ALTA Question

[Robert Martin]

We have completed a multiple parcel ALTA Survey for an architect (our client). The current owner of the properties is the city. The potential buyer is the State of California. On the ALTA we show that part of a parcel (know as Parcel “H2â€￾) is being used as an alley. The state wants the alley portion of “H2â€￾ removed from the legal description shown on the ALTA, and the ALTA map updated to represent the “new lineâ€￾. I reply: “we can NOT show any parcels or boundary lines on an ALTA Survey that do not legally existâ€￾

Are we right in saying that?

I understand some surveyors are comfortable describing a portion of a legal parcel, with a disclaimer at the end of the legal stating “THIS DESCRIPTION DOES NOT REPRESENT A LEGAL PARCEL, AND THIS PARCEL MAY NOT COMPLY WITH STATE OR LOCAL SUBDIVISION ORDINANCESâ€￾

So what are your thoughts? Is it ok to describe parts of legal parcels (aka illegal parcels) on an ALTA, followed with the disclaimer above?

[Robert Martin]

Sorry for being so vague and "unclear". The city owns the entire parcel in fee. Only an 18' strip is being used as an alley, it is being used by adjacent owners.

The city owns several adjacent parcels. My first resolution was for the city to record a BLA with an adjacent parcel. Or under SMA 66426.5 the city could reserve the 18' strip for alley purposes, or possibly grant the 18' strip to the city (itself).

Several other options have been laid on the table, while the state maintains “all we need is the ALTA description written to a boundary line that does not yet existâ€￾.

My main concern here is showing a legal description on an ALTA of a line that is "proposed". In my opinion it is using an ALTA survey as a BLA exhibit. I don’t feel comfortable doing it, but I wanted others opinions.

[cals6406]

"
The request for an ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey shall set forth the current record description of the property to be surveyed or, in the case of an original survey, the current record description of the parent parcel that contains the property to be surveyed. "

[cals6406]

"The request for an ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey shall set forth the current record description of the property to be surveyed or, in the case of an original survey, the current record description of the parent parcel that contains the property to be surveyed."

[cals6406]

v. The remainder of any recorded lot or existing parcel, when the surveyed property is composed of only a portion of such lot or parcel, shall be graphically depicted. Such remainder does not need to be included as part of the actual survey, except to the extent necessary to locate the lines and corners of the surveyed property, and it need not be fully dimensioned or drawn at the same scale as the surveyed property.

[E_Page]

It sounds as if they want to see the conditions as they relate to the proposed boundary.

As the excerpt Keith posted implies, you can perform an ALTA on a proposed parcel. Label accordingly. You will also be showing the existing boundary of the parent parcel.

You should be provided with a Pro Forma Title Report for the proposed parcel. among the backup docs should be the current vesting deed of the parent parcel.

The ALTA of a proposed parcel based on a Pro Forma does not create a parcel. A proper subdivision map (PM) would still need to be filed if the purpose of the parcel does not fall under one of the exceptions to the SMA.

In the case of a sale to the State, it may be exempt anyway (I'm not an SMA expert, but could look it up given time). If it doesn't fall under an SMA exemption, just ensure that your client and client's attorney are made very aware of that fact. The ALTA map should also have a conspicuous note to that effect.

I'm not sure that I see the problem unless you are being asked to remove existing boundary lines within the survey project area from your drawing.

[Anthony Maffia]

[Paul Goebel]

The ALTA/ACSM standards do not mention "proposed" parcels. The fact that the standards discuss showing a portion of a parcel in section 6B is not relevant here.

An ALTA/ACSM survey is a boundary survey and you need to show the parcels in their current record configuration.

There is nothing to prevent you from showing a "proposed" line in addition to the existing property lines. Just make sure the existing parcels are clearly shown as usual, and the proposed line is clearly distinguishable and labeled "proposed line per..." or some such note. I would not agree to remove any existing parcel lines.

The minimum standard detail requirements for ALTA/ACSM land title surveys are just that; Minimum standards. You must show what is required (like existing property lines) but you are not prevented from adding other details per Table A, item 22. Remember, you are certifying the additional details, so the risk must be considered.

[Robert Martin]

...There is nothing to prevent you from showing a "proposed" line in addition to the existing property lines...

Thanks for the input so far. But my main concern is NOT mapping but the legal description.

We are asked to decribe part of the legal parcel on the ALTA. Per Section 6.B.i I feel the legal description on the face of the ALTA needs to be the entire legal parcel.

[E_Page]

The description needs to be whatever is reflected in the title report that the survey is based upon. If that is not a currently existing legal parcel, that should be clearly indicated.

Again, the survey can be based upon a pro forma title report. An ALTA/ACSM LTS cannot be used to create a parcel, so you are not circumventing the SMA. You would be indicating any proposed lines as such, so you are not misrepresenting the data.

The only problem that I'm not still clear on is whether you are being asked only to add proposed parcel lines, or if you are being asked to omit currently existing parcel lines. Showing proposed lines is not misrepresentative of any facts. Omitting existing lines is.

[Robert Martin]

...The only problem that I'm not still clear on is whether you are being asked only to add proposed parcel lines, or if you are being asked to omit currently existing parcel lines. Showing proposed lines is not misrepresentative of any facts. Omitting existing lines is.

We are being asked to show a proposed line on the map. AND write the legal description to the proposed line, therefore omitting a portion of the existing parcel from the legal description.

Omitting a portion of the existing parcel from the legal description is where I feel uncomfortable.

[Anthony Maffia]

I suspect the legal you write will be used for a pro forma, and for the eventual purchase by the state. I'd contact whoever is calling the shots.

Also, if the ALTA was lump sum fee, then this'd be extra work in my book.

[E_Page]

What Anthony said. You don't issue the survey based upon the description you write until there is a pro forma issued based on the description.

You would still show the existing lines as well as the proposed and label accordingly. But I see no problem in writing the description as long as the parties to the transaction are aware of any requirement to conform to the SMA.

If you don't write the description, some attorney will have his paralegal do it and make a mess of it. And then they will hire some out of state ALTA mill to draw a half baked survey drawing that they will base mostly on what they copy from whatever prelim drawing you might have issued, and that surveyor won't advise them about any need to comply with the SMA.

Like Anthony said, contact whoever is driving the deal. Find out what iti is they are wanting to accomplish and then help them get there within the bounds of the law and without making any misrepresentations. Work closely with the title company along the way.