Beginning Point for a Survey

[itisup2us]

1904 recorded deed states "Beginning 40 feet from the NW Corner of Block No. 12 "

Would be interested in some opinions about what some of the opinions about what they think the NW Corner of Block No. 12 is, and why; especially if a surveyor. It was a legal question that I can't see how the conclusion was reached for the corner determined to be the NW Corner.

Photo

So what's your opinion? Red dot or Blue dot?

[eapls2708]

You've given us pretty little to go on. For instance, 40' which direction? Does the description make any other bounding calls, such as "along the south line of Givens Street", "along the east line of C Avenue", "to the northwest corner of the parcel owned by Snead", or "to an iron pipe", etc., or is it just a recital of bearings and distances? If it is simply a listing of dimensions, if followed from one of the corners, does any part of the description fall outside of the block? Is this for an easement or for a boundary? If an easement, what is it an easement for? If I knew more, I could ask more. I could also give you a better idea of what I would look for to arrive at an opinion.

Whose conclusion are you questioning, a surveyor's, a court's, your neighbor's best guess? Did the person offering this conclusion explain how they came to the conclusion?

Boundary surveying is a process of investigation of facts and proper application of law as per guidance given by past court decisions. It is not a set of rules that we can simply follow as if per step-by-step instructions from a technical manual, and there are no hard and fast rules that "when you encounter X, you do Y", or "because the southwest and northeast sides of the block run a little closer to north-south than do the northwesterly and southeasterly lines, the northwesterly line should be taken as the 'north' line, and the most westerly corner as the 'northwest corner', when the deed refers only to cardinal directions." Life would be simpler if that were so.

Actually, that last mock instruction may be a good presumption upon which to start a survey, that is begin the investigative phase of the survey. But without evidence to support that beginning presumption, and basing one's survey on that alone, the reasoning is pretty flimsy, really amounting to supposition.

Some of the physical evidence I would look for would be (but not necessarily limited to) 1) was the described parcel marked by some means when it was first created? If so, what was it marked by?
2) Is the use for which the description was made still ocurring? If so, what physical evidence indicates the use and where does it sit relative to the bounds plotted out from one block corner and assuming directions oriented one way, vs from the other corner and directions oriented essentially 90 degrees to the first? 3) Are the original parties to the first conveyance available to talk to? If not, what about previous owners of the properties of the dispute? 4) Do any of the previous owners recall seeing any such marks in the ground? If so, where? 5) What was the intended purpose of the described parcel? Does the placement of the parcel with reference to one corner and side of the block make more sense than placement according to the other corner and side?

I would also look at additional documentary evidence. Are other deeds written in this neighborhood/subdivision written such that there is an apparent assumption that one set of the streets run north-south and the other east-west? Have those boundaries been previously located on the ground, or is there other clues either on the ground or in the documents themselves that lead one to conclude that the north-south assumption of the author of the descriptions was one way or the other.

If the person presenting the conclusion you offer has done his or her investigation correctly, that person should be able to walk you through it and show you good reasons why they came to the conclusion they did. If they can't explain it, I suggest you find a surveyor who is better versed in how to resolve such discrepancies. This type of problem normally has some sort of evidence available to clear it up, and once found, is a simple problem to solve. It's also an easy one to screw up if one proceeds on an assumption rather than on evidence. In your case, given the orientation of the blocks, deciding without evidence is only slightly better than flipping a coin.

[phjj]

What eaps said---
Typically even as far back as early 1900s in a situation such as this the starting point would have been described as the "Western most"(blue dot) corner or "Northern most" (red dot) corner.
In this case it depends on if the eastern most corner is north of the western most.---(LOL).
Without knowing for sure any more than what you have given us and without knowing exactly what is being described its basically a WAG.
I would lean towards the blue dot until proven wrong.

[Conrad Hunter]

Who knows? I have a piece of property on the main street and the property line was off 18 inches depending on which opposing street it was measured from. After spending thousands I got the 18 inches. Had to research back through the property plats and the divisions of property over the last 100 years. There was a case just in the appeals court here in Old town where the line was 3 feet from where everyone thought it was for 50 years. Too late to change it now said the appeals court. I think this is one reason people buy title insurance and such these days.

[jk]

1904 recorded deed states "Beginning 40 feet from the NW Corner of Block No. 12 "

Would be interested in some opinions about what some of the opinions about what they think the NW Corner of Block No. 12 is, and why; especially if a surveyor. It was a legal question that I can't see how the conclusion was reached for the corner determined to be the NW Corner.

Photo

So what's your opinion? Red dot or Blue dot?

sounds like something for the court to determine since there is an obvious N (most), S (most) , E (most) , and W (most) corner.

I would suggest is cannot be answered when asked so out of context of the situation and other information available.

[LandSurveyor]

I'd also lean toward the blue dot.

I would describe it as the "northwesterly corner" if I were using it in a property description today.

[jk]

I'd also lean toward the blue dot.

I would describe it as the "northwesterly corner" if I were using it in a property description today.

that suggests there is a southwesterly corner as well. which one is that? then we have north and south easterly corners as well. Best guess on those?

just for fun, using the terms required, IMO, blue is NWesterly, red is N easterly. lowest corner is S westerly and the remaining (most easterly) would be S easterly.

[itisup2us]

Had to research back through the property plats and the divisions of property over the last 100 years.

Plats? Except but for the Plat for the addition to the City which ends with "G" street, not sure where "Givens" street came into play, I mean one would tend to believe that the street name in the discription would be spelled the same as on the plat for Block No. 12, especially if they were to measure the width of the R.O.W for said street on the plat, rather than just assume it was 40'. But none the less, the description follows; at the stake which stands on "G" street which stands 40' from the N.W. corner of Block No. 12, thence N 35 W 155', t S 55 W 280', t S 35 E 155' to stake on G street thence N 55 E 280 to a stake at the beginning and running with G. Street less a certain lot, known as lot no. 1. Now there is block of street at one end and a lot no. 1 at the other.

I found the result of using those dimensions for either the Blue of the Red dot very ironic, one of those can't lose either way piece of properties. By the way Block No. 12 is 195' x 195'.

So then which would be the the SW Corner of the new lot?

- - - Updated - - -

P.S. while you're plotting this song might help.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeCft3Gr8ds

[jk]

street names can be changed. By chance are the street names alphabetical A-G? If so, the streets may not have been given official names when the plat was drawn but only later once the roads were actually created.

You think all the Martin Luther King Jr. Drives have always been named that?

at the stake which stands on "G" street which stands 40' from the N.W. corner of Block No. 12, thence N 35 W 155', t S 55 W 280', t S 35 E 155' to stake on G street thence N 55 E 280 to a stake at the beginning and running with G.

I'm sure landsurveyor and eapls can tell you which corner is the beginning but I think there is something missing.


from what I understand about this stuff, 40' from the NW corner of block no 12 doesn't tell you much. The stake is not located in relation to block 12 (gives a distance but what direction) nor is block 12 located within the plat. So, you cannot locate the stake without more information nor can you place the location of block 12. All you have is a the information to set the perimeter lines once you establish where that stake is.

[itisup2us]

street names can be changed. By chance are the street names alphabetical A-G? If so, the streets may not have been given official names when the plat was drawn but only later once the roads were actually created.

You think all the Martin Luther King Jr. Drives have always been named that?

As Thomas Paine is quoted as saying, "Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. Man cannot make principles; he can only discover them.", including the science of governance of a incorporated township or jurisdiction.

In such, I can not simply call the street in front of my house "any ole street". But I could apply to the incorporated municipality for its name to be changed to such and if approved, that would be the new name and there should, but might not necessarily be documentation, but when everyones says its been that way since the Addition was developed, wouldn't the plat record speak for itself?

However, I do know that a significant sum of money for the property associated with this location was paid to lawful acquire rightful ownership back in the 1900's with monies from foreign origination, and the description of property was described in a trianglated manner which concluded with the phrase "being a more perfect description", as an old truck driver if you had asked in days gone past if I knew anything about triangulation and I would said that I sure do, that's when your truck breaks down you put out these little boxes with three sides that got reflective stuff on em so people can see something is wrong. So if not for the fact of a 20' strip of land that appears behind that particular lot that lacks any written evidence of conveyance, dedication or ED proceedings, so I am thinking to myself huh.

But as previously noted, a good surveyor does his homework before starting so I find some things perculiar with the street name and R.O.W. variances from the recorded plat at that time, maybe these can all be reasonably explained away, or systematically covered up. So being part of an addition which plat that didn't have a Block 9, which now has an unplatted Block 9 but lacks lots 2,3,& 4 so that lot 1 referenced would align with the the N end of the street where lots 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D are instead of the lot 1 described in the deed since starting with 1 at the N end wouldn't reasonably be expected to follow the sequential order from 4,5,6, etc. while at the opposite of the street has been replatted from lot 1, to a Lot 3R which is 280' from the Blue Dot, but hey the survey says 280' from lot 1, [no mention of a block]

Not being a surveyor, I am just interested in hearing what professional surveyor's opinions about some of these things.