1.10 Acres More or Less
Parcel 7 is described by four courses that close on paper - 200.00 ft, 304.14 ft, 150.00 ft and 300.00 ft - and the deed recites 'containing 1.10 acres, more or less.' The recorded plat shows the same 1.10 acres. Your field traverse, held to two found corners, closed 0.18 ft in position after 954.14 ft of perimeter. The adjusted coordinates, as northings and eastings in feet, are: A 1000.000/1000.000; B 1000.000/1200.000; C 1300.000/1150.000; D 1300.000/1000.000. The client is selling at $42,000 per acre and wants to know whether he owns 1.10 acres or 'the extra tenth your instrument invented.'
1. Compute the area by coordinates, state the difference from the record, and identify which call governs.
Read the worked answer
Coordinate (shoelace) method, points taken in order A-B-C-D:
| Line | E_i x N_j − E_j x N_i |
|---|---|
| A-B | 1000(1000) − 1200(1000) = −200,000 |
| B-C | 1200(1300) − 1150(1000) = +410,000 |
| C-D | 1150(1300) − 1000(1300) = +195,000 |
| D-A | 1000(1000) − 1000(1300) = −300,000 |
| Sum | +105,000 |
Area = 105,000 / 2 = 52,500 sf = 1.2052 ac (52,500 / 43,560).
Difference: 1.2052 − 1.10 = +0.1052 ac, about 9.6% more than the record, worth roughly $4,420 at $42,000/ac.
Which call governs: the monumented boundary, then the courses and distances. Area is the weakest call in a description and is treated as descriptive - 'more or less' is exactly that. Here the four courses close to 0.02 ft on paper and the field monument geometry reproduces them, so the 1.10-acre recital is simply wrong or was estimated, not a limitation on the grant. You do not shrink the lot to fit the acreage.
2. Quantify the uncertainty introduced by the 0.18-ft misclosure. Is the discrepancy real?
Read the worked answer
Area uncertainty from positional uncertainty.
A rough bound: dA ≈ (P/2) x δ, where P is perimeter and δ is the typical corner displacement.
dA ≈ (954.14 / 2) x 0.18 = 85.9 sf = 0.0020 ac
So the computed area is 1.2052 ± 0.002 ac.
The 0.105-ac difference is about 50 times the uncertainty. It is not measurement noise, not a rounding issue, and not something the client can argue away: he is selling 1.205 acres, not 1.10, subject to whatever the deed legally conveys.
Caveat you must also state: a 0.18-ft closure over 954 ft is 1:5,300, which is below the 1:10,000 typically required for a boundary survey. The 0.1-acre gap is far too large for that to explain, but the traverse itself should be strengthened before anything is recorded. The two findings point in different directions and both belong in the report.
3. What do you put on the plat and in your report about the acreage, given the record conflict?
Read the worked answer
On the plat:
- All four courses and distances between monuments as found, to 0.01 ft and 1 second.
- Area computed from the monumented boundary: 1.21 ac, with a note that the area is computed, not taken from the deed.
- The record area shown only in a reference note if the plat format requires it, clearly labeled 'record' or 'deed.'
- A discrepancy note stating the computed area exceeds the deed recital by 0.10 ac.
In the report:
- The coordinate computation, the closure, and the ±0.002 ac sensitivity so the client can see the difference is not instrument error.
- A clear statement that you locate boundaries and report area; you do not construe the deed or quiet title. Recommend he take the discrepancy to counsel - the practical instruments are a corrective deed or quitclaim describing the parcel by monuments, or an agreement with the adjoiner.
- Do not certify the plat as showing 1.10 acres to match the record. A sealed plat that contradicts your own measurements is a misrepresentation, whatever the client prefers.