Retracement of Lot 14: Original Monuments, a Converging Fence, and Neighbor Possession
An 80.00-foot-wide lot in a 1978 subdivision is being retraced for a boundary survey. At the two front corners the crew finds 5/8-inch rebar with caps reading RLS 3421; the caps match the surveyor who signed the plat, and the bars show no signs of disturbance. The measured distance between them is 79.86 ft. Neither rear corner monument can be found. A 6-foot cedar fence runs along the east side, 2.8 ft west of the record line at the rear and 0.4 ft west at the front. The adjoining owner has maintained the strip up to the fence since 2001, mowing it and storing a shed on it. The client bought the lot in 2019 and wants the survey to adopt the fence as the east boundary because everyone has used it for years. The plat states a magnetic bearing basis and no record distance to the rear corners from any other monument. The west line is not in dispute.
1. What evidence controls the location of the east line, and where should the rear corner be set? Explain the hierarchy you would use.
Read the worked answer
The found rebar with the plat surveyor's cap is original monument evidence, and the lack of disturbance makes it the best available evidence of the 1978 survey. I would hold both front corner monuments, even though the measured distance is 79.86 ft rather than 80.00 ft. The monument controls over the record distance; a 0.14-ft difference is not enough to reject a matched, undisturbed original monument.
For the missing rear corner, there is no original monument to hold. The next evidence is the plat: the record bearing of the east line and the record distance from the front corner. I would run the record bearing from the controlled front monument and set the rear corner at the record distance, then check for alignment with the west line and any other surviving evidence. I would not scale or proportion the lot merely to force an 80.00-ft width, and I would not use the fence as the controlling line. The fence is possession evidence, not record boundary evidence. If the plat bearing basis is magnetic and the 1978 declination is unknown, I would note that uncertainty and check whether the bearing is consistent with other lot lines before relying on it alone.
2. How should the fence and the neighbor's use be handled? Does the client's 2019 purchase change the analysis?
Read the worked answer
The fence is a possession line, and possession is not the same as record boundary. Adverse possession generally requires actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous use for the statutory period. The neighbor's mowing and shed use since 2001 may be open and continuous, but the surveyor cannot conclude that the elements are met. The use may have been permissive, and the fence converges from 2.8 ft to 0.4 ft, so it is not a straight line that can simply be adopted as the boundary. A boundary by agreement would require evidence of a valid agreement and the required possession, not merely long use.
The client's 2019 purchase does not reset the neighbor's possession if the client's predecessors in title had privity and the statutory period was already running, so tacking may be possible. That is a title question for the client's attorney, not a survey conclusion. I would locate and monument the record boundary, show the fence as an observed possession line or encroachment, and add a note describing the discrepancy. If a court judgment or recorded boundary agreement is later produced, the survey can be revised to reflect it.