Survey Reports Compiled by

Survey Reports Compiled by Knud E. Hermansen P.L.S., P.E., Ph.D., Esq. Survey reports should be an important part of documenting surveying services. Survey reports provide a flexible format to provide a complete, comprehensive, and clear narrative of the surveyor s opinion. The report provides a methodical method to document the background information and the analysis performed. The report also provides a narrative of the services performed, limitations, problems, concerns, and recommendations. This workshop will discuss the use, preparation, and focus of the survey report. Speaker: Knud E. Hermansen is an attorney, professional engineer, and professional land surveyor licensed in several states. His education includes a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from the Pennsylvania State University and a J.D. (Doctorate in Law) from West Virginia University. Currently, Knud is a Professor at the University of Maine and operates a consulting firm offering surveying, engineering, and legal services. Professional membership includes the National Lawyers Association, American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, American Society of Civil Engineers, and several state survey societies and bar associations. He is the author or co-author of Boundary Principles and Procedures for Pennsylvania and several other articles and books. 194 Poplar Street Surveying Engineering Technology Old Town, Maine 04468 5711 Boardman Hall, Room 119 207-827-6187 Orono, Maine 04469-5711 207-581-2168 Knud.Hermansen@maine.edu

Survey Reports Purpose & Use: provides more detail & information coerces surveyor to do a better job with analysis and justification forces organization provides a ready source of information for others provides an organized archival source for the surveyor Contents: firm/client/project purpose specifications/standards survey or site related information (title concerns, wetlands, etc.) record location azimuth declinations tolerances & calculations conduct of the survey/actions taken comments on reliability problems encountered analysis results concerns recommendations revised parcel description 1

A Report of Survey for [Client s Name] [Address 1] [Town, State Zip] for Property located at [Address] Town of _, County of _, State of _ File No. _ Edition 20 Copy of _ 20 [Surveyor or Survey Firm] 2

I. Limitations on Surveying Services Table of Contents II. III. IV. Definitions Administrative Information General Site Information V. Parcel Information VI. VII. VIII. IX. Encumbrances & Restrictions - Location Potential Overlaps, Encroachments, and Gaps Boundaries & Corners Revised Description X. Conclusion Appendices 1. Raw Field Data 2. Relevant Computations (e.g. solar observations, intersections, etc.) 3. Unrecorded plans 4. Record search checklist containing grantor, grantee, dates, type of records, volume, page number, etc. 5. Letters or other important correspondence 6. Time sheets 7. Contract 8. Sample letter to adjoiner 9. Tax parcel map & right of way maps 3

I. Limitations on Surveying Services Surveying services adhere to reasonable practice and minimum mandatory standards. Custom surveying services such as the ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey were not provided. The following services or opinions are not part of the services provided or normal surveying services. Title: Research: Wetlands: Flood Plain: Water Bodies: No attempt was made to review, disclose title problems, or come to an opinion on the title or marketability of the title. Any appearance of a title opinion is unintentional. All title questions should be referred to an attorney. Reasonable and ordinary research procedures and survey standards were employed in researching the public records pertinent to the property. Research was limited to properly indexed public records found in the _ courthouse between the present time and 20. Research focused on boundary location information. A forward search (adverse to the owner) was not conducted. Private records were not examined unless otherwise noted in this report or on the plat. As a consequence, important information may not have been revealed that could affect the location of the boundaries and title to the property. Surveying services did not involve the identification or location of wetlands. Wetlands may not always be detectable to the layperson or surveyor. Employment of a qualified wetlands scientist is advisable before erecting any improvements. There are national and state regulations governing improvements or work within wetland areas. Fines and criminal prosecution may be imposed for working in wetlands without the proper permits. Surveying services did not involve locating the flood plain boundaries. For improvements in the immediate area of the 100- year flood plain, a more precise determination of the flood plain boundary will be required. Improvements within the flood plain are restricted and if erected may cause a mortgage to be denied or significantly increase in the cost of insuring improvements on the property. The presence of water bodies on or near the property may impose more restrictive zoning constrictions on the property (such as frontage, setback, and timber removal) and limit development options. Large water bodies and navigable streams are imposed with a public easement below the normal high water line. The public may access great ponds by crossing private, uncultivated 4

property on foot. Agricultural Lands: Public Road Easements: Government Regulations: Septic Field: Underground Utilities: Occupation Lines: Vernal Pools: The presence of designated agricultural or woodlands near or on the property may limit or restrict development on the property as the result of special tax exemptions or designations that are on the property or nearby property. No attempt was made to determine the right of way width to public road easements on or near the property. Public road easements are often poorly indexed, missing, or difficult to identify. A width of three rods is often shown but the actual width may be more or less. Additional research to determine the width of the public road can be undertaken for a fee. The compliance with or adherence to government regulations has not been investigated as part of surveying services. Government regulations may include proper subdivision approval, zoning compliance, and protection of natural resources. The failure to comply with government regulations may make the title unmarketable. The law requires that a licensed evaluator investigate the property in order to prepare the property for the installation of an on-site septic system if one is not already present. A licensed evaluator should be employed to investigate an existing system when buying the property. An illegal or malfunctioning system may result in fines and environmental harm. A licensed evaluator should be consulted for additional information. Surveying services did not include the investigation or search for underground utilities. Before excavating on the property, calling 1-888-Digsafe is required to identify, locate, and avoid costly damage to underground utilities that may be present. Rights or title may align with occupation lines rather than the record boundaries when the occupation lines differ from the record boundaries. An attorney should be consulted to obtain an opinion on the probability of title conforming to the occupation line rather than the record boundary. No attempt was made to identify vernal pools. The presence of vernal pools on the property may hinder or severely restrict development of the property. Vernal pools may be difficult to identify. The presence of a vernal pool includes a significant area around the vernal pool that must also be protected. 5

Illegal Subdivision Cemeteries Endangered or Protected Species Hazardous Waste Services did not include an analysis to determine if an illegal subdivision has occurred. An illegal subdivision may be cause for fines, denial of building permits, and other sanctions. No attempt was made to locate cemeteries or burial sites on the property. The presence of a cemetery on the property would entail an implied easement to access the cemetery from a public road. Burial of Native Americans on the property would curtail the use of the property entirely. The presence on the property of endangered or protected species was not determined. The presence of endangered or protected species or their habitat may curtail the development of the property. The presence of hazardous waste would restrict development and require considerable costs in mitigation of the danger and removal. No attempt was made to seek or identify the presence of hazardous waste. An opinion on the location of the record boundary is provided. Lost records, missing monuments, and obscure evidence often affects the certainty of the opinion. There can be no guarantee as to the location of the boundary. 6

II. Definitions Corner Identification: Boundary Identification: Corners are identified in this report and on the plat by a number (e.g., Corner 1). Boundaries are identified in this report by citing the numbers at each end of the boundary (e.g., Boundary 2-3). 7

III. Administrative Information Client s Name: Address: Telephone No.: E-mail Address: Parcel Address: Record Owners: Record Reference: Tax Parcel Reference: Type of Survey: Standards Exceptions: Deed Book _, page - _ The following exceptions were taken to the minimum standards of practice found at http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/02/chaps02.htm Date of Survey: _, 200_ Location of Survey: The property is located _ feet _ly of _[feature]. Party Chief: Surveyor Responsible: The surveyor responsible for the opinion(s) expressed in this report is _ Equipment Used Distribution: Copy 1 of _ Copy _ of _ Contacts: A copy of this report has been distributed to the following persons: Notification of the survey was given to: _ Requests for information were made to: _ Special Actions Taken: Survey Procedures: Static GPS Kinematic GPS Traverse, Open Radial Survey Other Adjustment of Data: Least Squares Compass Transit None Field Book/Data File # Basis of Azimuth: 20 Magnetic True North Other 8

IV. General Site Information Visible Improvements on the Property: In working on or near the boundary, the following improvements were of such size or visibility that they are noted as follows: Buildings: Road: Septic Field: Pond: Fences: Walls: Springhouse: Bridge: Cemetery: Possession of the Residence at Time of Survey: At the time of the survey, the residence on the property was in the possession of _, who is or is not listed as the record owner of the property. Visible Utilities on the Property: Overhead Power Lines: Utility Poles: Manholes: Grates: Underground Utilities Warning Signs: Visible or Logical Vehicular Access to the Property: Access to the property appears to be by _. An attorney should be consulted to determine if the access is legal or constitutes an overburdening of the easement. Name of Nearest Apparent Public Road: _ Name of Water Bodies on or Near Property: _ 9

V. Parcel Information In General: Relevant Parcel Records: Parcel Recording Date Grantor Grantee Record Book Page Area Tax Parcel _: The survey was conducted [around or along boundary _ to _]. The parcel was substantially created in _. Its present configuration is described in a conveyance from _ to _ as described in Deed Book _, page _. Tax Parcel _: The survey was conducted [around or along a common boundary with tax parcel _]. The parcel was substantially created in _. Its present configuration is described in a conveyance from _ to _ as described in Deed Book _, page _. Road: _ Road was formerly known as _. It was created around _ and described in deed book _, page _. The road width was described as _. 10

VI. Encumbrances & Restrictions - Location Zoning: Front: Side: Back: Minimum Street Frontage: Minimum Riparian Frontage: Minimum Lot Size: Other: The property is zoned _. The zoning has the following dimensional restrictions Easements: Easements may exist on the property and not be revealed by the limited research or survey of the property. Once created by deed, reservation, or use, easements may burden the property regardless of further mention in recent records. Easements may arise by implication. Obvious and visible evidence of easement has been taken into account, along with the disclosure of easements in the most recent records examined for boundary information. Covenants: Covenants and the source documents for the covenants are the following: 11

VII. Potential Overlaps, Encroachments, and Gaps During the course of the survey and search for boundary information, the following possible overlaps, gaps, and ambiguities were noted along or near the boundaries. In many cases overlaps, gaps and encroachments were caused by vague information, lost or misplaced records, and inadvertent errors in past conveyances and surveys. or At this time no survey problems were discovered that would appear to result in the loss or restriction of the reasonable enjoyment of the property and/or residence. Possession Line: Along boundary _-_ there exist a _ that departs from a straight line between the corners by as much as _ feet. Along boundary _-_ there exist a _ that is approximately parallel to a straight line between the corners by approximately _ feet. The _ appears to have been erected approximately _ years ago according to _ [tree borings, parol testimony, etc.] You or your neighbor may have ownership rights to the occupation line based on long continued possession or acts that occurred in conjunction with the erection of _ or occupation to it. Occupation that does not conform with the deed or record boundary should be discussed with an attorney. Uncalled for Monuments: Near corner _ a _ was discovered (see plan for measurements). Uncalled for monuments may represent a reasonable but conflicting opinion of the corner or boundary location. 12

VII. Boundaries & Corners Corner X: The corner was created in _ and described in deed book _, page _ as a _. Subsequent records cite the corner monument as a _ (deed book _, page _). Adjoining records call for the corner to be marked by a _ as cited in deed book _, page _. A diligent search of the area revealed a _, that can be described as _ [size, shape, color, markings, texture, etc.]. The position of the original corner was reestablished by _ [procedure]. A _ was set to mark the corner at the completion of the surveying services. A _ was established as a witness at a course of _ from the corner. Boundary X-X: The boundary was created in _ and described in deed book _, page _ as _[bearing & distance]. Subsequent records cite the boundary to be [bearing & distance] (see deed book _, page _). Adjoining records call for the boundary to be _ [bearing & distance] as cited in deed book _, page _. Along the approximate location of the boundary _ was found. A comparison of the record and retracement measurements is shown in the following table: Direction Distance Reference There is _[not] reasonable correlation between record and retracement measurements. [The differences between record and retracement measurements are attributable to the change in magnetic declination, lack of precision in the early measurements and equipment, and the skill of the early surveyors.] 13

IX. Revised Description Caption: That tract of land located _ [from feature] in the town of _, county of _, state of Maine, more particularly described as follows: Body: All bearings are based on _. All monuments set are _ containing a metallic cap showing the surveyor s name, license number, and corner number. The above description was prepared from a survey, plan, and report for _ dated _ by _, P.L.S. 14

X. Conclusion The above analysis and results are a reasonable opinion based on a defensible solution to a complicated situation. Although this is an opinion that can be supported by logic and information that a surveyor of ordinary prudence and care would use under similar circumstances, it does not resolve the fact that uncertainty in the position of the original boundaries will continue to exist. As a consequence, another surveyor exercising ordinary prudence using the same information may and could very well arrive at a different conclusion and location of the boundaries (especially in regard to boundary _). Caution should be exercised in placing improvements near the boundary. This document contains _ pages Dated this the day of 200_ If this seal is not embossed, this document is not an original. If the document is not original, it should be presumed to contain unauthorized alterations and should not be relied upon. seal [printed name of signature] [license number] 15

Practical Exercise Client s Chain of Records 1870 Deed (675-21) - to a maple; thence South 23 degrees East, 100 rods to a post and stones; thence 1910 Deed (1321-412) - to a maple stump; thence South 25 degrees East, 100 rods 4 links to stones; thence 1967 Deed (8342-101) - to a pin, formerly a maple; thence South 28 30 East, 1660.3 feet to stones at a stream; thence Neighbor s Chain of Records 1868 Deed (674-65) - to a marked oak and stone pile; thence along the stream, North 22 ½ degrees West, 101 rods to a marked maple; thence 1953 Deed (6743-762) - to a marked oak and stones; thence North 22 ½ degrees West, 101 rods to a pipe in a stump; thence Field Information Drafting a Narration in the Report Corner 6: Corner 6 was created in 1868 and identified by a marked maple (D.B. 674-65). An 1870 deed in the client s chain of title call for a maple (D.B. 675-65). Subsequent deeds in 1910 call for a maple stump (D.B. 1321-412) and later in 1967 a pin (D.B. 6743-762). A 1953 deed in the neighbor s chain of title calls for a pipe in a stump (D.B. 6743-762). A diligent search in the area using a metal detector revealed a 1 inch diameter pipe and a 5/8 th inch diameter pin separated by 1.21 feet. The separation distance is inconsequential given the fact that the original monument was a tree, possibly of some girth a girth that could have encompassed both the pin and pipe. The pipe was accepted as marking the original location of the Maple due to the call for pipe in stump. The stump was accepted as the remains of the original maple and the best evidence of the position of the original monument. 16

Boundary 6-7: The various record courses for Boundary 6-7 are shown in the table below with some bearings reversed for easier comparison. Bearing Distance Date Citations (Bk-pg) S22 1/2 E 101 rods (1,666.50 ) 1868 674-65 S23 E 100 rods (1,650.00 ) 1870 675-21 S25 E 100r 4lks (1652.64 ) 1910 1321-412 S22 ½ E 101 rods (1,666.50 ) 1953 6743-762 S28 30 E 1660.3 1967 8342-101 The boundary was first described in 1868 as along the stream (D.B. 674-65). No other deed calls for the stream as a boundary. The client s deeds and neighbor s subsequent deeds call for a straight line between corners. The deed citing the stream appears to have been a senior deed. As a consequence, there arises an apparent conflict between a straight line between the corners as cited in the client s deed versus the neighbor s historical record that cites the boundary to be along the stream. This discrepancy should be discussed with an attorney if there is concern. Given the lack of diligent care exercised by historical surveyors, imprecision of historical equipment, long distances to be measured, dense undergrowth, and rough terrain, there is reasonable correlation between record and retracement measurements. Corner 7: Corner 7 was created in 1868 and identified by a marked oak and stone pile (D.B. 674-65). A 1870 deed in the client s chain of title cites the monument to be a post and stones (D.B. 675-65). A subsequent deed in 1910 call for stones (D.B. 1321-412) and a deed in 1967 calls for stones at a stream (D.B. 8342-101). A 1953 deed in the neighbor s chain of title calls for a marked oak and stones (D.B. 6743-762). A diligent search in the area revealed a 37 inch diameter Red Oak. On the other side of the stream stones were found. The layout of the stones is not a natural grouping. The stones were covered in moss and debris suggesting the stones had existing in their present position for many decades and not been disturbed. The distance between the Oak and stones is 11.47 feet. Of some interest is that an 1868 deed calls for an Oak. A deed prepared two years later calls for a post. It is difficult to believe a post could be co-located where an Oak tree stood two short years prior to the call for a post. It would have been possible to place the post within a short distance of the Oak but not co-locate the two objects. No stones were found around or near the large oak. No marks were found on the Oak tree. Accordingly, the Oak was not accepted to be the original monument. Stones marking the corner were cited as early as 1868 and cited in every description since 1868. The stones are located near the stream. The stones were accepted as the stones cited in the operative description. The stones as found were accepted as marking the location of the original Oak and post. 17