California Surveyors Forums

Has anyone out there ever done an ALTA survey on a portion of a lot or portion of an APN? I have a client whose proposed building and parking lot spans portions of 5 seperate APNs. They want and ALTA survey for the project and I don't see anyway to do the ALTA without doing all the boundaries and showing all the improvements even though the area in question is a small fraction of that. May be an ALTA of the proposed lease area, showing the existing improvements in the lease area only, while still showing the overall boundaries on the procedure of survey sheet? Also include this in the contract as "Table A" item 19?

I worked on one about 7 or 8 years ago at the Buena Park Mall (Chillies Restaurant). It was based on a legal description for a future parcel that was prepared by me and then given to the title company to prepare a Pro Forma title report (I think that's the term). The parcel transfers took place after the initial ALTA using the pro forma. Not sure how the parcel line movement/subdivision was done as we didn't handle that part of the project. We had also done an ALTA on the entire mall property previously.

The title company used the previous mall ALTA and the legal to come up with the list of Schedule B items.

Sounds like a commercial lease, possibly for retail in a shopping center. You would need to retrace boundaries of all parcels of which your project area is a part. But you only need to show the improvements for the area they are asking for.

I'd have to look to ensure that there has been no change to the SMA in this regard, but I belive that this type of lease parcel is still exempt from the requirements of the SMA. You would still potentially be required to file an RS, depending upon triggering requirements of 8762(b).

It's been a while since I've done one like this, hopefully someone with more recent experience will chime in.

I concur with Evan and Ryan. I have also done several of them.

An ALTA survey is intended to show the title status of a specific chunk of land (as detailed in Table A), nothing more or less.

Sale or Lease of the land being surveyed is a separate subject... however it is always good practice to give a thumbnail of those aspects, but it is not required.

Yes, this is a commercial lease situation, however the lease area has not yet been determined. I'm thinking of proposing an area that the ALTA survey will cover based on the proposed limits of improvements for the project. These limits will be beyond the "lease area" and will include parts of the shared parking lot. I would include the area that the ALTA survey will cover as Table A item 19 and describe it "...southwest 300 feet of the southeast 200 feet of Lot X...", even thought the potential "lease area" will be smaller. The reason for this is the client wants the easements and other title issues surveyed in the entire area of proposed improvements not in just the "lease area". Does anyone see a problem with this? I'll survey the boundary of all the parcels this area spans and only show improvements in the area agreed upon.

I have the same situation right now. My project is a shopping center that has a reciprocal parking agreement that covers the entire mall (parcel B of PR legal description) and a smaller portion (parcel A) that that is the fee title interest, and portion that the client requires details surveyed on the improvements. If I understand Evan’s reply, I can just show the boundary of the larger parcel B without other details, and show all of the ALTA detailed requirements for the smaller parcel A. I don’t see anything in the 2005 requirements that deals with this situation.

I had not considered GW’s idea of describing the ALTA area in the item 19 line. This could be a good solution.

Don't forget to file a Record of Survey!

This sounds like an ALTA I did on a shopping center, for which we added a number of limitation notes, e.g. physical area surveyed, easements & encumberances outside of area are not shown. Maybe others.

For cross-parking element, I'd attach a separate sheet showing an aerial photo or photogrammetric survey, and annotate parking counts.

Don't forget to file a Record of Survey!


and


Don't forget to file a Record of Survey!

I agree with Mr. Seymour, if they have not yet identified the specific area they want the ALTA for, then they are not yet ready for one. Perhaps they need some other form of preliminary survey from you based upon a more limited scope. They can use that to determine where the limits of their lease parcel will be and then have a PTR prepared based upon that. Then they will be ready for their ALTA.

Going about it the way they are, and you letting them lead you that way, is inviting an omission looking for a place to happen. Thus, Mr. McComb's point, taking on greater liability at a discount for our clients.

Thanks everyone for the input. I'll have to mull this over before proceeding.

Yes, Mr. Seymour has the ideal solution. What if the client wants to show contours for for only a portion of the site? Is there a problem with showing a "limit line" for the contour mapping, and showing the other ALTA details for the entire site?

Ruel keeps mentioning a RoS. Is it the lines described in the new PTR limits (not shown on a map) that would trigger the RoS? If we are retracing parcel maps for these shopping centers and don't have other situations that trigger the requirements of 8762, I don't see the need for the RoS.

Paul, you're right on both counts...so long as the ALTA is for the entire parcel that has been shown previously on a Tract Map, Parcel Map, or Record of Survey.

Thanks for giving some thought about my post!

Many will not, and there's the rub.

Ruel, I don't think you have to file an ROS just because the ALTA is based on an area of land not shown on a Tract Map, etc.

You may have a situation where you're doing a Pro-forma ALTA on a potential/future lot split (that doesn't exist yet). I've had to do these in the past for shopping center anchors who want to know what they are going to be getting even before their lot is created.