Ask A Surveyor
If you are a landowner seeking advice from surveyors, please post your questions and issues here.... View more
Organizer:
- Organized by
-
Historic Surveys, are boundary lines unmovable?
Historic Surveys, are boundary lines unmovable?
I see indian lands touching Oakville. Possible Fed. resurvey might explain why a monument would move 12 feet. Wouldn’t explain why established private boundaries would go with the monument. All just speculation at this point.
There’s 2 dependent resurveys in Section 31 on the south edge of the town. Years 2000 & 2011. The town is mainly in Section 30. See GLORecords.
T16N, R4W, Willamette Meridian.
I have no idea what impact that may have on the town.
The south end of Newton St intersects the North line of the resurvey. The resurvey is entitled Corrective Dependant Resurvey AND Corrective Survey. To answer the original question re boundaries moving my opinion is under these conditions it’s possible federal boundaries can move but private boundaries can’t. I’m sure there are some possibly including the surveyor who did the private boundaries who would disagree. I still hold the belief that private owners original lines don’t move because of a new federal monument. The original monument should still control private ownership.
The biggest concern for me is that in my state federal dependent resurveys don’t depend enough on 100 years of settlement. This situation seems a lot like those. Fortunately for our private owners our survey community has continued to honor the traditional monuments.
Thank you for that information. I was able to look it up, and it seems to have made quite an impact, at least in section 31. I found multiple surveys disputing the results from your referenced surveys as they pertain to Hillstroms property.
- I am unable to view those dependent resurveys, as I am using a County records site which seemingly doesn’t have them. The impact of the South and North monuments being relocated, is evident in my recent survey. It is not localized to my block of the subdivision. All the properties and homes built going from original monuments have now had new boundaries placed going from new monuments. And all new development has went off new monuments, resulting in a non- congruent mess.
- I am unable to view those dependent resurveys, as I am using a County records site which seemingly doesn’t have them. The impact of the South and North monuments being relocated, is evident in my recent survey. It is not localized to my block of the subdivision. All the properties and homes built going from original monuments have now had new boundaries placed going from new monuments. And all new development has went off new monuments, resulting in a non- congruent mess.
glorecords dot blm dot gov
Select search surveys
put in T16N R4W Willamette Meridian
The older dependent resurvey has field notes and the plat. The newer one has just the plat.
BLM plats & notes for Washington & Oregon
American Surveyor Article about the dependent resurveys and IBLA case
That case is on the stricter end of the spectrum.
IBLA is an appellate body and as such will defer to the trial court which in their case is BLM. Appellate Courts only reverse ifthe trial court totally blew the facts or got the law wrong neither of which is the case here.
Even if IBLA secretly disagrees with BLM’s finding of fact they won’t reverse unless BLM is just patently obviously wrong which is not the case here. If BLM says they found the original but don’t like it then IBLA will reverse because BLM got the law wrong but they had to uphold the determination that the corner was lost therefore proportioning was correct legally.
I’m working on a Survey in the San Bernardino Mountains in which a recent Dependent Resurvey accepted all the local monuments although they could’ve rejected them based on this reasoning. Of course no one will protest so IBLA won’t rule in the case. In my opinion it’s a better course of action versus submitting it to Congress for the ultimate solution.
an example:
The case referenced in article is the reason these federal boundary lines have moved. Some very important key points not mentioned in article: Mr Hillstroms property, and the subsequent surveys and resurveys were done for legal purposes concerning where the tribal lands boundaries are. The resurvey put boundary lines through Mr Hillstroms( non tribal member)home. After years of dispute, he lost. His house was demolished, and a tribal housing development now is present in it’s place.
The relocation of these federal boundaries, and monuments have now moved boundary lines for a large portion of our city. I am beginning to understand the comment of needing to accept this by my surveyor now.
The case referenced in article is the reason these federal boundary lines have moved. Some very important key points not mentioned in article: Mr Hillstroms property, and the subsequent surveys and resurveys were done for legal purposes concerning where the tribal lands boundaries are. The resurvey put boundary lines through Mr Hillstroms( non tribal member)home. After years of dispute, he lost. His house was demolished, and a tribal housing development now is present in it’s place.
The relocation of these federal boundaries, and monuments have now moved boundary lines for a large portion of our city. I am beginning to understand the comment of needing to accept this by my surveyor now.
Here is what Hillstrom was up against, a very difficult standard to beat:
Hillstrom IBLA decision:
https://www.oha.doi.gov/IBLA/Ibladecisions/180IBLA/180IBLA388.pdf
No original survey monument evidence exists of the individual lots within the Plat which created the lots back in 1890, so Surveyors are relying on a somewhat recent resurvey that establishes the position of a quarter section monument to calculate the position of individual lots within the Plat from 1890. At least that’s how it appears. I understand how the lines between government/Indian lands and private lands can move, but it shouldn’t change the position of individual interior lots within a Plat. Unfortunately it’s an uphill battle for the homeowners when multiple surveys rely on this new position since this is the easiest method to reestablish the 1890 survey, but I wouldn’t agree it’s the correct method.
That being said, I don’t believe it’s the underlying problem to how all this occurred. I SPECULATE that the problem lies within the original subdivision not dedicating any portion of its easterly boundary for road, while the abutting subdivision to the east dedicated 30’ (abutting subdivision was prior to subject one). I’d imagine at the time people assumed the centerline of the road was the division line between two half street right of ways measuring 30’ each, when in reality it was only a 30’ full right of way. Wouldn’t be able to prove this, but it would explain why every original house from the time matches occupation if the boundaries were all shifted 15’ to the west.
Back to the original post instead of trying to fix the whole problem take it one step at a time starting at the location where the issue is.
I now have boundary lines going through my neighbors septic, and heat pump. My neighbors now have boundary lines in the middle of City street.
RCW 58.04.007
Affected landowners may resolve dispute over location of a point or line—Procedures.
Whenever a point or line determining the boundary between two or more parcels of real property cannot be identified from the existing public record, monuments, and landmarks, or is in dispute, the landowners affected by the determination of the point or line may resolve any dispute and fix the boundary point or line by one of the following procedures:
(1) If all of the affected landowners agree to a description and marking of a point or line determining a boundary, they shall document the agreement in a written instrument, using appropriate legal descriptions and including a survey map, filed in accordance with chapter 58.09 RCW. The written instrument shall be signed and acknowledged by each party in the manner required for a conveyance of real property. The agreement is binding upon the parties, their successors, assigns, heirs and devisees and runs with the land. The agreement shall be recorded with the real estate records in the county or counties in which the affected parcels of real estate or any portion of them is located;
(2) If all of the affected landowners cannot agree to a point or line determining the boundary between two or more parcels of real estate, any one of them may bring suit for determination as provided in RCW 58.04.020.@tim-libs
Your thoughts on the matter bring up some very interesting points. I have been assuming that the ommitance of any ROW dedicated on East boundary of my addition was due to it already being established in neighboring section. If only a 30 feet easement was established, and my addition was developed off of that easement, where adjustments to easement made after? The public works director advised me that Newton Street has a 45 feet ROW. How would I find evidence of when this was changed?
Thank you for this information. I am aware of the options amongst neighboring property owners to legally adjust our adjoining boundary lines. Unfortunately this does not solve the problem of the adjoining ROW easements. Property owners have boundaries located in streets. Current street easements are now moved, but existing streets are present. As property owners, we are told that we cannot do anything concerning this. On my block, the reestablished ROW now runs through one property owners septic drainfield. So, as property owners we can adjust our adjoined boundary lines, but short of litigation with the city, we are limited over ROW’S.
Cities and towns sometimes change their tune when contacted by an attorney. Has anyone discussed a replat ? I don’t buy nothing can be done for a second.
@louella The city’s position on the ROW lines might be coming from staff rather than from elected officials.
Staff people are able to disregard residents’ concern more easily. Elected officials have to pay attention to voters and taxpayers, since they can be voted out at the next election. But the voters and taxpayers have to make themselves heard.
It sounds as though you have enough affected homeowners to form a pretty effective political group. That sort of thing takes time, but it doesn’t cost much.
You and your neighbors might first get together and decide on what specifically you want the city to do. Someone will need to learn about the technical aspects of the problem, as you are now doing, and explain it to the others. Then find out which elected officials support your goals and which ones do not, and take action accordingly.
There may well be elected officials who don’t know much about this problem and are getting all their information from staff. It’s possible to educate many such individuals, especially when you have an organized group of voters to get their attention. Others may be intractable and will need to be voted out.
@louella there is untold numbers of this same problem around the country. It may have already been dealt with in your area, or may not. In NY the legislature passed a law that essentially allows these encroachments into the right of way up to a certain age, because it was so common. I believe it resides in the Town and Village laws (maybe general municipal law) of the State (does not apply against State highways if I recall). If the problem is widespread enough, I would suggest talking with a politician. They love this kind of thing and will do the legal research and help pass a law if one doesn’t exist (and passing it will make them look good to voters).
Just an update: My original surveyor who had placed wood stakes at all corners, ceased any communication with me, except for invoice for payment. On invoice, found and marked corners was listed only. He has been paid.
The independent surveyor that the city hired did some work. He was out 1 day, for 4 hours. He worked from the BLM monument on South Newton. Surveyor set control points in 2 intersections, Harris & Newton as well as Harris & 1st. After his work that day, he stepped down/quit and recommended to City that they retain another surveyor.
At this point, I am left with few answers to my original problem. I have historic iron metal pipe markers on my parcels, which were the original boundary lines. Then I have current wood stakes driven. Current marked boundaries are calculated from monuments that have been relocated, ( Due to Federal resurvey).There is a ROW with no allotment in my subdivision, and a 30 feet allotment in it’s neighboring pre-existing subdivision. So, even though the City ROW should be 30 feet, it is now 45. My current marked boundaries are 12-15 feet off.
When this started, while trying to hire a surveyor, I had initially contacted 6 different firms. The responses: they won’t work in my city. The only one that would I hired.
So, I have wood stakes for boundary corners( calculated from nearby legal survey), no legal survey, a surveyor that was paid 1500.00, but will not communicate with me, and an aerial drone image with overlaid lines.
I have historic iron metal pipe markers on my parcels, which were the original boundary lines.
So why would you think a new survey is needed? Particularly in light of everything the has been mentioned. Original monuments control private boundaries. Federal resurveys have no control over non federal land. The federal manual says so. End of story. Wood stakes would be a violation of minimum survey standards in my state.
What is wrong with you and your neighbors and the city for that matter continuing to use the original lines?
Could the wood stakes just be marking the original monuments?
Log in to reply.