The 0.18-Foot Conflict at the Plat Corner
Bayshore Estates, Plat Book 12, Page 34 (1962), Lot 7, Block 3, calls for a 5/8-inch iron rod at the northeast corner, N 45°12'30" E, 100.00 ft from the southeast corner. You find a 5/8-inch iron rod with no cap at a position 0.18 ft south and 0.09 ft west of the plat-computed corner. The rod is consistent with the called type and age, and it sits 0.4 ft outside the owner's existing fence. The adjoiner's 1998 mortgage survey shows the corner at the plat-computed position; that surveyor reported no monument found. Your client's refinance lender demands a survey showing no encroachments and wants the lot to "match the plat." The client asks you to ignore the rod and hold the record corner. A 12-year-old shed and the fence cross the line that would result if the rod controls. The adjoiner has not been contacted.
1. What evidence determines whether the found rod is the original 1962 monument, and what is its legal effect if it is?
Read the worked answer
Start with the hierarchy of boundary evidence: original monuments control over courses and distances, but only after you establish that the monument is the one called for and has not been disturbed. Relevant evidence includes the called type (a 5/8-inch iron rod is plausible for a 1962 plat), the position relative to other original monuments and occupation, the absence of evidence of displacement, and the relationship to the fence and shed. A missing cap is a factor, not a disqualifier; many 1960s rods were uncapped. A 0.18-ft and 0.09-ft offset is well within the uncertainty of 1962 plat computation and construction, so it does not by itself prove the rod is not original. If you conclude the rod is the original, it controls the corner even though it differs from the plat bearing and distance. The plat distances are record evidence, not a guarantee of field position. The 1998 surveyor's failure to find it does not erase it; that surveyor may simply have missed it or searched a different location.
2. How should your survey depict the corner, the fence, and the shed, and what should you tell the lender and client?
Read the worked answer
Show the found monument with the symbol and note 'Found 5/8-inch iron rod, no cap, accepted as original 1962 monument' and show the plat-computed corner as a separate record position, with the bearing and distance between them. Show the fence and shed by measured ties, label them as occupation or encroachments, and state which lot they cross. Do not omit the discrepancy or move the rod to the record position. Tell the lender that a boundary survey reports what the evidence shows; it cannot be written to produce a clean title opinion. The lender can decide whether the encroachment affects the loan, and the client can seek a boundary agreement or title remedy. Tell the client you cannot ignore a probable original monument because the result is inconvenient. If the client wants the adjoiner's position protected, suggest a written boundary agreement or a surveyor's note, but do not silently adopt the record corner.
3. If you conclude the rod is not original, what do you set, and how do you treat the 1998 survey?
Read the worked answer
If the rod is not the original-for example, it is a later fence post or is inconsistent with all other original evidence-then the corner is lost and must be reestablished from the best available record evidence, normally the plat bearing and distance from the nearest accepted original corners. Set a new monument at the reestablished position, mark it with your license number and 'reestablished,' and show the basis in your notes and on the map. Treat the 1998 survey as evidence of what that surveyor did, not as controlling evidence of the corner. Its record-position corner may coincide with your reestablished position, but the reason is the record evidence, not the fact that a prior survey was recorded. Notify the adjoiner and give them a chance to review the evidence before you finalize a boundary line that affects their fence and shed.