All Distances Measured to......

[rpost]

I am working on a boundary in Rialto and am trying to decide on a resolution. My description is composed into multiple parcels. One parcel is the west 180 feet of a lot. The others go along centerline and go "north". If I use "north" a gap is created since the west line is not going exactly "north".

However, there is a note at the end of the descriptions that states "all distances are measured to adjacent street centerlines". This makes sense, because the original lot lines are the current street centerlines.

My question is, does this call also dictate direction? If would sure be cool if I could make the lot lines parallel to the street to the west since that is the west line used in the parcel 1 description. This would eliminate the gap, but distance is not the same as direction. If the note said all measurements are parallel to adjacent street centerlines, I would be on board. I think this note just helps the person reviewing determine that the distances are not from right of way but from the original lot lines, which are on centerline.


Thoughts?

R. Post

[pls7809]

What is the underlying subdivision of the parcel in the deed? If that underlying map shows North or East on lot lines or block lines, then you could probably use parallel. Are there any other maps in nearby areas that show similar breakdowns? That may be a clue for you.

I doubt the intent of the parties was to leave a gap.

[pls7809]

You could also ask the County Surveyor - Tom Herrin. He has great knowledge of the area and even the RS map checker too, John Topoleski. Give them a call at the CS office and see what they say. They may have personal experience or insight to give.

[PLS9196]

Without the benefit of the deed in hand or reference material or field data to review I offer this, the note probably is derived from a statement on the ancient subdivision map and added to the deed at some point by a title examiner and really only tells us fee title extends to the centerlines of the road (which is very important information for us), I can't fathom this being a qualifying statement to dictate direction. As to your problem, which solution, backed by evidence protects the public interest? How does the control fit? How many "north's" do we have again? How big is the potential gap, would it be considered de-minius in nature? As pls 7809 suggested, did the parties bound by the contract intend to create a gab? I realize that my questions might come off as rude or condescending, I assure you thats not the intent, these are simply questions I'd ask myself in the same situation.

As surveyors we are given the authority to really cause some folks some issues at times that dont or may not exist until we arrive, think that is something we, as a whole should consider with all of our decisions.

[Stephen Johnson]

Without the benefit of the deed in hand or reference material or field data to review I offer this, the note probably is derived from a statement on the ancient subdivision map and added to the deed at some point by a title examiner and really only tells us fee title extends to the centerlines of the road (which is very important information for us), I can't fathom this being a qualifying statement to dictate direction. As to your problem, which solution, backed by evidence protects the public interest? How does the control fit? How many "north's" do we have again? How big is the potential gap, would it be considered de-minius in nature? As pls 7809 suggested, did the parties bound by the contract intend to create a gab? I realize that my questions might come off as rude or condescending, I assure you thats not the intent, these are simply questions I'd ask myself in the same situation.

As surveyors we are given the authority to really cause some folks some issues at times that dont or may not exist until we arrive, think that is something we, as a whole should consider with all of our decisions.

In many instances Harmony should rule over a precise or exact application of the deed. IE, North is not always Due North, AKA astronomical north. Sometimes it varies.

[rpost]

Thanks for your thoughts everyone. I certainly understand the idea of going with the harmonious resolution. I practice the concept often. I also understand that it was most likely not the intent to create a gap; though it doesn't necessarily mean a gap was not created. The gap varies between 0.1' - 0.6' when the descriptions are plotted as written. I do not consider 0.6' de-minius. It is also not de-horrifying.

Is it a good time for another note about a potential gap with an explanation as to why I do not believe it was the intent to create a gap and, therefore, went with the solution of pretending the crappy description was written correctly? Maybe. I do sometimes wonder how many occurrences of me doing so, will eventually result in trouble.

If you are interested in another common boundary headache, take a look at the attachments and let me know what you think.

I am leaning towards using the procedure of the old PM and going parallel to CL even though there is no call for it. I can always go with the argument of, he did it, so I did it, which is always defensible in court. Right?

Also if anyone is bored, take note of the 1.9' gap to the north created by parcel no. 1. The south 330 feet measures 331.92 feet. All other descriptions reference the south half. Should I make this one match the intent also?

I may have gotten thorns in my socks as a chainman, but at least I never got a headache!

[PLS9196]

Quite a few more or less calls in that deed, whats established?