The Client's 'Updated' 1978 Plat
A developer brings you a 1978 recorded subdivision plat for a 14-lot NH subdivision and asks you to 'reproduce it with a few updates' for a new mortgage. He wants the acreage of Lot 7 changed from 1.82 to 2.00 acres, the easement shown on the plat deleted because 'the utility says it's no longer needed,' and the boundary line moved 8 ft east to match a fence that a neighbor has maintained for 15 years. He also wants the plan signed and sealed by you even though a technician in his office drafted it from the old plat; no new field survey has been done. He says the town will not require a new subdivision approval for a 'revision' and offers a bonus if you seal it today. You have the 1978 plat, a 2024 deed to Lot 7, and a tax map that conflicts with the deed by 10 ft. You have not set foot on the property.
1. What professional and regulatory problems arise from sealing the plan as requested?
Read the worked answer
Sealing the plan would certify work I did not perform and facts I have not verified. New Hampshire's surveyor licensing law, RSA 472-C, requires a licensee to sign and seal only work prepared by the licensee or under the licensee's responsible charge. Here a technician in the developer's office drafted the plan, no field survey was done, the acreage would be changed without a basis, the easement would be deleted without a release or abandonment, and the boundary would be moved to a 15-year fence. Those are not 'updates'; they are substantive changes that could mislead the mortgagee, the town, and the abutter. The bonus creates a conflict of interest. A boundary or easement change may also require subdivision or site-plan approval, and calling it a revision does not avoid that.
2. If the developer insists, what would you do, what records would you research, and what plan notes would you require for a legitimate plan?
Read the worked answer
I would decline to seal the requested plan and document the refusal. If the developer wants a legitimate product, I would research the chain of title, the 1978 plat, the 2024 deed, prior deeds, easements, utility releases, town subdivision files, and the tax map, and then perform a field survey to locate monuments and occupation. The new plan would show basis of bearing, control, closure, area computation, deed and plat references, all easements of record, and any occupation lines. I would not delete an easement without a recorded release or a legal determination of abandonment. If the developer only wants a copy of the 1978 plat, I would prepare an unsigned copy labeled 'copy of 1978 plat-not a new survey' and not seal it. I would not accept the bonus.
3. How should the conflicting deed and tax map be handled in a legitimate retracement?
Read the worked answer
A tax map is not a conveyance and does not control a deed boundary. I would begin with the deed, the recorded plat, and the chain of title, then test them against field evidence. A 10-ft conflict between the tax map and the deed is a red flag for a tax-map drafting error, a deed ambiguity, or an unrecorded conveyance; I would not resolve it by scaling the tax map. I would show the tax-map line as a reference only if useful, label the conflict, and base the survey on the deed, plat, monuments, and occupation evidence. If the deed is ambiguous or the conflict cannot be resolved from record and field evidence, I would refer the client to an attorney and show the alternate positions on the plan.