Title lines versus ownership lines
Actually I did not communicate that at all. I do not simply read a deed, locate a fence, and flip a coin. I recover the boundary location where the evidence reveals it to be. I have the authority and duty to do nothing less. Again, unproductive...
Not unproductive at all. You said that we are qualified to determine boundary lines, based on occupation. I am not going to argue the point, you can read through your own comments in the thread.
What I have said is we recover boundaries where they exist based on evidence. Occupation is PART of that evidence.
It is apparent you will not engage on this subject. It doesn't matter if it's because you're not capable or not willing. The result is the same. Unproductive.
"...lines described in recorded title transfer documents pertaining to real land." tell you where to look for the boundaries.The boundaries are found on the ground and often are different than what is described in the title transfer documents. Yet there is no difference in what was transferred. The same parcel was transferred by the documents as what the boundaries on the ground encompass
in VA.... excerpts from the Code...
18VAC10-20-370
….
B. Research procedure. The professional shall search the land records for the proper description of the land to be surveyed and obtain the description of adjoining land as it pertains to the common boundaries. The professional shall have the additional responsibility to utilize such other available data pertinent to the survey being performed from any other known sources. Evidence found from all known sources, including evidence found in the field, shall be carefully compared in order to aid in the establishment of the correct boundaries of the land being surveyed. The professional shall clearly identify on the plats, maps, and reports inconsistencies found in the research of common boundaries between the land being surveyed and the adjoining land. It is not the intent of this regulation to require the professional to research the question of title or encumbrances on the land involved.
….
d. Inconsistencies found in the research of common boundaries between the land being surveyed and the adjoining land. The inconsistencies shall be clearly noted by the professional.
"There is something to be said about protecting public safety. When you modify title lines based on your own findings and opinions drawn from them, you are clouding title and thus the marketability of the property, ultimately affecting one party or the other adversely."
I suspect that holding the deed math has clouded more titles than a proper of evaluation of all the evidence. It'd be better for the public and the profession if we started making more concrete decisions instead of passing the buck. Why argue that a PLS shouldn't solve boundary problems? Wouldn't it be better if we applied our knowledge and solved problems then forced the BAR to explain why a PLS shouldn't form an educated opinion as to where both title and boundary harmonize?
It makes me wonder if maybe our biggest problem as a profession is a lack of confidence in our abilities. Maybe the fact that so many of us come from blue collar parents makes it easy to doubt how much we have to offer the public beyond the use of our hands. Engineers, architects, and attorneys don't seem as cowed into staying within their wheelhouse. Since we already get pulled into lawsuits, why not err on the side of increasing our ability to apply reasoned judgement?
...why not err on the side of increasing our ability to apply reasoned judgement?
One of the bigger reasons I'm reluctant to do that is because I'm not out there babysitting every monument 24/7/365. If I knew 20 or 30 years ago someone didn't yank a monument out and move it a foot or two up or down a fence line, or hacksaw an old fence post instead of digging it out so now it looks like a monument then I might be more comfortable doing what you suggest, but I think there are simply too many unknowns that even experience can't overcome.
An even more boring explanation is I think I know how people are. They buy what they can see (fence lines) probably assuming the fences and the deed lines coincide, and they build new fences without having a survey done because it costs too much... and round and round it goes.
I suspect the entire reason people started making maps and deeds in the first place was to reign in this sort of chaos.
Perhaps two different situations would be helpful here:
Situation 1: you find all the original undisturbed corner monuments and they agree closely with each other and with the surrounding parcels. There is an old fence line that is off the line. In that case the fence line could become the boundary line by acquiescence (more likely) or by adverse possession (less likely). The surveyor cannot make that call by himself. It has to go through whatever legal process is required by your state.
Situation 2: you find no monumentation but there is an old fence line or fence lines in the immediate area but they do not fit the distances and bearings on a plat or metes and bounds description. In that case the surveyor absolutely has the authority to call the fence line the best evidence of the original line. Keep in mind that a plat or description is someone’s attempt to represent a survey on the ground. If there is a discrepancy between the plat or description and evidence on the ground, the ground evidence will almost always hold. And try not to disturb the neighborhood.
Situation three, rarely are there no physical roadway centerlines on which to establish a POB from based on researched deeds. If you dig deep enough, the answer will always be there to establish lines of title versus clouding the title by holding possession lines as your resolution. Doing so amounts to deciding ownership versus title and ownership is a matter of law, we can't decide on that, neither can an attorney, all we can do is present out case based on the evidence at hand and layout the preponderance of evidence.
We cannot base our opinions on adverse possession, prescriptive easements of recognition and acquaintance, those are all matters of law, and we are not the Judge who may, or may not, agree with the facts that we present.
The value of the real estate being surveyed can influence the level of care in the survey. We know this because most states have codified laws allowing for less stringent field practices for rural lands. This doesn’t mean we’re off the hook for thoroughly investigating the records and site, but it does mean that our system of laws recognizes that we can’t have a one-size-fits-all approach to development. Given that, it would be absurd to ignore lines of possession when reestablishing an lost corner.
Maybe I’ve taken it for granted that most surveyors have had to reestablish a boundary from a bounds only description. It’s a great way to learn to find the boundary, then measure it, as opposed to beginning a survey with a preconceived notion of what the parcel ought to look like. Especially when the latter is based solely on deed math and often coupled with the gross assumption that the math is greater evidence of intent then the physical evidence and the actions of humans. Remember that nearly every boundary we survey was created on the ground by humans prior to being written in a deed. That fact alone should cause one to pause when claiming the deed math is clearer intent than tangible evidence.
If a person is surveying primarily in urban centers, then maybe they’re unaware that in days of old, the description in a deed was more of an afterthought, as the folks living off the land wouldn’t comprehend that a fellow didn’t know where his boundary corners were. I’ve stood near the center of a 350 acre mountain tract and had a farmer point to all twelve of his corners, none of which were visable. His deed didn’t close by 200 feet and was measured with slope distance in poles because a chain was too long. If working in rural areas, with land that might be valued around $2000 an acre, suggesting finding the POB and retracing the world instead of holding the fence is approaching on a dereliction of duty. To be fair, a rural surveyor probably shouldn’t start driving pipes in the ground at the end of a fence on Long Island either. We have to be flexible and I find the title line theory the least flexible and the least useful in solving my client’s problems.
