What to do with calls for off line monuments along a senior line?
A retracement survey makes a single call from monument to monument along a long common line between two parcels. That line is not in question, the original descriptions of the two parcels are in harmony and fit the evidence.
However, on one side of the line, outsold lots have rear corners that were to have adjoined the common line, but were found to be 'off line', by as much as a 3 feet. The retracing surveyor noted this as shown on the attached map. My subject parcel is the undivided parcel to the south (Map is oriented to West).
This is just an example of a practice I see with some regularity. I'm not sure I know what to do with it. Right or wrong, those monuments are where they are; holding them would result in small gaps and gores that are not addressed on the retracement survey. In this particular instance the 'off line' monuments happen to fall outside my subject parcel, yet, often times they are inside. In my mind, this is a clear and obvious description overlap that I feel couldn't go unaddressed on a survey. A surveyor retracing one of the lots who doesn't run the longer back line would find those rear pins and would likely hold them as corners. On their own, both surveys would appear to show no issue, but compared together there is an obvious conflict.
It happens I am retracing the larger parcel for development and I am not sure how best to address the issue. I could show various 'gaps' along that line, but does that obligate me to set new corners along that line for all those existing lots?
I realize much more information might be required to answer some of the questions specific to this scenario, but my question is more of a general one.
Surveyors who call out 'off-line' monuments like this, what is your intention? How should the rest of us interpret the location of those boundaries?
Just at a glance, if your line between the two larger tracts was monumented and the line is harmonious, it would seem to me that those markers that came later in time should be shown for informational purposes but rejected in your retracement resolution.
There may be more factors or other information that has not been shared but, if you are confident in your resolution and that matches with the adjoining parent lot, why would you meander the line to match the outliers and create a new description that essentially modifies the line?
Ditto what chris said.
Offset monument references don't cause as much angst amongst surveyors in my area (eastern Mass.) that they seem to for the more rural or PLSS surveyors on this board. If I tweaked a well-defined boundary line every time I found a pipe or rod with no provenance, I would be causing more problems than solving.
That said, I am plenty comfortable with holding my measurements when they differ from the record if the evidence so dictates. Case in point, often times surveys with boundary lines following stone walls from earlier in the 1900's would show a long continuous line when actually the wall meanders quite a bit. If the wall is the monument, then I show the meanders as measured.
IMO, the retracing surveyor is acknowledging the existence of those off line monuments but calling them garbage.
Many would like to hold all the monuments and put angle points in the line. I can point to a number of cases which say that the mere presence of iron rods is not notorious enough to constitute an occupation line. Now, if there were long standing fences running between those "off-line" monuments that might be different.
IMO, the retracing surveyor is acknowledging the existence of those off line monuments but calling them garbage.
Garbage or not, they are there, and their presence creates an area that is either a gap in two described parcels, or a conflict in description. How do I reconcile acknowledging their existence without acknowledging the possible issues they potentially create?
If you are retracing a boundary that was monumented and documented and in complete harmony over a period of time before the newer pins were set, other than show that they exist, how would it be that they create any sort of alteration to the record?
"How do I reconcile acknowledging their existence without acknowledging the possible issues they potentially create?"
You don't. These monuments may be "issues". Life is like that.
You don’t. These monuments may be “issues”. Life is like that.
But is it not my responsibility to report findings like this? Not arguing, genuinely want to be convinced I am making something out of nothing.
You don’t. These monuments may be “issues”. Life is like that.
But what is the point of my survey if not to reveal "issues"?
Do the deeds for the adjoiners call for those monuments, the bounds of the larger lot, or both?
