The Developer Who Wanted the Easement Omitted
A developer hires your firm to survey and plat a 12-lot subdivision on 38 acres in Burleigh County. During the boundary and topographic work you discover that the proposed access road crosses a 30-ft-wide recorded easement held by a neighboring farmer, and that Lots 7 and 8 have only 52 ft of frontage where the county zoning ordinance requires 60 ft. The developer says the county "never checks" and directs you to label the road "private," omit the easement from the plat, and seal a plat that was drafted by an unlicensed CAD technician in Minnesota. The developer also wants the plat sealed today because the filing deadline is tomorrow. No field survey of the road centerline has been performed, and the technician's drawing shows a boundary line that conflicts with your measured deed line by 4.6 ft.
1. Identify the ethical and licensure issues raised by the developer's requests.
Read the worked answer
The requests conflict with the surveyor's duty of honesty, competence, and public protection. Omitting a recorded easement from a plat is a misrepresentation of a matter of record. Labeling the road "private" to avoid the easement does not eliminate the easement's rights. Sealing a plat that was prepared by an unlicensed technician, without field survey of the road centerline and with a 4.6-ft boundary conflict, would certify work that is not accurate and not under the licensee's responsible charge.
North Dakota licenses land surveyors and regulates the use of the seal. A licensee may not seal work that was not performed by the licensee or under the licensee's direct supervision, and may not sign a false or materially incomplete plat. The developer's deadline and the county's review practices are irrelevant to that duty. The surveyor's obligation runs to the public and to the Board, not only to the client.
2. What would you do next, and what would you tell the developer?
Read the worked answer
I would tell the developer that I cannot seal the technician's plat as submitted and cannot omit the easement or ignore the frontage deficiency. I would explain the specific problems: the recorded 30-ft easement must be shown; Lots 7 and 8 do not meet the 60-ft frontage requirement and need a variance, a lot-line revision, or a redesign; the road centerline must be field-located; and the 4.6-ft boundary conflict must be resolved before the plat is sealed.
I would offer a compliant path: complete the field survey, resolve the boundary line, show the easement, revise the lot layout or seek the required variance, and prepare a plat that I can seal. If the filing deadline cannot be met, the developer can request an extension rather than file a false plat.
If the developer refuses to correct the plat and insists on the omission or the seal, I would withdraw from the project, document the refusal, and return or account for fees according to the contract. I would not seal the drawing or allow my seal to be applied by anyone else.
3. What are the likely consequences if the surveyor goes along with the developer's request?
Read the worked answer
The surveyor could face Board discipline, including reprimand, suspension, or revocation of licensure, plus fines and continuing education requirements. The plat could be rejected or later voided, and the surveyor could face civil liability from lot purchasers, the neighbor, the county, and the developer. If the omission is discovered after the lots are sold, the damages and legal costs can be severe.
There is also professional reputational harm: a sealed plat is a public record that other surveyors, title companies, and attorneys will rely on. A 4.6-ft boundary conflict and an omitted easement are exactly the kinds of defects that surface in a title claim or a boundary dispute.
The ethical answer is not a close call. The surveyor must refuse to seal inaccurate work, must disclose the easement and frontage issues, and must require a field survey and a corrected plat before signing and sealing.