California Surveyors Forums

And is a legal description contained within a certificate of compliance for a lot line adjustment a legal change to a legal description.

Example: Old 'ly part of description with 3 calls describes 3 adjoining lots. There is a preliminary unofficial survey performed that includes an appropriate basis of bearing. The unofficial preliminary survey is used to create a lot line adjustment of said lots that is approved with CoC recorded by local agency using preliminary survey data in the new metes and bounds descriptions, however the preliminary title report with the original 'ly descriptions was used in the processing of the adjustments.

Any comments would be appreciated> Thank You.

What????

A better explanation please.

If there is a PTR involved with the LLA, it will include the original descriptions because that's what existed at the outset of the LLA process. The final policy issued should be for the descriptions resulting from the LLA. The LLA is changing a line between the properties which are subject of the LLA. It can't affect the other lines common with properties not subject of the LLA. Further, the title company is not the authority determining what the boundaries are, but only state what they are insuring. Almost always, that coincides with the current record boundaries of the insured parcel, subject to matters which would be shown by a correct survey. A Preliminary Title Report will usually show the proposed boundaries of a project for which the report was issued, but not always. The PTR is not the policy, it is just what is contemplated as being covered by the policy.

If you are comparing a policy which post-dates the LLA, ensure that the LLA was completed. Are you looking at the recorded deeds which resulted from the LLA, or are you looking at the LLA submittal or approved application? You may have the approved application and all the paperwork that was submitted for it, but if the parties never completed the process by recording the deeds, the LLA has not yet taken place, it is still only an application. If that application has expired, the LLA is dead and the parties would have to re-apply and then record the deeds in order for the LLA to go into effect.

Addressing your description questions specifically: If the original descriptions are, for example, the northerly half of Lot 1, and the southerly half of Lot 1, the LLA is changing the line between these halves, and if the new descriptions are written as metes & bounds but includes calls such as "thence along the easterly line of Lot 1" and so on so that whatever the boundaries not changed by the LLA are still positively identified as to what they are as well as by dimension, there is no problem. If, on the other hand, those calls were neglected and are now described by dimension only, then the new descriptions are deficient and the County Surveyor should have caught that in his/her review.

Dropping of appropriate bounding calls will create confusion in the future when some cogo slave with a LS license comes along and finds a 0.3' gap or overlap between the new descriptions and neighboring lots. (This could tie back into the gaps thread that was active about 6 weeks ago) The diligent surveyor needs to view the descriptions in light of the circumstances surrounding the conveyance for which the description was created (the LLA in this case). In this case, the conveyance was the LLA, and the diligent surveyor will discover that the lines which may now only be described only by dimension per an "unofficial survey" (WTH is that! Unrecorded at any rate), were thought to be accurately describing the exterior lines of Lot 1, and will survey the parcels as if they are still described to the lines of Lot 1, but inform his client(s) of the deficiency in the descriptions and the potential problems they can cause, and will offer to work with the title company to correct the deeds to include proper calls which will control the dimensions.

Great response Evan - and very well put.

This reminds me of what an old surveyor once told me "never assume anything"

This would be perfect example of not doing your research - this small survey could bite you in the rear.

So from now on "I promise not to be a COGO slave"

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.... :-) to funny.

I too have had some interesting legal description issues. I just did an ALTA where the PTR and deed both had a Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Both were in metes and bounds. Each of the parcels originated from two separate adjoining Tracts. It looked initially like two separate legal parcels. However, at the end of the second description there was the sentence "Both parcels are also shown as Parcel "B" on PM1234.

As it turns out, this was the original legal description prior to the recordation of the PM.

A: Why in the world would someone use an old metes and bounds with a vague tag line referencing the recorded PM when all they needed to write was Parcel B of PM1234?

B: "Also shown as..." to me is kind of vague. It doesn't actually say that the PM is the official legal. It just said it is shown on the PM.

At any rate the situation was kind of funny. Since the legal had two parcels with completely different descriptions, both the owner and my client together approached me for a LLA. When I did the research and told them there was only one parcel they were all surprised. Even the city planning department second guessed me!