WWYD?

Have you collected all the information possible? Any original parties still around?

Unless you can prove the intention of the parties was otherwise, don't monuments rule?

there are no Gaps.
did the original owner intend to keep a strip of land?
perhaps the title is "cloudy", if that is the case the two effected parties could/should make an agreement and codify it in the records.

Could it be a 30 foot road and you found the CL of the road?

Sergeant Schultz, post: 376957, member: 315 wrote: Surveying 10 ac. densely vegetated, steep rural lot.

Senior S. adjoiner surveyed/staked after the creating conveyance, c. 1978, I'm OK with that line.

Junior N. adjoiner surveyed/staked after the creating conveyance, which calls for my N. line, map recorded, c. 1985. Found 4 irons along that 900' line, 2 endpoints agree with record map distance within 0.03', and a straight line through end irons misses POLs by no more than 0.02', obviously the line is as the surveyor intended. No occupation on that line except irons.

My deed calls for 450' along c/l road for E. line. I measure 465' while holding N & S lines as monumented. Do I hold 450' and create a 15' "gap" between myself & N. adjoiner as monumented, or, hold 465' & note record vs. measured?

450.00'? is there any overriding descriptive calls?

450' seems like one of those close enough call descriptions.

I'd tend to fill in the gap, but without all the creation documents, I just can't say.

I would look at a heck of a lot more evidence than what you presented here before making a decision. History search of parcels, look for reserve strips, grants between the landowners not referenced in the current ownership deeds, the exact wording of how the boundaries are / were historically described, any evidence on the ground at the conflicting location?

Peter Ehlert, post: 376962, member: 60 wrote: there are no Gaps.
did the original owner intend to keep a strip of land?
perhaps the title is "cloudy", if that is the case the two effected parties could/should make an agreement and codify it in the records.

Peter raises a good question.

And another thing to consider if one is to apply "the doctrine of strips and gores"; is the property line a PLSS division line or a metes & bounds? This has caused at least a few cases to have strange outcomes.

My knee-jerk reaction is the property is probably 465' although a description states other wise. Big question: Does the property to the North's boundary AND physical location rhyme with its description?

Words on a paper deed generally yield to monumented and honored boundary and occupational lines.

I'd personally work on proving that the line I found on the N'ly made sense with the rest of their property description.

If deed says 450' and the rest of the distances are to the nearest 0.0 or 0.00 decimal, I would interpret that as approximate, but near enough.

If deed says "approximately" and then a number, I'd interpret that as a best guess, probably not made by a survey but you never know...probably not though.

What gets me thinking is your nice and even number; 15'.

There's gotta be something going on, or you're chasing the tail of someone elses precisely surveyed mess. Grantor/grantee search the living daylights out of it, search for maps that may have been filed under every prior/current owner, and of course, clearly show your findings on the map.

Good luck, and have fun!

NY is metes & bounds.

All 3 parcels created from same parent without benefit of survey - 2 farmers & rag tape.

S adjoiner 1st out. Surveyed 1978 shortly after creation, subsequent conveyance (of record prior to 1985) by survey description & "being" clause. I'm holding that line.

I'm 2nd out. Call is for "southerly 450 feet along C/L". Not 450.00', not 450' more or less - 450'

N. adjoiner 3rd out. calls for my N. line. surveyed/staked, map recorded c. 1985 (see OP). It seems clear to me that the 1985 survey did not reproduce the 1978 survey and just took a stab at the location of my N. line, 450' from something.

The highway has not been re-aligned.

And, no it's not a 30' road - 100% slopes & 40' deep gully.

Since the 1985 map is of record, same owners both sides now as then for both parcels, I'm holding the line as staked & showing 450' deed, 465.?? msd. , & moving on to the next puzzle.

Thanks!
SS