ALTA survey on a portion of a parcel?

Paul Goebel · Post by **Paul Goebel** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:12 am

I am being asked to perform an ALTA survey on two non-contiguous portions of a parcel that is owned by a public agency. These portions will be conveyed to another agency as part of an exchange in the future by means of exchange of grant deeds.

Could an ALTA survey show only portions of a parcel? What about the â€œproposedâ€ lines?

Peter Ehlert · Post by **Peter Ehlert** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:33 am

Not a problem Paul
you are determining lines of record, lines of occupation, and physical encumbrances...

personally, I make a note on the ALTA to the effect that "these may not be legal parcels, conveyance may be a violation of the SMA"

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:05 pm

Conveyance to and from a public agency via deed only is an excemption to the SMA.
I would assume Agency to Agency would be within the spirit of the SMA, but a record of survey is required, under the scenario you describe.

Paul Goebel · Post by **Paul Goebel** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:28 pm

We plan to file an ROS here. Could I show both of the non-contiguous parcels on one ALTA map? They are situated near each other.

Peter Ehlert · Post by **Peter Ehlert** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:49 pm

Paul: sure, it just a drafting issue but your client may wish two ALTAs for two separate conveyances... ask them, they may not have thought of it.

Dane: I don't see a trigger for the RoS... what do you see?

RAM · Post by **RAM** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:59 pm

I am not much of an ALTA guy but, Will the lender accept both on one map?

Paul Goebel · Post by **Paul Goebel** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:30 pm

I don't think I mentioned any ROS triggers before, but the client wishes to have monuments set, and the parcel was created by a deed. Therefore, the ROS.

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:13 pm

Peter-
Deed lines are the trigger. Establishing deed lines that do not appear on a previous record of survey or ......
It is not the setting of monuments that trigger the ROS. The establishment occurrs after you make a survey and you arrive at an opinion as to the location of the deed lines in relation to other boundary evidence and then you make a representation to your client in the form of an ALTA or soome other mapping product.

Ian Wilson · Post by **Ian Wilson** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:55 pm

There isn’t a lender. The OP stated that it was an inter-agency transfer of land.

I’ve just had this same conversation in the office here. Is that Rod Serling over there smoking a cigarette?

The ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey is primarily for a lender or a title insurer and is a survey that graphically depicts boundary and title issues. From the lender’s stand point, the ALTA (ay-el-tee-ay NOT Alta as in the ski resort in Utah…pet peeve) survey is their assurance that what they are lending on really exists and has the POTENTIAL title defects depicted by the surveyor. For the title insurer, it is a listing of potential defects that may or may not be significant enough to insure around or over or exclude. It the equivalent of an art expert working for the buyer, and their insurance company, authenticating a painting as being a real Van Gogh before money changes hands.

The purpose for the standards is that standards of practice and laws governing surveys vary all over the country (and even within the same state). The ALTA and the ACSM got together in the ‘60’s to define the minimum standards for a survey that could be ordered by any lender, owner, title company or interested individual anywhere in the WORLD regarding any piece of property anywhere in the United States and get a survey product that met certain minimum requirements for lenders and title insurers to feel comfortable (or not) with the CONDITION of TITLE relative to the boundary for the property in question.

It is nicknamed the “Cadillac of Surveys” simply because the minimum standards for ALTA surveys far exceed the standards of practice in many areas.

There really is no mystery about ALTAs. They really do not add more liability to the surveyor than any other type of boundary survey in which the person ordering the survey asks for all easements and title discrepancies to be plotted.

The difference between an ALTA and a run-of-the-mill boundary survey is that the title company can use the ALTA to exclude insurance coverage of any defects or potential defects uncovered by the survey. (As opposed to that wonderful statement “This policy excludes any items that would have been disclosed by a proper survey.”) Of course, the lender/buyer can always negotiate premium to cover the risk. The point is, though, the parties are put on notice that there may be defects. The parties get to decide if they are willing to live with the defects or if they are a “deal breaker”.

OK, I’ll admit that there are a few items that are a complete mystery as to why they are included in the Table “A” list. Zoning information and other NON-SURVEY information more clearly associated with non-survey title issues and legal matters spring to mind. (Gary K – Are you picking up on this?)

So, if I order an ALTA survey on my property in Temecula and my property in San Diego because I’m refinancing both and my lender wants an ALTA, why can’t they both be shown on the same document? Who says they have to be separate ALTA surveys? Who says I have to price it as if I’m doing only one? Who cares if the survey of one parcel triggers a Record of Survey while the other does not? The ALTA is NOT the Record of Survey or vice versa.

On the other hand, what’s the problem with my lender, or me ordering a policy which covers ONLY the line between my nut-job neighbor to the southeast? My neighbor to the northwest and I have an existing written agreement that covers any encroachments or defects. There are no issues there. The front property line is the right-of-way of the street…no problems there! The rear is open space easement with a 2’ wide easement on my side of the line for the HOA to maintain the fence. No issues there, either. I’m not worried about any of the lines but the one, thank you. I’ll take a one line ALTA to go, please. Even the PLS Act admits that a Record of Survey need not be filed on an ENTIRE boundary. (See the last line of §8764 for that proof.)

As far as the Record of Survey trigger issue: I’d hazard that there are hundreds of subdivisions of parcel that have been created by government and quasi-government agencies over the years in California. Think of all the water districts that have split a farmers south 40 to build a ponding basin or groundwater recharge basin. Many of them were just done with a deed, even if the agency had to go through condemnation! Unless there was a boundary survey to mark the new line in any fashion (toe-scratch in the sand to 2” iron pipes with 3” custom founded bras disks – they’re all MONUMENTS and the line is still ESTABLISHED), there really is no trigger for a Record of Survey. (Although I used to invoke §8762(a) as well as §8762(b)(4) AND (5) and insist that if I did the work, we set monuments to protect both parties and filed a Record of survey for posterity.)

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:08 pm

Ask Ric Moore for his opinion if an RS is required.

Caltrans used to file in lieu of maps, I do not think this option is available to the private surveyor. I think Caltrans ismfiling alot more these days

I believe there is a 1998 opinon letter from the board state that if the conditions trigger an RS it would be required in addition to the ALTA survey. I think there was a recent letter from NORTHSTAR asking the board the same question

Paul Goebel · Post by **Paul Goebel** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:29 pm

Right, there is no lender here. Just two agencies exercising an abundance of caution. Has anyone seen two separate parcels on one ALTA survey? I think the RoS is a good bet even if no monuments were set, since the lines were created by many deeds, and are to be shown on the plat.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:35 am

"Has anyone seen two separate parcels on one ALTA survey?"

Yes. I have seen to legally separate, although contiguous parcels on one ALTA survey. Although your parcels are not contiguous, the principle is the same. You are basing your ALTA upon what is contained in the PTR. If both parcels are described within the PTR, there is no problem showing them both one one ALTA. You simply show, distinctly, the limits of each and make the appropriate deed references.

Paul Goebel · Post by **Paul Goebel** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:51 am

Thanks for all the answers. This helps a great deal.

Ben Lund · Post by **Ben Lund** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:57 am

From Ian: “The difference between an ALTA and a run-of-the-mill boundary survey is that the title company can use the ALTA to exclude insurance coverage of any defects or potential defects uncovered by the survey. (As opposed to that wonderful statement ‘This policy excludes any items that would have been disclosed by a proper survey.’)”

After the ALTA is done, does the title company cite the ALTA and change the exclusion language to read, “This policy excludes any items not disclosed by the ALTA by XXX dated XXX.”? Does the ALTA then become part of the exclusions?

I know this is off subject, but I have heard ALTA pronounced both ways (ay-el-tee-ay and Alta as in the ski resort in Utah) just like I've heard SWMP pronounced SWAMP and SCSI pronounced SKUZY. However, I have not heard CIA pronounced SIA or FBI pronounced FIBI. What is the industry standard?

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:05 am

Ben exactly correct. The ALTA/ACSM land title survey after completed and accepted by the title insurance company will be referenced in the list of exceptions. This listing sometimes will be a general reference and sometimes it will reference the survey and specific items that appear on the survey.

Think of ALTA as the spanish word for high and some folks say each letter.
The prefered reference ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey is just to many words.

Ian Wilson · Post by **Ian Wilson** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:27 pm

ALTA, as in ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey", stands for the American Land Title Association. ACSM stands for American Congress on Surveying and Mapping.

I don't belive I've ever heard the Congress referred to as the Ask-em. It's is alwasy AY-CEE-ES-EM.

There is also a California Land Title Association, CLTA. I don't remember anyone ever saying "Clata", other than the alien from the original "Day the Earth Stood Still" in the imortal line "Klaatu barada nikto", but that was for an entirely differnet reason.

And, yes, Ben, if the title insurer prepares another update after the ALTA survey, they will usually refer to the ALTA and except anything not shown thereon. The ALTA survey becomes part of the exceptions.

goodgps · Post by **goodgps** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:10 pm

It seems like the O.P. poses the question "if its ok to show an ALTA on only a portion of a parcel." later I read that there are legals for these portion parcels. Sooo, I think there is no issue about the "portion" because, as stated, it is PA to PA and therefor excempt.

I agree totally on the (how to ) for placement of the drafting on one or more sheets.

I've seen this solved with a three sheet assembly. The Title sheet with notes including exceptions and appurtenances, with a reference as to which parcel such applies. A key map indicated which additional sheet the particular subject parcel is drafted upon.
The end user, applies what he or she is concerned with.

I prefer a much cleaner solution simply to create two separate map pkgs to avoid confusion.
This sounds like a progressive project with documents being recorded as you are working.

I once discovered a brand new building had been built following the original survey, but prior to the ALTA being complete. AND THE DANG THING ENCROACHED !!. best to do a quick drive-by just before delivery.

GOOD luck

Jim Frame · Post by **Jim Frame** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:15 pm

"I have underlined the pertinent sections that would not allow us to do a 'partial' ALTA survey."

Under the circumstances described by Paul Goebel, I don't see any impediment to providing an ALTA for the properties in question. "Record" in this case would refer to the descriptions of the proposed new parcels and/or the description of the parent parcel.

The Record of Survey situation is interesting. A ROS will be required if resolution of the parent parcel boundary discloses material discrepancy or material change. However, Â§8762(b)(5), which refers to deed lines not shown on a filed map, only applies to recorded title documents. Unless the deeds record prior to completion of the ALTA, the proposed parcel lines shown on the ALTA are just that -- proposed. Monuments set at the corners of the proposed boundaries would have no effect upon any title interest prior to recordation of the deeds. While it would be prudent to arrange for a ROS to be filed at the appropriate time, a ROS showing the new parcels not only isn't required prior to recordation of deeds, it isn't even allowed.

goodgps · Post by **goodgps** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 3:17 pm

But Jim,

I've seen resords of survey filed on randomly placed fencelines and also to monument paths of travel.

I do agree these "surveys" only lay testament to the feature they measure.
I also agree that unless these ROS's refer to parcels created dy description, they are really pointless.

In this particular case, It seems Paul has a nice little project going and can provide his client with a great service.

Still, I have never heard of a Record of Survey NOT being allowed ??

"good"

Jim Frame · Post by **Jim Frame** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:29 pm

"I have never heard of a Record of Survey NOT being allowed"

I'm referring to §8762.5:

"No record of survey of land...which shows a division of such land into additional parcels, shall be filed with the county surveyor or with the county recorder, unless there is attached thereto a certificate...of compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act..."

.

Paul Goebel · Post by **Paul Goebel** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:47 pm

Dave,

After looking at your markup of the 2005 minimum standards, It looks like paragraph #1 has a provision for original surveys: “Complete copies of the record description of the property (or, in the case of an original survey, the parent parcel)….”

I suppose this was meant to refer to a parcel map, but I don’t see why it would not apply here.

I can see that an ROS would need to be filed after the deeds are recorded in order to avoid the appearance of trying to create parcels with it.

goodgps · Post by **goodgps** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:17 pm

Ok Jim,
Not to get too far off poor ole' Pauls post,
I understand what you mean. This indication is for NEW parcels.
Betwixted the Nyquil and actifed, I was thinking "no record of survey was allowed" unless it were an attempt to define a record document.

"Cody Munoz"