Two Original Pipes, One Fence, and a Lender's Deadline
In 1938 a 22-lot subdivision was platted and monumented with 3/4-inch iron pipes at every lot corner. You are retracing Lot 14 for a buyer's lender. At the northwest corner you recover a pipe whose cap matches the 1938 plat and you accept it as original. The record north line runs N 88°12′ E, 412.66 ft to the northeast corner. The pipe you find at the northeast corner lies 411.84 ft away on a bearing of N 87°55′ E. A fence built about 1952 runs from a point 3.1 ft north of the northwest pipe eastward, roughly parallel to the found line, and the neighbor has mowed and maintained ground up to that fence for 40 years. On the west line, occupation follows the pipes exactly. The plat area is 1.02 acres; the figure enclosed through the two pipes computes to 1.00 acre. Closing is in nine days and the lender is pressing for a map.
1. Which line should your map show as the north boundary of Lot 14, and why? Address the pipe, the record bearing and distance, the fence, and the area.
Read the worked answer
Boundary evidence is ranked, not averaged. Original monuments set by the subdivider when the plat was made are the best evidence of the corners that existed at the time of the conveyance. Courses and distances are subordinate, and area is the weakest of all calls, because it is a computed quantity that merely describes the figure created by the monuments.
Both pipes are original and mutually consistent: 411.84 ft against a record 412.66 ft is a 0.82 ft difference, about 1 part in 503, and the bearing differs by 17 minutes. The area difference of 0.02 acre is what you would expect from that small a shift. Nothing suggests either pipe has been moved, and the lots on the west line are occupied to the pipes.
Therefore the boundary is the pipe-to-pipe line, and the record bearing and distance yield to it.
The 1952 fence lies 3.1 ft north, long after the plat, and is occupation evidence, not a monument of the original survey. It may support a claim of boundary by acquiescence or adverse possession, but that is a question of title for a court or attorney, not a decision for the surveyor. Show the fence as occupation and note the discrepancy; do not move the boundary to it.
2. The closing officer asks you to show the boundary at the record bearing and distance because the title policy uses those numbers. How do you respond, and what appears on the face of the map?
Read the worked answer
Refuse the substitution, in writing, and explain why it is not a cosmetic choice. The title policy describes the recorded lot; your job is to locate that description on the ground. Because the description calls for monuments, the monuments control, and a map drawn at the record bearing and distance would misstate where the boundary actually is by nearly a foot at the north corners.
On the map, show the pipe-to-pipe line as the boundary. Show the record line as a dashed line labeled record line per plat, with a note giving both the record call (N 88°12′ E, 412.66 ft) and the measured call (N 87°55′ E, 411.84 ft), plus the difference and the basis for accepting the pipes as original. Show the fence as occupation and note its 3.1 ft offset and apparent age.
Prepare a short surveyor's report with the evidence found, the reasoning, and the residual uncertainty. Tell the lender and, if they are relying on your map, the title company, in writing. A survey endorsement can be issued on the strength of that report. What you cannot do is draw a boundary you know to be wrong in order to match a policy schedule.
3. Suppose the northeast corner had been a 1/2-inch rebar with no cap, set 0.3 ft from a fence corner. How would that change your analysis?
Read the worked answer
An uncapped rebar is not self-proving, so it must be weighed rather than accepted or rejected. The analysis would become an evidentiary question: is that rebar the original corner, a later monument set by another surveyor, or a piece of fence hardware?
Factors to examine: corrosion and age; whether it sits exactly at a fence post or brace, which suggests it is not a boundary monument; whether it matches the record distance from the accepted northwest pipe and from any other original corner; whether other original pipes exist on the block so the corner can be checked by more than one tie; and whether any prior survey or record document mentions it.
If it is not accepted, the northeast corner must be restored from the best available evidence, typically by proportioning the record distance between the accepted northwest pipe and the next accepted corner, and by reference to the plat. The uncapped rebar would still be shown on the map with a symbol and a note explaining why it was not held.
If it is the only evidence at that corner and nothing contradicts it, hold it and state the uncertainty. The difference from the first scenario is that the pipe required no judgment; the rebar requires a documented, reasoned decision.