Overlap or Meas. vs. Rec.

User avatar
Elias French
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:22 am

Overlap or Meas. vs. Rec.

Postby Elias French » Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:54 pm

Hello all,

The following question has arisen: The PIQ is a lot from an 1891 subdivision. The PIQ is adjacent to a 1968 parcel map which subdivided several of the adjacent 1891 lots, using street monuments as control, but set no lot corner markers. We disagree with the 1968 map, and find the common line to be in a different location than did the 1968 map, resulting in an overlap about half a foot wide between the PIQ and the 1968 parcel map. No lot corner markers exist.

The question is, is this an overlap of fee title interests? Or, since the line in question is a lot line from the 1891 subdivision, is it simply a case of record versus measured, where our survey differs from the 1968 map with respect to the size of the PIQ and the adjacent 1968 subdivision lots?

In a nutshell, is there one line or two lines?

User avatar
Dave Lindell
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 9:17 pm
Location: Pasadena

Re: Overlap or Meas. vs. Rec.

Postby Dave Lindell » Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:23 pm

There is only one true lot line.
I'll bet the subdivision is a record data Parcel Map and the common line is defined as the old lot line.
How does the block measure compared to the old map?

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Overlap or Meas. vs. Rec.

Postby mpallamary » Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:56 am

One line. That being said, see if you can get quitclaim deeds to that one line, preferably by tieing it down.

William Magee
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: Overlap or Meas. vs. Rec.

Postby William Magee » Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:10 am

Not enough information given to form a complete opinion. However it does smell of differing surveyor's opinions as to where the one true line lies.
My only caution is to be careful not to create conflict or appearance of cloud of title if it really doesn't exist.
Don't shoot the messenger.

User avatar
Elias French
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:22 am

Re: Overlap or Meas. vs. Rec.

Postby Elias French » Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:42 am

Thanks for the input.
The 1968 subdivision was "compiled from record data and based on a field survey".
It is a case of differing surveyor's opinions as to where the common 1891 lot line lies.
Is this not similar to the situation described in this earlier thread "Small Claims Court over defective survey" "http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.org/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7241"? In that case, which had a much larger overlap, the consensus seemed to be that there was a cloud of title on the overlap area, which needed rectification by quitclaim deeds and/or amended parcel map, etc.

User avatar
Stan_K
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:11 pm
Location: Sacramento

Re: Overlap or Meas. vs. Rec.

Postby Stan_K » Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:16 am

If it not too late to weigh in . . . To Paraphrase:
A 1891 subdivision was platted and recorded.
A 1968 parcel map with a common line to the 1891 subdivision.
You disagree with the 1968 retracement of that common line.

There is ONLY one line - I am sure we all agree to that.
Is your physical evidence of the line's original location stronger than the evidence they had 49 years ago?
Be very careful how you proceed.

Read "The Judicial Functions of Surveyors" by Thomas M. Cooley, Chief Justice Supreme Court of Michigan.
Now read it again.

User avatar
Ian Wilson
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:58 am
Location: Bay Area

Re: Overlap or Meas. vs. Rec.

Postby Ian Wilson » Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:05 am

There are at least three lines and, perhaps, more.

There's the 1891 line, the 1968 line, your line, and, perhaps, the line of occupation. There may even be a couple of other lines, depending upon how the lots were conveyed and if the descriptions for the lots agree with each other.

The purpose of the surveyor is bring all those lines into focus and harmony. hopefully, the occupation coincides with at least one of the other lines. Your job is to harmonize the lines and, if necessary, assist the owners in documenting the appropriate line so that the lines are never in differing locations again.

While that doesn't help you much, it does raise the question: Where do the owners think the line is? What do the lines of occupation look like?

You have lived with this conundrum for a good few hours before posting here. A lot of what you now look at as obvious isn't even on our radar.

What's the problem with the 1968 map? Does it drawn conclusions from erroneous facts? Does it ignore differences in measurement between the 1891 map and the 1968 survey? Why do you not accept that work?

Does your work properly take into account the differing measurement procedures and methods? Do you give more importance to rigid dimensions on the 1891 map or the 1968 map?

Is there some common point between the two maps that you can use to relate the position of the occupation?

Ultimately, when you leave the field, just like the Highlander, there can be only one...line. And, after reading Cooley's Dictum many, many times, that fits perfectly with what the good Justice meant. Bring harmony, not discord.

Carry on.

User avatar
dmi
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:42 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Overlap or Meas. vs. Rec.

Postby dmi » Sat Jun 17, 2017 10:15 am

What controlling evidence do you have for the 1891 map location? Is the overlap material? I doubt that you have better evidence than what was available in 1968.What does a preponderance evidence have to say about the 1891 location as opposed to the 1968 location? Could there be a junior/senior issue that can about after 1906? It could be that over time locations have been established that are contrary to the 1891 map and these establishments could render the 1891 map not controlling anymore.is there an excess in the block? If could be that the tie to the POB is in a different location after the 1906 earthquake than it was in 1891 based upon actions of the city.

User avatar
Dave Lindell
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 9:17 pm
Location: Pasadena

Re: Overlap or Meas. vs. Rec.

Postby Dave Lindell » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:21 pm

"Compiled from record data based on a field survey"
Sounds like a copy of the record data from one end of the block and laid out accordingly, with no full block closure.
Does the 1968 map show record dimensions being used?

User avatar
Anthony Maffia
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 4:52 pm
Location: Contra Costa County, CA

Re: Overlap or Meas. vs. Rec.

Postby Anthony Maffia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:11 am

My Monday Morning consideration: How and when were the street monuments set? (1) Are they original, or (2) were they set later by the controlling jurisdiction to monument the original map? (3) Perhaps they were set for an an adjoining tract that follows the road center line? (4) Maybe for an earlier subdivision of the old lots where a side street was created - that map may or may not show a strong boundary retracement. If (1) or (2), then locations derived from them should be stronger than record distances on a 130 year old map and I'd note meas/rec.

The answer is dependent on the facts and evidence.
- Anthony Maffia, LSIT

User avatar
Elias French
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:22 am

Re: Overlap or Meas. vs. Rec.

Postby Elias French » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:50 pm

Thanks for the input everyone. Upon further research, it is apparent that the 1968 map recited exactly the distances and directions contained in its preceding deed, which was a deed from the State (Caltrans) of remainder portions of several old lots along a freeway. The method that Caltrans used to tie down their survey and calculate these deed courses is unknown. In any event, their distances disagree with the 1891 map and multiple old non-record surveys in the block. However, the deed contains controlling calls to the 1891 lot lines, so there is no doubt that there is only one line intended.

It seems that the 1968 map relied too heavily on the Caltrans deed distances, to the exclusion of all other evidence. The gist of my question was, when does an issue of this sort rise to the status of an "overlap" between TWO LINES, rather than being simply a discrepancy between two survey maps regarding the location of ONE LINE?

User avatar
Dave Karoly, PLS
Posts: 638
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
Location: Sacramento

Re: Overlap or Meas. vs. Rec.

Postby Dave Karoly, PLS » Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:04 pm

There is no overlap because the boundary is the 1891 lot line, wherever it is located. What the boundary is is found in the Deed description and is a question of law. In this case the answer is the 1891 lot line, wherever it is located.

Next, where the boundary is located is a question of fact to be determined from a preponderance of the evidence. I think you have found that the 1968 Parcel Map only recites the Highways numbers (however they cooked those up is unknown) and doesn't to appear to be credible evidence of the location of the 1891 lot lines. Presumably some other evidence you have is more persuasive in this regard.

If the 1968 Parcel Map had monumented that line the answer may be different because the property owners have the right to establish their common boundary if they are uncertain of their locations. The policy of the law is to favor stability in boundary locations to prevent continually migrating boundaries because land owners and surveyors keep revising their estimates of where the boundaries might be located. This is why original monuments occupy a position of such dignity and they are very difficult to overcome except in unusual circumstances. If the original monuments are missing or were never set then there is more leeway on the part of property owners to stabilize their boundaries so that they can have finality when they build their expensive improvements, plant their orchards, build their roads and driveways, so on and so forth.
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest