Benchmark on final map???

[pls7809]

Opinions please...a title company engineer (not sure if they are really an engineer, or if it's just a title) in their review of a final map for a subdivision guarantee is requiring the benchmark for the project be shown on the final map. This is a one lot condominium final map in a city in LA County that I review maps for. There are no other vertical elements on the final map (isometric view, 3D easements, etc.). Everything 3D will be done on the condo plans. The title company says they want the BM shown so that on the condo plans, they can refer to the final map for the benchmark. I say that they should refer to the original source for the benchmark info on the condo plans and keep 3d off the final map completely.

[Brian Christensen]

Where is this guy coming from? The condo plan should refer to a specific vertical reference mark with a published elevation. The vertical component of the units, etc. should be left completely up to the condo plan and completely ignored on the final map. I'm sure someone will disagree.
Good luck!

[goodgps]

Benchmarks are often required for condo plans. this is not an unusual request nor is it out of line. A title company is insuring title of a condo that is "above ground" it should be also be noted if the condo project is in or out of a flood plain.

a little note as to the official benchmark, and its datum . . . as well as the FEMA panel and flood status, isnt really too much to ask.

I know I will get blasted by the puritans on this, but that is what I do. Still have a license and still have a company (somewhat)

PS. . . surely you used a standard benchmark when measuring the Condos. . .


"Good" (for nuthin I suppose)

[Brian Christensen]

Does the Title Co. have any record title iterest in the parcel being condoed up?

[pls7809]

Brian: No record title interest for the title company.

Good: Agree to disagree here. I'm holding firm. If there's no vertical element on the map then there's no reason for the BM. I'm signing and sealing as acting city surveyor. The final map is not the condo plan. The final map shows the 2d boundary of the parcel the condo conversion lies within. The condo plan is a separate document and is the only doc to show the 3d elements of the subdivision.

[Jim Frame]

Title companies, condos and vertical control are a bad combination, in my opinion.

Personally, I think that benchmark references on condo plans are a matter of "see no evil, hear no evil..." The condo documents have all sorts of dimensions on them, but in every instance in which I've been involved there's overriding language qualifying the unit boundaries to the as-built condition of the building, regardless of what the plan dimensions say.

It's the same thing with benchmarks. If the building is built with the first floor at 101 feet, the second floor at 110 feet, and the third floor at 119 feet, what is the effect of a plan that specifies the bottom elevation of Unit 1 at 100 feet, the bottom elevation of Unit 2 at 109 feet, and the bottom elevation of Unit 3 at 118 feet? In case of a dispute, no court in the world is going to suggest that the owner of Unit 3 owns the top foot of Unit 2's living room.

And what about subsiding areas? In my home town we're dropping by about 1 cm per year. What good is a condo plan referenced to a datum benchmark under those conditions? The fact that the benchmark will likely settle at the same rate as the building only means that the building finished floor is as good a vertical reference as the benchmark.

I'm an advocate of referencing the 3D plan to relative vertical dimensions between units, and have done so in the past. However, on the last condo plan I did a senior underwriter with the title company insisted that a datum benchmark be used, even though he had no idea of what the various datum choices meant. He went on to lecture me on the necessity of a benchmark, stating that it was required in order to effect marketability of title. He finished up by reiterating the fact that construction deviations, subsidence and the assortment of datum realizations available would be taken care of by the as-built language.

I think he'd never seen a condo plan that didn't reference a datum benchmark before, and was afraid to deviate from the "way we've always done it."

.

[subman]

I sign as Deputy County Surveyor and City Surveyor for LA County and about 44 of the 88 cities in the County. This is the first time I have heard of such a request by the title company. I have seen a few cities include in their tentative map conditions of approval (COA) a requirement to tie the boundary establishment into a City GPS monument with a bearing and distance from one of the accepted or set monuments. In theory, the GPS Monument has an elevation component.

Unless the local agency had an ordinance enacting Section 66434.2 of the SMA (see below) that called for identifying the location of the closest survey benchmark on the final map, or a COA requiring it, I would tell the person from the title company that there was no authority for me to require the owner or subdivider to provide this information.

On the other hand, it is common for a map to show a vertical distance for the location of a boundary monument set on top of a block wall. I don't know that I would have any objection if the surveyor stated in their monument note, the following:

Set L, T & Tag, LS 8539, in top of block wall at Elevation 1234.25, approximately 5 ft above adjacent grade. Then included in the record data note: All elevations shown hereon are based on BM ABC located at the BC of the curb return; NW corner of the intersection of Apple & Green Streets. Again, I would not demand the surveyor/subdivider provide information in this manner, but if it got everybody on the same page, I would probably go along with it.



66434.2. Additional Information shall be Filed or Recorded Simultaneously with a Final or Parcel
Map if Required by Local Ordinance
(a) On or after January 1, 1987, a city or county may, by ordinance, require additional information to be filed or recorded
simultaneously with a final or parcel map. The additional information shall be in the form of a separate document or an
additional map sheet which shall indicate its relationship to the final or parcel map, and shall contain a statement that the
additional information is for informational purposes, describing conditions as of the date of filing, and is not intended to
affect record title interest. The document or additional map sheet may also contain a notation that the additional information
is derived from public records or reports, and does not imply the correctness or sufficiency of those records or reports by the
preparer of the document or additional map sheet.
(b) Additional survey and map information may include, but need not be limited to: building setback lines, flood hazard
zones, seismic lines and setbacks, geologic mapping, and archaeological sites.

[E_Page]

It seems that the "Engineer" is operating outside of his area of competence.

The BM will be on the condo plans. It is entirely inappropriate that it be shown or listed on the FM.

[PLS7393]

I have to agree with Evan on this 100%.

A short, to the point response to the title company should sufice.

[Ian Wilson]

In his post, Good never mentioned the PM. He posted about the Condo Plan. That's where the benchmark should be.

Jim hit the nail on the head in that there is overriding language that defines the space as the physical space and not the mapped or described space.

If the benchmark is very near or IN the condo building, the subsidence should not matter, though.

Ryan: look at this as an opportunity to educate!

.

[goodgps]

OOPS
Sorry,
Ian is correct, I am so tired that I failed to see FINAL map in the original question.

so in effect we all agree. A benchmark can be shown on a CONDO plan as an elevation reference ( usually in a flood plane area )
No such benchmark need be shown on the final map. This map is for horizontal plane only. The final map will refer to the condo plans. that is all the title company needs and is probably what the title "engineer" is really trying to ask for . . . but doesnt have his story straight.

time for new glasses 8^)

[Propst]

Up in L.A. County they do a number of "3-D" Parcel Maps and "3-D" Tract Maps, and in those cases the BM must be stated on the Map.
Maps for Condo purposes, at least those I have been associated with, never have had a BM referenced on the Map.
I think the Title Engineer said "Gee, they show a BM on these maps ("3-D" Tract Map) why not show it on this map (for condo purposes)".
While the BM is required on the 3-D maps it it superfluous on the Condo Tract map.
The only different note that I have seen required by L.A. on maps for condo purposes is the Statement as to how many Units are allowed per the Map Conditions.

[land butcher]

In normal condo plans, the "air space" ownership is dictated by the architect plans ie distance from floor to ceiling. A BM is immaterial. And in some areas where the nearest BM is miles away what good is it.
In a 3D situation where a building overhangs a "disconnected" structure (building or street) then the BM is needed as a street can be rebuilt at a higher or lower elev without the overhang being involved so a TC to FF difference will not hold forever.
I don't have much faith title co expertise any more. 25 years ago they actually had knowledgeable staff, not anymore.