Complex, detailed Condominium measurements: Why?

[Lee Hixson]

Having participated in the laborious process of taking field measurements of the insides of many apartment units that were to be converted into condos, and having struggled with the office calcs and drawings to represent those as-built measurements, I've always had this nagging feeling that it was much ado about nothing.

To go to all that trouble, only to make endless revisions to please the attornies and title people...all to produce a 120-page document that gets recorded, I mean, who cares? Why not have a 1-page document similar to a lot & block legal description: "that 950 square foot condominium unit known as Unit No. 38, such and such condo development."

Why do we do condo plans the way we do? Under what scenario would anyone in the future really care about all the dimensions and the many drawings contained in a condo plan? Suppose the building burns down. Would the owners insist that a contractor use the condo plan as the blueprint to build a new building? Thus, we have a contractor using condo plans to "follow in the footsteps of the surveyor?"

I just don't see where all our work amounts to anything. Couldn't whatever actual, practical value adheres to a condo plan be accomplished far more simply, far cheaper.

This is one example of our careful work in the field and in the office, that I just have never seen put to any real use. Have you?

Our detailed, Records of Survey (and Parcel Maps and Tract Maps) get relied upon all the time by other surveyors and property owners for various practical reasons. But our condo plans?

[goodgps]

It isnt a bad thing to atleast verify one of each unit to see how well the contractor did. If it is air space that is being bought, and your stamp is on the "condo-plans" . . . . Well figure that out. ???

WE use those lazer shooters to do a real "quickie" measurement of convenient units. Some people have a storage unit style of living, These units are hard to measure.

The only conversion where I measured each and every unit was a burn out reconstruct where 3 contractors were hired to quickly remake the units for living. These were an absolute mess. The condo plans were a small book.

Put a not in your Condo plans that disclaims industry standard workmanship. I dont think we should be responsible for a slightly warped wall due to a settling stud.

Perhaps take each case individually. do a quality of construction inspection?

Good Luck

"good"

[Jim Frame]

I've made a similar argument against tying the units to a benchmark. In most conventional construction, simply stating "first floor," "second floor," etc. would be fine. However, a benchmark tie is a requirement ( §1351 of the Civil Code).

I went round and round with a title officer about this once on a condo plan for a building that hadn't yet been built. He kept insisting that the detailed dimensions were necessary for "certainty of location," but finally admitted that title will conform to the units as they actually get constructed, no matter how different from the plan.

I've been dragging my feet on a condo plan for an existing building that has varying ceiling heights, because it's going to take a ton of work to depict the spaces on the plan in a way that makes sense. Fortunately the owner isn't in a hurry.

[goodgps]

Dont forget about those upper storage areas. They must be shown on the condo plans. A lot of times the contractor/builder adds them in the garage because the units were never designed to be condos.

As far as benchmarks, I've seen local jurisdictions using their own city datum, or NAd 88 or Ngvd 29 or just about anything available.

I like to use the '29 because it relates to current Fema "stuff"

What do you-all use ?

[Lee Hixson]

"What do you-all use?"

Whatever's closest to the site.

As for the upper storage area, good point. So I repeat, can anyone give me a scenario where a surveyor would neglect to measure/show such a space, and it would come back to haunt her/him, like, say, if while doing an ALTA map an underground gas line was overlooked?

(I'm surprised at the lack of comment on this issue.)

[goodgps]

UMMM,

I believe that because an attorney is always used to write up the legal docs for these condo projects, He/She words these out to protect the owners, developers,coop president, etc.etc.
Firms Like Hanna and Van Atta [San Mateo] who specialize in Condos, and write books on the fact, make sure all of the bases are covered. They review your work and make sure it follows their check list.
Work closely with the attorney on the project.

As far as a surveyor being bitten in the end . . . I'm sure out there someone has filed a suit, possibly in another state, and I hope for us, far far away.

Just because you're not paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

"good"

[Lee Hixson]

So when you say that these firms "...write books and make sure all the bases are covered...." that suggests that the full-blown, book-sized condo docs that we record are done that way only out of custom. Which makes sense. Perhaps long ago some title officers got into a nitpicking session with some attornies and the end result was the ad hoc formation of the "requirement" that it be done that way. Nothing more than a CYA custom inspired by paranoid attornies?

If true, then what would happen if some developer submitted a "lot & block" short-form description? I mean, it's not like it was against the law or anything, and after all, if it's good enough for a subdivision lot (translation: insurable) then why wouldn't it be good enough for a condo unit?