California Surveyors Forums

In reviewing a LLA performed by one surveying firm on a piece of property and a ALTA survey performed by another firm of the same property there is differences in the dimensions of the boundary. The firm that did the ALTA, did find (atleast showed) monuments and the record to measured dimensions, the firm that did the LLA only showed record dimensions. The LLA has 2 different points of beginning for the legal description and does not use the other legals calls to negate possible discrepancies. When the LLA description is compared to the ALTA boundary, a gap has been created between 0.03'-0.10'. Now the LLA has a note on the bottom of the legal stating that the plat exhibit is attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Now the question: Could this plat exhibit be used to clarify the possible patent ambiguity in the LLA descriptions or is it strictly supplimental and does add to nor take away for the new legals?

In my review of the Act, I see only that the legal descriptions are what expressly creates the deed and map only gives a depiction of the premise but does not create the parcels.

I would appreciate getting some other opinions on this matter.

Thanks

IMO the ALTA is not a recorded doc, the LLAs are.

Do the LLAs close and fit the original record info? If yes, I see no issue with the LLA's, if no, then there is a issue.

Brad Luken wrote: <<snip>>
the LLA has a note on the bottom of the legal stating that the plat exhibit is attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Now the question: Could this plat exhibit be used to clarify the possible patent ambiguity in the LLA descriptions or is it strictly supplimental and does add to nor take away for the new legals?
<<snip>>

Yes, the exhibit is a part of the legal
Yes, the exhibit is to be used to clarify the verbiage.

Just so I understand, does the LLA legal description disagree with the exhibit made a part thereof? I have a case like this right now.

The ALTA plat is a retracement, so wouldn't we expect some small differences?

Unless the LLA is based upon a survey, the terms in the descriptions should stay close to those of the existent parcels. If it is based on a survey, the scrivener (LS) has the opportunity to clarify some temrs as long as the intent of xistent and unaltered lines is not changed. But if based on a survey, no gaps or overlaps should exist when described according to that survey.

If the descriptions of the existent parcels contains calls to monuments or features (to a pipe, parallel to a road, etc.), the surveyor needs to keep those in unless it has been determined that they were errant calls (highly unlikely) or unless because of the LLA, they are no longer applicable.

If the LLA is based upon a field survey, then a RS is required. If completely based on record, no map required. (SMA §66412(d))

0.03' & 0.10' are differences one might expect between surveys and aren't worth getting excited about. If the ALTA did not disclose any conditions as deescribed under B&P Code §8762(b), then no RS was required. Either way, the boundary shown on an ALTA or RS is one surveyor's interpretation of the deed description in light of (hopefully) all available evidence. It is not a controlling document of the boundary.

If the written deescription states that the exhibit map is "attached hereto and made a part hereof", then the written description is incomplete without it. Such a plat is very bit as much a part of the description as any of the words are and may show, in drawing form, the calls otherwise missing in the written part (although such calls should be there as well).


I am confused by this statement:

"In my review of the Act, I see only that the legal descriptions are what expressly creates the deed and map only gives a depiction of the premise but does not create the parcels."

Which "Act" are you referring to?

The description does not create the deed, the parties to the transaction do that. The description identifies the subject of the deed and is a necessary part of it.

If the description calls for a map of survey, the map (actually a call for a survey) generally controls over other particulars in the description if there is a conflict. And generally, the survey actually made controls over the map (although I concede that there may be legitimate debate on this point under certain circumstances - let's not go another 300+ post thread on that one). I am unaware of any "Act" which reverses this point of common law.


Next question: What is the "Patent" ambiguity in this case? I'm thinking that you mean "Latent" ambiguity.

A Patent Ambiguity is one evident within the "four corners" of the deed. That is one which is obvious on the face of the deed given no other evidence. Examples would be an unlocatable parcel, a nonexistent parcel, or in the case recently presented, a deed lacking any described property at all. It may be clarified by extrinsic evidence (that found outside of th deed), or it may render the deed void.

A Latent Ambiguity is one which is not evident until evidence from outside the deed is introduced. Almost all gaps and overlaps are results of or examples of latent defects - they aren't evident until measurements are made.

Evan,

You are correct, I did mean Latent, since there is no printed difference from the Parcel Map's information to the Lot Line Adjustment. And I also did misspeak when I said deed instead of description.

With that said, the legals are written so that if you measure 1 line differently than what it record, then a gap would be created if the descriptions are read ver batum. There is not one description and the other with a less and except, nor does either description reference the dimension of the other so that no matter the measurements, both boundaries would close.

My question in bring up the exhibit made a part hereof and attached hereto, can that be used to prorate the dimensions in the legals so that no matter the measurements of the lines, the boundary closes. Could this be done since the parcels have been created by simultaneous conveyance?

In reference to 66412(d) of the SMA, "the lot line adjustment shall be reflected in a deed, which shall be recorded." The descriptions did not describe the property as Adjusted Parcel "A" and "B" and then go on to describe "also by metes and bounds". It simply stated the metes and bounds. I know what the intent of the LLA was, to create two contiguous parcels, but isn't the intent supposed to be expressly stated in the deed?

Thank you all for your input, I was just stumped how this should be approached.

If the accompanying plat shows no gap, then there can be no gap. The boundary locations will be controlled by any features shown on the plat relative to the boundary or by its dimensions, and as you surmised, provide a basis for proration.

Again, if the deed calls for a map, then the map is fully a part of the deed description as if it were printed right on the face of the deed. The SMA does not change the nature of a deed in any way. Since the LLA is a single ministerial act, the conveyances would be considered to be simultaneous. Hence, proration may be a valid method of distributing any discrepancies between record and measured data in a future survey.

But again, if the pre-LLA descriptions were making calls to any features in a controlling manner, those calls should remain in the post-LLA descriptions inasmuch as they would control the locations of the unaffected lines. That way, if read verbatim, then the dimensions, whatever they may be, would yield to those calls.

Well said, Evan. The LLA parcels are much like those of a parcel map, where proration could be applied.