which cl?

User avatar
TIB
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:56 pm

which cl?

Postby TIB » Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:24 pm

adjacent 2 acre parcels were cut from parent parcel. The approved county Div of Land Plat indicates the north boundary to be "centerline
ABC Road (known as Road Survey #123)" The deeds make no mention of ABC rd and say "...2 acres of....lying southerly of centerline County Road Survey #123" Upon retracement of Road Survey the CL is found to be well north (30-40ft) of existing paved ABC rd. There are no road esmts or R/W recorded. Since deeds are based on 2 acres the east and west lines will move as the north line moves. South line is fixed. I have been asked to mark the common line between the parcels. A ROS has been filed for both parcels showing conflicting location of common line. One ROS uses retracement of Road Survey #123 as north line, the other uses CL exist ABC Rd as north line.
HELP!

TIB

User avatar
Steve Martin
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:24 pm
Location: Hayward

Re: which cl?

Postby Steve Martin » Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:20 pm

Is there evidence of occupation that supports one interpretation or the other?

Based upon the limited information provided, I would say that the deed is clear that the boundary is the centerline of RS #123. Someone else has interpreted it as the centerline of the existing traveled way. I would ask that surveyor about the evidence he used to support that interpretation. Then look to more extrinsic evidence to support the plain language interpretation of the deed. The Div of Land Plat statement "centerline ABC Road (known as Road Survey #123)" supports the plain language interpretation in my opinion.


Note: long acceptance and acquiescence of the other interpretation may have affected property rights. Not easy to prove though.

User avatar
Jim Frame
Posts: 1154
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
Location: Davis, CA
Contact:

Re: which cl?

Postby Jim Frame » Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:40 pm

I don't know about most counties, but in my home county I've found 19th-century road descriptions to be a variable reliability. They're pretty straightforward in open flat ground, but in the hills I know of at least one road description that is so far out of sync with the topography and the as-built road that I had no problem holding the as-built centerline as correctly reflecting the intent of the original road viewers. To do otherwise would have produced an absurd result.
Jim Frame
Frame Surveying & Mapping
609 A Street
Davis, CA 95616
[url]framesurveying.com[/url]

User avatar
Steve Martin
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:24 pm
Location: Hayward

Re: which cl?

Postby Steve Martin » Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:34 am

In San Diego County which is where I think this question originates from, the Road Surveys were surveyed and monumented in the field, so there is generally a good location that can be recovered on the ground.

dharri
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 7:20 am

Re: which cl?

Postby dharri » Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:53 am

I reviewed both R of S’s for the San Diego County Surveyor’s Office. The RS 123 centerline is a preliminary alignment. The RS 123 field note cross sections indicate that the existing travelled way has not moved. Right of way for RS 123 was never acquired because RS 123 was never constructed. The deed writer appears to have assumed that RS 123 and the existing traveled way were one and the same which resulted in the call to RS 123 in the deeds. In light of this, it appeared that the existing traveled way represented better evidence of the deeds intent than the call to RS 123.

User avatar
Steve Martin
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:24 pm
Location: Hayward

Re: which cl?

Postby Steve Martin » Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:57 am

There you have it. The rest of the story.

Thanks Dan.

A case where extrinsic evidence is required to explain a latent ambiguity discovered by facts on the ground.

-Dave Ryan-
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 10:45 am

Re: which cl?

Postby -Dave Ryan- » Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:20 pm

Similar to what Jim said, many of the old Road Register descriptions locally provide the document for creation of the easement, but the road itself is the monument for its location. To follow the old PI to PI description verbatim often sends it out into the wilderness...

Dave Ryan,
Arcata, Ca.

User avatar
Steve Martin
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:24 pm
Location: Hayward

Re: which cl?

Postby Steve Martin » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:41 pm

I certainly understand the uncertainty in location for the 19th century Road Surveys where there is no permanent monumentation beyond a "stake" indicated on the plat. In San Diego County, a County Surveyor about 100 years ago took all of those old Road Surveys and renamed them "Old Surveys". Generally the Road Surveys since then have been placed upon the ground and were monumented, often with Iron Pin RPs to the PIs. The exception as in this example is a proposed road that was assigned a Road Survey number but never was acquired or built.

Often it takes some diligent searching to dig up enough of the old RPs to be able to retrace the original location for the road. I've seen some surveyors purport to retrace a Road Survey with only 1 tie at each end of a 3 mile section of curving roadway in an undeveloped area of the County where there is a high probability of a good number of the RPs still in existence.

My point is do not write off all Road Surveys as unreliable or un-retracable.

User avatar
TIB
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:56 pm

Re: which cl?

Postby TIB » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:46 pm

Thanks guys, Dan, RS298 & Harmony Grove Rd See ROS 10972 and 10998 Ring any bells?


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests