California Surveyors Forums

Last week I completed an ALTA survey on a commercial parcel per a prelim from a major (very major) title company. In keeping with the ALTA specs and my contract, I emailed a digitally-signed PDF of the survey to my client and to the title officer listed on the prelim. I received a one-line response email from the title officer:

Is there something that I need to do with the survey?

Once upon a time a title officer was someone with an intimate knowledge of title matters within his/her (mostly his) area of operations, typically a county in my part of the world. They had access to internal maps and documents that tracked all recorded (and some unrecorded) title changes, and could quickly review title status and the effect upon same of assorted transactions. They would review an ALTA survey and revise the list of title exceptions on the parcel accordingly, or advise their client to remedy title problems disclosed by the survey. Now, apparently, a title officer sees an ALTA and thinks, "WTF am I supposed to do with this?"

I was sorely tempted to send a snarky reply reflecting my level of incredulity, but resisted the temptation. Instead, I explained that the survey is intended to assist her (it was a her in this case, but I have no doubt that there are some equally clueless male TOs out there these days) in determining insurance risk, that it's a snapshot of what's on the property in relation to the boundary and the listed exceptions. That seemed to satisfy her.

I only wish that I was as satisfied with the quality of title company work products nowadays. It's a sad state of affairs.

Indeed.

Back in the 70s and 80s there was a title company in town that allowed me to drop in whenever I needed to do some research. I was granted unchaperoned access to their ARB books and ARB maps that contained a wealth of information useful to a surveyor. Title officers traded expertise with me and we would discuss particular issues relating to my PIQ (parcel in question).

But even more useful was guy that worked in the back room at a large, slanting drafting table. His job? Review each and every new deed recorded, each new Parcel Map, Tract Map and Record of Survey then plot any new information on a large (3' square) in-house map. The map was chock full of notes. One time he let me look at the relevant ARB map and I noticed a hand-written note next to a section corner. He explained that a month previous he had discovered an inconsistency between deed descriptions that made him worry something was amiss. So he drove over to the County Surveyor's Office and confirmed that there was a problem with the section corner. Back at his drafting table he placed a warning note to any future TO doing work in the area that the west line of the section was in doubt and to be sure and make an exception in any title report to that effect.

This problem was found because he had reviewed a new Record of Survey and thought about its title implications. In just a couple of hours he had protected his company because he understood how to examine a RofS and spot any red flags. They cared.

For younger surveyors who missed out on this era of diligent, competent title work, let me explain a little further. The ARB maps were called that because they showed an "arbitrary" portion of the county...maybe a quarter of a section, or an old tract map. There was a numbering system where each existing parcel shown on the map was given a special number that referenced an ARB book. There were rows and rows of ARB books. Go to the right book and there were reduced-size copies of every deed pertaining to that old lot in chronological order. Newest deed on top. As you'd flip down through the deeds the book also contained copies of any easements pertaining to the PIQ. At the bottom was the creation deed. Go to the next ARB book and I could find the creation deed for each adjoiner parcel (along with their easements).

In less than an hour I could perform my own chain-of-title research on my parcel and determine junior/senior rights with the adjoiners. Let that sink in.

In the 90s they fired their drafter. Then they moved all the ARB books and maps to a regional office. They disallowed anyone to do any research in their office. They stopped reviewing RofS maps. No more trips to the County Surveyor's Office. No more collaboration with surveyors and engineers. They stopped caring.

A lot of the work these days is done in India. Yup, India!

Yeah things have really declined in the title industry. I've found a fair amount of errors in deeds, title reports that shouldn't have been missed.

I'm surprised when I come across a title officer that is totally apathetic when there is an issue. I did a survey on the coast and the legal in the title incorrectly excepted out a 5' alley along one side instead of it being a 5' sewer easement. The report therefore implied by clients lot was 45' wide instead of being 50' wide. This error is obvious since the entire subdivision has no alleys and the sewer authority never took fee parcels for their lines. I couldn't get title to do anything to investigate this and I had to go research at the county courthouse to get the judgement. They didn't care to do any amendment to the title report once I presented them with the info.

Time to start writing the Insurance Commissioner of these problems.

Stay safe . . .

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

We have one company here that is so bad that I was recently involved in an email correspondence where a planner had to explain to a TO what a chain of title was, and why we needed it to determine lot legality. I shit you not. Really sad

Facts about the title insurance industry:

Five title companies hold 90% of the market. Fidelity (29%), First American (27%), Land America (18%), Stewart (11%), Old Republic (6%) with the balance belonging to “others” (8%). There is a lack of competition. Although they share market space, they have carved up the states like the five families carved out New York. For example, First American has California, Fidelity has Florida, Old Republic has Texas and so on.

Iowa does not have private title insurance. The state insures the property.

The title companies found that having expensive land title “engineers” did not change their liability bottom line – how could it when the financial breakdown of every dollar is 70% paid to or retained by the agents, 25% “other” expenses i.e. salaries, rent, equipment etc., and 5% loss/loss adjustment. Restated, a title company only pays out $0.05 of every dollar they take in to claims. In comparison, casualty insurance, such as automobile insurance, pays out approximately 75% in loss/loss adjustment. Health insurance, by law, pays out 85% or so in loss/loss adjustment. A low paid worker performing GIS level inquiries to generate a preliminary title search does not negatively effect the loss/loss adjustment. Why pay a professional title person a six figure salary for quality information if there is no financial benefit [or so the logic goes]?

The literate land surveyors could learn from this title insurance business model. Essentially, as a land surveyor, like the title engineer of yesteryear, is quite expendable in the marketplace. Why would anyone pay for professional land surveyor when Google Earth contours are available? Or a contractor can dispatch the same personnel from Local 3 or 12 to perform the construction staking (and send them back to the hall when they are done)? Or a free digital GIS boundary is no different than a “record” boundary provided by a licensee? Or, as I witnessed at last weekend in the CLSA Directors’ meeting, some land surveyors actually fight the idea of having to actually perform land surveying – apparently, there is a market for down and dirty coordinate work. The problem with down and dirty is the unlicensed folks can and will continue to take away the market share. Why worry about deregulation of the profession when land surveyors choose not to regulate themselves to retain the professional classification? I am talking about discussion of accuracy statements and easements established in the field requiring a record of survey in this instance.

Back to the title insurance industry, those of us old enough enjoyed the golden era of the title insurance industry. Now the work is essentially off-shored and the work product of that time will not return. Insiders pro tip, land surveyors should be able to perform their own chain of title for most boundary work. There are only a few instances in which the work cannot be completed in a few hours. It is relatively easy and will mitigate individual liability for negligence.

DWoolley

There are only a few instances in which the work cannot be completed in a few hours.

My problem is that after about half an hour of reading through microfilmed grantor/grantee indices, especially the handwritten ones, I fall asleep. I have literally nodded off -- just for a moment -- sitting at the microfilm reader in the Recorder's office. It's torture for me to try to stay awake doing that, and I don't know how title searchers do it all day every day.

Good subject. My own experiences haven’t been as bad as some of those described, but do reveal the same trend. Title Co. work and level of care vary greatly and depend on the officer or underwriter in charge. More encumbrances being missed, incorrect legal getting recorded, difficulty communicating, etc.

The result being that with increasing frequency, like it or not, the surveyor finds that they are the one in the room with the most comprehensive knowledge of the title/boundary/legal issue/factset. Also, that they are the one who ‘cares’ the most about getting the correct answer to whatever issue us at hand. The Title Co. can except their way around it, the attorney can decide it won’t be a problem, but the surveyor needs to deliver a professional opinion on WHAT ACTUALLY IS.

Therefore, I believe surveyors should actively seek to occupy this space to the greatest degree possible, and provide value to our clients and the public as the ‘land experts’. Instead of looking to defer to the Title Co. as the experts in the room, we should look to develop and provide expertise in these areas being vacated by them. Also, we should look to the future and plan for managing this situation and ensuring we can still do our work responsibly with the decreasing assistance from Title Co.’s. Any ideas on how CLSA could promote this effort???

Regarding the required accuracy statement proposal discussed and largely opposed at the last BOD meeting - I see the arguments “for” being: decreased boundary disputes over minor measurement differences, elevation of the practice by providing a more complete product, protection of the practice by separating us from those not allowed to apply accuracy statements (unlicensed folks). I see arguments “against” being: possible questions of ‘whose boundary survey is more correct’ based on accuracy statements rather than actual resolutions, failure to eliminate boundary disputes over minor measurement differences because folks won’t “change their measurements”, proliferation of boilerplate or poorly written accuracy statements, elimination of professional discretion as to when one is required. As I write these arguments against some strike me as cynical in nature... hmm.

Trying to zoom out here, I too believe we need to do whatever we can to learn from the Title Co.’s example. Cultivate our expertise, preserve and pass along expert local knowledge of older surveyors, occupy the space of ‘land expert’, create value, expand our title research capabilities, speak up when poor title work is encountered, Increase our collective knowledge of legal and title realms, and elevate our practice. If you think this includes accuracy statements, why? If you don’t, why not, and what do we have to lose by requiring them?

I also have had bad experiences with Title Officers over the past 15-20 years. I have had to point out ommisions or reported encumberances, not applicable to them many times. They just simply add it to the title report, like it was nothing, and call it good. In my neck of the woods, Sacramento, I have always liked Placer Title. Not the biggest, but, have always been very good.

Now there's a concept, recommend local title companies, or better yet refuse to use the large companies reports. I always use the local title company and they always let me have full access to all of their records and maps, which are way more organized than the counties. Guess it's still the golden years if you go to the little guys.

Guess it's still the golden years if you go to the little guys.

In my area there are no little guys left -- they all got bought out by the big boys.

Microsoft
Home Depot
Walmart