Monument vs. Deed Distance in a DC Square
You are retracing Lot 12 in Square 0837 in Northwest Washington, DC, for a sale closing. The 1923 deed calls for a lot 50.0 ft wide and 100.0 ft deep, beginning at a granite bound at the northwest corner, thence south 100.0 ft, east 80.0 ft, north 100.0 ft, and west 80.0 ft. The granite bound is found in place and matches the recorded plat. An old 1-inch iron pipe is found at the southeast corner, but it lies 1.2 ft west of the position computed from the deed's 80.0 ft east line. The east line measured between the granite bound and the pipe is 78.8 ft. A fence along the east side is 0.8 ft east of the pipe and has been maintained by the adjoining owner for 18 years. Your survey of the adjoining lot shows the same pipe as its west corner. The client wants the new plat to show the fence as the boundary so the sale can close next week. The adjoining owner has not signed a boundary line agreement.
1. Which evidence controls the location of the east boundary-the deed distance, the iron pipe, or the fence? Explain how you would resolve the conflict and what you would show on the plat.
Read the worked answer
Start with the hierarchy of boundary evidence: natural monuments, artificial monuments, courses and distances, then area. The granite bound at the northwest corner is an original monument that matches the plat, so it is accepted. The iron pipe at the southeast corner is an artificial monument and is corroborated by the adjoining lot's survey, which treats the same pipe as its west corner. Even though the deed does not call for a monument at that corner, the pipe is strong evidence of the original survey if its age, type, and position are consistent with the 1923 plat. A deed distance of 80.0 ft yields a position 1.2 ft east of the pipe; that is a large discrepancy for a city lot. Before rejecting the pipe, check for record evidence of a later survey, pipe replacement, or a deed scrivener's error; measure the pipe's relation to other lot corners and the block lines. If the pipe is accepted, the east line is 78.8 ft, not 80.0 ft, and the north and south lines must be reconciled to close on the monument. The fence is an occupation line, not a boundary; it does not control unless a court or a signed boundary line agreement establishes it. The plat should show the deed line, the pipe, the measured dimensions, and the fence labeled as an occupation line, with a note explaining the discrepancy. Do not label the fence as the property boundary.
2. The client asks you to certify that the fence is the boundary because the adjoining owner has 'been there long enough.' What is your professional and ethical response, and what DC-specific steps could resolve the discrepancy?
Read the worked answer
Refuse to certify the fence as the boundary. Adverse possession is a legal conclusion, not a surveying measurement. The elements generally require open, notorious, exclusive, continuous, and hostile possession for the statutory period; in DC the period and any tax or color-of-title requirements are legal questions for counsel. Eighteen years of fence maintenance may support a claim, but it does not prove title, and the adjoining owner has not signed an agreement. Certifying the fence would misrepresent the record and could expose you to liability and board discipline. Instead, offer to prepare a record of survey or plat that shows both the deed/monument line and the fence line, with a clear note. Recommend that the client obtain a boundary line agreement signed by both owners and recorded, or file a quiet title action. If the sale must close, the title company can except the discrepancy; do not conceal it. Document your advice in writing.