs, you'd have to know the date of original construction and the date any additions were added, right? Then you'd have to know the zoning setback requirements for each county/city/town you work in, and how they may have changed over the course of history, and if the zoning of the property changed in a why that could affect setbacks, right? Then, in some cases, you have search for deed restrictions and HOA conveniences that affect the property ...
Do you really do all that, or just sign the thing and hope for the best?
> A) All buildings have been located; B)Buildings do not violate municipal setback requirements or deed restrictions pertaining to the location of buildings; other than those depicted or noted hereon.
>
> So, in order to sign these types of certs, you'd have to know the date of original construction and the date any additions were added, right? Then you'd have to know the zoning setback requirements for each county/city/town you work in, and how they may have changed over the course of history, and if the zoning of the property changed in a why that could affect setbacks, right? Then, in some cases, you have search for deed restrictions and HOA conveniences that affect the property ...
>
> Do you really do all that, or just sign the thing and hope for the best?
I don't have a problem doing it, but I charge my clients a premium to do the work. I've had several projects where the current codes appear to show a violation and the city has made it an issue. They call me to do the research, find the documentation, research the old ordinances, research the building permits and utility connection permits, find the prior owners, and whatever else it might take just to prove that there was no violation and the current "problem" doesn't exist. Find the evidence and the "problem" magically goes away.
I'm afraid that's not what most surveyors who are signing the cert are doing, though.
JBS
Should be "HOA covenants", not "HOA conveniences" ... spell checker ...