Locating Land Boundaries

Below is some of what I said at the Seminar on Locating Boundaries on Paper (And on the Ground) in Corpus Christi, Texas on July 17, 2019.

Good Morning!, my name is Deward Karl Bowles. I was born in Austin Texas and lived most of my life in this State. During the early 80s I was forced to take a job as a Crew Chief in New Jersey because of the Oil Bust. I worked my way up to Chief of Parties before passing the 16 hour NCEE exam and 15 minute New Jersey specific exam in 1990 to get my first License there. I moved back to Texas shortly thereafter and passed the 4 hour Reciprocity exam here. I opened B&B Surveying Company in 1992 and have been operating it since. 

Before I get started I want everyone to take a minute to introduce yourselves to everyone else. Tell us where you are from and the company you work for............

I wanted you to know that I am not standing up here to tell you what you should or should not do or how you should or should not do something because having differences of opinion about one subject or another regarding practicing Land Surveying is one of the reasons why Land Surveying is truly a profession.

We are here today to cover these topics together, so if you have a difference of opinion, speak up, this is a dialectical discussion! We are going to look at some very complex problems this morning to help illustrate the substance of what we are going to go over and I am certain there is room for disagreement.

I am not sure why they keep choosing me to do these seminars because I do not consider myself a bastion of profundity and I have lost track of the number of complaints filed against me with the Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying (got to be near a dozen). I suppose if that is how they measure success then I guess I am your guy. While I have never been found to have done anything wrong this does not mean I do not make mistakes.

For example I was recently reviewing evidence to locate a boundary of a property I was hired to survey and this included looking at a Map Record I had prepared some 4 years before in that same general area. Horror is not the word to describe my feeling when I realized that I had incorrectly determined the Texas State Plane Coordinates for that Map Record I had previously prepared. I should have known they were wrong because there was evidence indicating that but I either did not see it or rationalized that I was correct at the time I did it. 

The longer you are a Land Surveyor the more you will begin to understand that a large part of practicing Land Surveying revolves around minimizing mistakes. If you are not double checking a computation you make or a piece of evidence you are relying on then you are not practicing Land Surveying in the tradition it has been practiced in the past.

Land Surveying is such an obscure profession and so esoteric that most people have no idea what Land Surveyors do (and this includes some Land Surveyors).

I have gained some notoriety over the years for being able to deal with boundary disputes and Surveyor negligence cases that sometimes make it to Court and I have even had one go all the way to the Texas Court of Appeals. I play both sides of the Court (so to speak) and have successfully defended Land Surveyors in the past from being found guilty of negligence, omission or error.

They wanted me to cover a huge list of subjects in the next hour and ? and I doubt seriously we are going to get through it all. Does anyone have any questions before we get started? Then lets just go right to it OK?   

So the first subject is

Interpreting land descriptions

As your Seminar Manual states there are generally two types of descriptions.

   ? Metes and bounds (generally sequential conveyance)(generally Deed Records).

And

   ? Lot and block (generally simultaneous conveyances)(generally Map Records).

There are various exceptions and combinations for these two types of Conveyances and how a conveyance is treated by the Law (simultaneous or sequential) can make a big difference in how it might be properly retraced both on paper and on the ground. 

A simultaneous conveyance is a situation where several parcels are created at the same time. Retracing a simultaneous conveyance can be very tricky and since most urban areas are now composed of simultaneous conveyances these represent the majority of retracement Surveys that are being performed. 

A sequential conveyance is all other conveyances.

A competent Land Surveyor practices in a tradition colloquial to how Land Surveying was practiced in the past at the location where they are performing a particular survey. 

The Land Surveyor in Texas seeks to retrace the Boundaries of Real Property on the ground in the same location the Original Land Surveyor placed them for a conveyance of that Real Property according to the intent of the instrument conveying it.

This may not be true in locations outside of this State but here in Texas that is what the Texas Courts expect you to do and what Texas Codified Law tells you to do. If you are not intimately familiar with Case Law and Codified Law, for the particular area you are practicing in, then you are not going be able to stay in the business of locating Real Property boundaries in that area for very long. 

The Real Property system in Texas has many unique aspects which are a result of the history and culture of this State.

The Court seeks to bring certainty to a conveyance, rather than determine it void because of ambiguity and almost all conveyances contain ambiguities. These ambiguities must be resolved by the Land Surveyor before the boundaries of any Real Property a conveyance describes can be located on the ground.

Typically a Deed plot can be made of any project by plotting the deed of the subject tract and the deeds of the adjoiners on paper to form a mosaic of sorts. This Deed plot can be used to identify some of the ambiguities, that will need to be addressed, before you can try to find those boundaries on the ground. I typically do this with a visual coordinate geometry program inside of a computer rather than on paper because doing it that way will reveal even more ambiguities and conflicts between the deeds with the addition of the precise mathematical models created using that method. For example minor latent ambiguities in mathematical solutions involving trigonometry computed prior to the mid 1970s or so can be readily identified and eliminated from a description using this method.

Bearings are merely describing angles at the corners of the parcel being conveyed and you can build a jigsaw puzzle using the subject tract description and the adjoining descriptions but making them pieces relative to each other is key. Just like a jigsaw puzzle you would place the corner piece first for the puzzle thus all the other pieces must now be rotated and translated to match that first piece. Once you do this the overlaps and gaps (ambiguities) between the various pieces in your jigsaw puzzle become easier to see. 

There are two types of ambiguities in a conveyance. A patent ambiguity and a latent ambiguity. A patent ambiguity is an ambiguity that can be determined to exist on the face of the document with no further evidence. A latent ambiguity is an ambiguity that can only be determined to exist after further evidence is uncovered or more investigation is performed.

Can anyone give me an example of a Patent Ambiguity? (Conveyance states the Real Property in question is located in the State of Texmex instead of Texas). 

How about a Latent Ambiguity? (Conveyance states it is for 1.0 acres but the mathematical figure it goes on to describe contains 0.1 acres). 

Texas Courts have given us a loose hierarchy of conveyance elements, which Land Surveyors use to weight their importance, when retracing a description in a Conveyance. These elements, according to there are importance, are as follows:

1) Natural monuments (Can anyone give me an example?)

2) Artificial monuments (Can anyone give me an example?)

3) Bearings

4) Distances

5) Area

6) Coordinates

The importance associated with some of these elements varies from one State to State. 

The order of importance of these elements can also easily be shuffled according to the intent of a Conveyance. Can anyone give me a Court case in Texas that demonstrates this? (Crosby v. Stevenson: 156 S.W. 1110 (1913) and Hubert v. Bartlett's Heirs, 9 Tex. 97, 104)

A Record Monument can be both Natural, Artificial and even be document in the Public Record and the term refers to anything which is part of the Public Record or mentioned within it.

The Land Surveyor seeks to derive intent from the plain language of the entire conveyance when retracing the Boundaries of a Real Property description and this is often referred to as the using the Four Corners Rule in Texas. 

The Court allows a number of presumptions to be made regarding the intent of any conveyance whether it be a simultaneous or sequential in nature and this creates even more opportunity for ambiguity to be present in a particular Real Property description.

For example the Court presumes that a Grantor does not intend to grant lands they do not own even if they do not explicitly express that intent. A Conveyance containing elements that conflict with intent results in an ambiguity within that conveyance which must be resolved before the Boundary of the Real Property described by the conveyance can be located on paper or on the ground.

? Dos and don'ts for writing descriptions 

  Applying principles of boundary location.

As a rule of thumb the General Description is controlled by the Particular description in any Metes and Bounds description. (Doris Virginia McGregor Stribling et al.

v. Millican DPC Partners, LP et al., No. 14-0500 (Tex. 2015). 

A description by Map is typically amended with a Map, a description by Metes and Bounds is typically amended with a Metes and Bounds. There are exceptions but this is generally how it should be done.

I once performed a Land Title survey for the purchase of a vacant property that was a Commercial Reserve in a newly recorded subdivision. The new owner then had me perform a topographic survey, perform construction staking and eventually a final survey to satisfy his lender so he could get the final draw on his loan. Fast forward 10 years and the owner calls me because he needs to update the survey I performed for a refinance of this Commercial Reserve. Everything was going great until I went to place the description of the Commercial Reserve on the survey I was preparing based on the new Title Insurance Policy for the refinance. The Title Insurance Company was listing the Commercial Reserve as being located within a Replat of the original Plat even though the Replat did not exist at the time the owner purchased the Commercial Reserve in question. I could find no other transactions between the owner and other parties regarding the Commercial Reserve since his purchase of it out of the original Plat and his signature was not present on the Replat even though the Replat depicted his Commercial Reserve within it.  As a result I used the original Plat description and recording information shown in the deed that he had purchased the Commercial Reserve under in the first place. The Title Insurance Company examiner insisted that I change it to the Replat description and recording information but I refused. A few years later I was down at the Courthouse and happened to run across the new Deed for the refinance of the subject tract. I found that the Title Insurance Company had used the new Replat recording information in it instead of the original Plat recording information that I had put on my survey. This is what is called Fraud and it opens up arguments that the new deed for the refinance might be voided by patent ambiguity.

You can not subdivide or otherwise change the description of a parcel of land in the Public Record unless you own the parcel of land being subdivided or having the description otherwise changed. Therefore you cant file a Replat of an existing Map Record if lots have already been sold out of the original plat, and If you do, it has no effect on the original descriptions or conveyances of those lots that were previously sold. In other words the Replat is void by way of fraud in those cases. 

The fact of the matter is, writing a new description and filing it for Public Record for an existing parcel of land or making a new Map Record of it and filing it for Public Record does not change the original boundaries of that land according to the intent of the conveyance which severed it from the parent tract in the first place. There are different operations in the Law that do alter the location of original boundaries but the Land Surveyor in Texas has no power or authority to grant those. 

If a Lot within a Recorded Subdivision is subdivided by Metes and Bounds and then conveyed to separate owners, that later convey those lands back to a single owner, then the description becomes the entire Lot again and is not composed of separate Metes and Bounds descriptions previously used to describe portions of that Lot. Nor is it now an overall metes and bounds description of the entire Lot. It is just the Lot description.

I have had Title Examiners insist that I write a new metes and bounds description for two or more separate metes and bounds descriptions which together comprise an entire recorded Lot or Reserve within a Subdivision Map Record. Do not do it because what you are doing is creating Public Record confusion. Now there are reasons that a metes and bounds description would be written for an existing Lot or Reserve in a Recorded Map Record but this has to do with material discrepancies that may be reside in that Map Record and this is the subject of another seminar. 

There are several good books on how to write descriptions for real property conveyances and it is important to realize that the terms used in those real property descriptions have specific legal meaning. You must become familiar with the legal meanings of certain terms before you attempt to write or interpret a particular real property description.

Some of these books that might be helpful are:

Blacks Law Dictionary

Wattles “Writing Legal Descriptions, in conjunction with survey boundary control.”

Wattles Land Survey Descriptions

and

Kenneth Golds “Decisions”

For example a line is parallel with, not to, another line. A line is at right angle to, or from, not with another line. With means association, where as to and from are directional. I could spend all day talking about how certain terms are treated specifically by the law but I would suggest that you review one of the books I mentioned before to cover this topic in more depth. 

The idea however is to describe the real property in a manner that it can be located on the ground or on paper according to the intent of the conveyance. There are different theories on writing a description in a retracement situation where an existing parcel of land is being reconveyed. Some believe that the original description of the parcel being reconveyed should never change and that any changes necessary, to better describe the subject real property, should either be in parentheses or otherwise made in a way that makes it apparent that those changes were made to the original description. This can be achieved by using “calls and founds” , referring to the original deed or Map Record in the new description, referring to some other deed or Map Record in the chain of title of that real property in the new description or even writing an entirely new description and labeling the original description“provided” and the new description “surveyed”.

Any document or map called for in a description becomes part of that description and this is one of the reasons why we have Map Records. Map Records allow us to convey Real Property by simply referring to the Map Record that Real Property was created by. (A picture (map) is worth a thousand words). 

There are some that believe that any new conveyance of a parcel already described in the Public Record should have a new description and that there is not need to worry about the original or earlier descriptions of the real property in question that may reside in the Public Record. I personally do not subscribe to this approach and discourage it but as I have said, there it room for differences of opinion when it comes to Professional Land Surveying.  

The issue I have is that bounds can inadvertently be introduced or discarded, when in any new description is written, defeating the intent of the original conveyance. 

? Collecting and evaluating all types of boundary evidence: 

    documents, physical evidence, people, surveys

   ? Locating the described land on a map

   ? Locating the described land on the ground

Please turn to page 52 and 53 of your seminar manual and lets take a moment to look at a Map Record of Riverwalk, Section 1. If we were trying to locate the boundary of Lot 2 Block 4 in Riverwalk Section 1 on the ground, for a conveyance, then would the boundaries of that Lot be treated as a simultaneous conveyance or a sequential one? (The south, east and north boundary are simultaneous, the west boundary is sequential).

It has been said that Doctors bury their mistakes whereas Land Surveyors monument theirs and record them for Public Record.

The terms intent, Record Monument and sequential conveyance and how they can be applied can be demonstrated by imagining the following scenario:

Jack owns Lot 2 Block 4 in the Riverwalk Section 1 example and conveys the West 200' of it to Joe. The Court generally presumes that this means that the east line of the conveyance would be constructed by drawing a line 200' east and parallel to the west line of Lot 2. Now lets say that later Jack then conveys the east 200' of the same Lot 2 to June. Since Lot 2 Block 4 is not 400.00' deep on the northerly side then the conveyances Jack has made overlap and thus contain ambiguity. Since the Court presumes that Jack did not intend to convey land he did not own then June only gets what is left over after Jacks conveyance to Joe and Joes conveyance represent a Record Monument that bounds Junes conveyance since Joes conveyance already resides in the Public Record. This also demonstrates Junior and Senior rights and how they are generally applied when determining the location of Real Property boundaries.

Since there is ambiguity between these descriptions we could seek parol evidence (verbal testimony) about what the Grantor may have intended but keep in mind that this type of evidence is typically only allowed by the Court if it can be shown to support the written words of the conveyance rather than refute them. For example if Jack were to give verbal evidence that he intended to convey Joe the west 300' of Lot is question instead of the west 200' it is doubtful this testimony would be allowed as part of a legal contest.

If I am having problems with discerning intent I often talk to the owner of the subject tract and the adjoiners to see if they may have copies of previous surveys performed on or adjoining the subject tract or for other unrecorded or recorded document that may shed light on how certain ambiguities might be resolved. This is known as using extrinsic evidence, because it exists outside the writings of the conveyance. When and how such evidence can be used is the subject of another seminar. 

What might seem like a simple problem that the instant scenario presents, it can become infinity more complex by latent ambiguities that may reside in the Riverwalk Section 1 Map Record and the parent descriptions, Riverwalk Section 1 was created from, because Jack's conveyance to Joe and June calls for Riverwalk Section 1 Map Record document and the Riverwalk Section 1 Map Record document calls for the underlying parent description and so on and so forth. 

Since the westerly line of Lot 2 Block 4 is a sequential conveyance and Codified Law tells the Land Surveyor they must rely on adjoining conveyances and respect Junior and Senior rights then some evidence of the location of the lands adjoining the westerly line of that Lot would have to be considered in order to locate the boundaries of the conveyance to Joe. This would most certainly control the location of the boundary of the conveyance to June as well, even though none of this is expressly indicated by the wording of Jacks conveyances to Joe or June.

Lets imagine that we go out to look for evidence of the boundaries of Lot 2 Block 4 in the field and we find the following on the ground. A ? inch iron rod capped Flybynight Surveying near the southwest corner of Lot 18 Block 2, a 5/8 inch iron rod near the southeast corner of Lot 9 Block 4, a ? inch iron rod near the northeast corner of Lot 2 Block 4, a 5/8 inch iron rod capped Rock Bottom Surveying near the northwest corner of Lot 2 Block 4, a ? inch iron rod near the northwest corner of Lot 7 Block 4, a 5/8 inch iron rod near the northwest corner of Reserve B Block 1 and a ? inch iron rod at the northwest corner of Lot 1 Block 4. 

All of these pieces of evidence measure within a 0.15' of each other according to the dimensions shown for the Lots and streets within the interior of the Map Record with the exception of the ? inch iron rod at the northwest corner of Lot 7 Block 4 which is out of position by more than 1' from its computed location holding everything else mentioned. 

This also results in a 2" galvanized iron pipe we found being approximately 5' west and 1' south of the southwest corner of Lot 2 Block 4 and a 2" galvanized iron pipe we happened locate near the northwest corner of Reserve A Block 1 being approximately 5' west and 1' north of that computed corner. 

Are we ready to stake out Lot 2 Block 4?

If we look carefully at the bearing for boundary line of Riverwalk Section 1 traversing westerly from the southwest corner of Lot 2 Block 4 we can see that it is obviously wrong and this might explain why the ? inch iron rod is so far off the computed northwest corner of Lot 7 Block 4 but this would still not explain why the 2" pipes we found are so far off from where they should be.

Lets add up the distance along the westerly line of the Lot 2 Block 4, Lot 1 Block 4, Rio Grande Street, Reserve B Block 1 and Reserve A Block 1 (1216.83'). However if you look at the westerly exterior boundary of the Map Record at those locations the distance is shown as 1218.83'. While this only begins to explain why there may be differences in a north/south direction for the location of the 2" pipes it does not explain why they are 5' to the west of where they should be. 

In order to begin to resolve the ambiguities indicated by this evidence the underlying Deed for Riverwalk Section 1 would have to be compared to the Riverwalk Section 1 Map Record to try and resolve the ambiguities found in the Map Record and between the locations of the evidence found on the ground. Please turn to page 54, 55 and 56 of your seminar manual and you will find that underlying Deed. Please take a moment to look at it (the last 4 paragraphs of the description in particular).

Does anything jump out at anyone?

(In the second to the last paragraph on page 55 It indicates that the bearing for the boundary line traversing westerly from the southwest corner of Lot 2 Block 4 should be S 89 deg. 32' 33" East or NW not 83 deg. 32' 22" as the Map Record indicates). When we apply that bearing instead of the one shown on the Riverwalk Map Record we can make the ? inch iron rod found near the Northwest corner of Lot 7 Block 4 to now be within 0.15' of its computed location holding the other iron rods we found.  

(The underlying Riverwalk Section 1 Deed states that the westerly line in question is 5' east and parallel to the west line of its parent tract.) Since it mentions a 2" iron pipe at its parent tract corner in the third paragraph from the bottom on page 55 this means we might be able explain why the 2" iron pipes are westerly 5' from the southwest corner of Lot 2 Block 4 and the northwest corner of Reserve A Block 1. But we still can not explain why they are 1' south and 1' north (respectively) of where the underlying Riverwalk Section 1 Deed indicates they should be. 

Now are we ready to stake out Lot 2 Block 4?

Take another look at the metes and bounds description on page 54 through 56. 

(The Deed does not call for the 2" iron pipes in passing for the boundary corners in question)

(The Deed indicates there is a strip of land 5' wide along the westerly boundary of Riverwalk Section 1 that is junior to Riverwalk Section 1 which the Map Record has landlocked by virtue of the 1' reserve shown at the termination of Rio Grande Drive)

(The Deed is dated the same month the Map Record is dated and was probably prepared by the same Land Surveyor). 

(The Deed is a conveyance from Landcraft Inc. Into Riverwalk that created the Map Record Riverwalk Sectiton 1)

(The Deed calls to be out of a parent tract described in MCCF No. 8410090.)

Please turn to page 57 and 58 of your seminar manual to find to MCCF no. 8410090. 

Take a minute to look over it particularly the 4th, 5th and 6th paragraph on page 58...does anything jump out at anyone?

(The Grantee for the Parent tract is Landcraft, who conveyed the underlying deed for Riverwalk Section 1 to Riverwalk inc. that created the Map Record Riverwalk Section 1)

If you read it the parent tracts westerly boundary is controlled by the call for the 2" iron pipes (artificial monuments) (see page 58 paragraph 5 and 6) which we found.

Thus the westerly boundary line of the underlying Deed for Riverwalk Section 1 would be controlled by the 2 inch iron pipes and be located 5 feet east and parallel to them even though those 2 inch iron pipes are not called for in that Deed. 

Further the westerly boundary of Riverwalk Section 1 would also be controlled by those same 2 inch iron pipes even though those 2" iron pipes are not expressly called for on the Map Record of Riverwalk Section 1 either.

We are now looking at a situation where we may have to apply the strips and gores doctrine.

(can anyone explain what that doctrine loosely mandates?)

(When a grantor conveys land he owns adjacent to a narrow strip that thereby ceases to be of benefit or importance to him, he also conveys the narrow strip unless he reserves the strip for himself by plain and specific language. Escondido Services, LLC v. VKM Holdings, LP, Escondido Services, 321 S.W.3d 102 (Tex. App—Eastland))(See Ken Golds Decisions). 

This would involve extending the boundaries of all the Lots and streets located easterly of the west boundary of Riverwalk Section 1 to the actual west boundary of the Parent tract.

Before we even contemplate that issue However we must first determine where the north and south boundary lines of Lot 2 Block 4 are located because remember the 2" iron pipes indicate that the west boundary line in question starts approximately 1' south and ends approximately 1 foot north of where the other evidence found within the interior of Riverwalk Section 1 indicates and this suggests there is an excess in the indicated lot widths. This excess is further supported by the differences (ambiguity) in the dimension shown for the west boundary of Riverwalk Section 1 Map Record vs what the sum of the dimensions of the west line of the lots, reserves and street shown on Riverwalk Section 1 Map Record.

Riverwalk Section 1 Map Record is a simultaneous conveyance therefore any excess or deficiency would generally be prorated among the lots within the blocks in question proportionate to the distances shown vs the actual distance of the line. However this type of solution is only applied generally between original Block corners and this principle does not extend to include Road Rights of ways that have been dedicated to the Public..

Lets look back at Example the Map Record on Page 52 in your Seminar Manual and read the certification the Land Surveyor made that created Riverwalk Section 1 Map Record. (Does anything jump out at anyone?)

The Surveyor states “that all corners and angle points of the boundaries of the original tract to be subdivided of reference have been marked with iron rods....... The Surveyor does not indicate that they set any of the interior corners of Riverwalk Section 1 therefore all the evidence found within the interior of the subdivision is not original monuments and set by other Surveyors attempting to retrace Riverwalk Section 1. The only original monuments we have are the 2" iron pipes we found which are the controlling artificial monuments of Public Record. 

How all of these ambiguities are resolved that have been brought up by the evidence presented would take up far more time than this 8 hour seminar and as I have said there most certainly will be differences of opinion on how Case Law is applied or which product of the ambiguities we have found would be held in order to retrace the boundaries of this Real Property. I actually surveyed the Lot 1 Block 4 of this subdivision and have brought copies of the survey with me. Pass them around among yourselves and take a look at how I handled these issues but as I have said this is only my opinion.

By the way I want you to know that I have the permission, of the people who hired me to perform these surveys, to distribute this information to third parties in accordance with Codified Law. And again, this is a topic for yet another seminar. 

Lets take a look at another example, please turn to Page 59 of your Seminar Manual. This is what is called an Amending Map Record per the City of Houston Planning Department and is generally used to eliminate a single lot line or otherwise make minor changes to an existing Map Record. I realize it is difficult to read and I apologize for that , what I sent to be printed came out a little fuzzier than I had hoped. But if you just look at the Amending Map on the left hand side of the page versus the original Map of the subdivision on the right hand side (by the way the original map is filed in the Deed records not the Map Records). Does anything catch anybodys eye?

(The new Map Record appears to be a different shape than the original Map Record)

Turn to page 60 of your Seminar Manual to get a closer look at the original Map so you can see the detail. Can anyone see the shape differences now?

The Amending Map has a dimension of 103.50' for the north line and 96.00' for the south line whereas the original Map as a dimension of 104.9'. Something appears to be a little fishy, would you not agree?

Turn to page 61 of your Seminar Manual to see the adjoining Map to the West of the Amending Map and the Original Map (by the way the adjoining Map is filed in the Deed Records not the Map Records). Rotate counter clockwise to orient north straight up on the page and take a moment to look at it. Does anybody see anything that might begin to explain why the Amending Map does not match the Original Map? 

There appears to be an ancient overlap (or technically what is known as an area of record confusion, since overlaps do not really exist) described along the east boundary of the adjoining Map on page 61 of your Seminar Manual. This overlap problem must date to at least 1925 according to the date on this adjoining Map. . 

How would we go about trying to resolve the ambiguities we have uncovered if we were to try and retrace the location of the boundaries of the Amending Map Record?  

(This is where experience starts to pay off and this is a tool that you will gain after you have practiced in a particular area for years. I happened to have followed J.S. Boyles work, the Land Surveyor that created the adjoining Map to the west of the amending Map and original Map. He obtained RPLS Lic. No. 1 here in this State. His work product is typically impeccable and I swear the mans ghost must be walking around maintaining the monuments he set a 100 years ago because I find them all of the time).

The first thing we need to do is try and determine where the east boundary of the adjoining Map might be located from evidence we find in the field and compare it evidence we find in the field for the location of the west boundary of the Original Map. Obviously the superior record title to the lands in question could be found by applying Junior and Senior rights which would involve a chain of title research for the underlying deeds of the Maps at hand but if we look at the west adjoining Map do you see anything that might render such an exercise superfluous (unnecessary)? (There is an abstract line (Original conveyance line) dividing these properties). 

Would it surprise you if I told you that they overlap on the ground by the exact amount shown on the west Map? Would it surprise you if I told you that everything up to the east boundary of the adjoining west Map is being occupied on the ground by the owners of the lands in the adjoining west Map?

Lets take a look at the Map Record Reserve at West Tidwell in example 3 on page 62 of your Seminar manual. Notice anything odd about it? Take a close look at the northerly boundary and tell me if you see anything that jumps out at you. 

1) There is a weird jog in the boundary where Restricted Reserve A of TC Jester Business Park section 2 protrudes into the subject tract.

2) TC Jester Boulevard and Balboa Avenue do not appear to connect along the northerly boundary and there appears to be a shift to the west from the location of those same streets to the north. 

3) The metadata for the State Plane Coordinates shown are incomplete and the scale factor is obviously wrong.

Lets take a look at Highland Heights Annex No. 4 Map Record to the north of the subject tract on page 63 and see if it will shed any light on what is going on here. This would be the southerly line of Block 21 on this Map and I realize it is tough to read but it shows no jog in the southerly line of that Block and indicates that the depth of the Lots in Block 21 to be 485' with what appears to be 40' roadway bounding Block 21 to the north. 

So lets take a look at TC Jester Business Park Section 2 Map Record shown on page 64 of your Seminar Manual to try and find out why it is shown jogging beyond the boundary of Highland Heights Annex No. 4 and into the subject tract according to the Reserve at West Tidwell Map on Page 62. 

Again I apologize and I know that you can not read it but it depicts the depth of the Block as 475.00' with a street to the north having a width of 60'. 485' - 475' = 10' which happens to be ? of the 60' roadway it depicts less the 40' of right-of-way shown on the original Highland Heights Annex No. 4 Map Record on page 63 that it is out of. It purports to be a replat of a subdivision in Film Code No. 591129 and if we were to pull that Map Record we would find that it states that the property is out of Lot 14 Block 21 of Highland Heights Annex No. 4 Map Record and includes no other lands. Although the replat is missing the lines at the rear for the adjoiners it does not depict a jog in Highland Heights Annex Section No. 4 Map Record (in fact it shows no line what so ever) and states the adjoiner to the south is recorded in Harris County Clerks file No. J500095 which also happens to be the parent description for the subject tract before it was described in the Public Record as Reserve at West Tidwell Map Record on page 62 of you Seminar manual.  

Please turn to page 65 of your Seminar manual to see the Harris County Clerks file No. J500095 metes and bounds description. You will notice that there is no mention of a jog in the northerly boundary which is described in the last paragraph of the Metes and Bounds description. Further it calls for the record monument of Highland Heights Annex No. 4 as bounding its northerly line.

Now if we look carefully you will notice that this description says it begins in the second paragraph at the east right-of-way line of East T.C. Jester Boulevard (120' wide) (not open), described in Volume 7984, Page 608 of the Deed Records of Harris County (a record monument) with its intersection of the south line of Highland Heights Annex No. 4 (a record monument) on page 63 of you Seminar Manual. 

Please turn to page 66 of you Seminar Manual to look at Paragraph 9, which is the easterly TC Jester Boulevard as described in Volume 7984, Page 608 of the Deed Records of Harris County, Texas. This instrument also happens to contain the description for the record monument of the north line of Tidwell, paragraph 5, 6 and 7 on page 67 of you Seminary Manual. So we now have the record monuments to the north, west, south and east of the subject tract. If we look even closer at the Map Record Reserve At West Tidwell on Page 62 of our Seminar manual the record monuments it lists bounding the subject tract to the west, south and east ( Harris County Clerks file no. D098435) converts to Volume 7984, Page 608 of the Deed Records. The same as the parent description for the subject tract. 

Volume 7984, Page 608 D.R.H.C. on Page 66 calls for a length of 176.70' along TC Jester Boulevard to the cutback corner on Tidwell whereas Reserve at West Tidwell Map Record on the ninth paragraph of page 62 calls for 170.81' and the parent description on page 65 paragraph 3 calls the distance as 170.84'.

Volume 7984, Page 608 D.R.H.C. calls for a cutback length of 14.62' as does the Reserve at West Tidwell Map Record but the parent tract calls 14.67'. 

Volume 7984, Page 608 D.R.H.C. calls a distance of 5.98' along the westerly line of Balbo Avenue whereas the Reserve at West Tidwell Map Record calls it 3.94' and the parent tract calls it 3.78 feet.

Now I am not going to bore you with going through the exercise of making a mathematical model of Volume 7984, Page 608 of the Deed Records but if you turn to page 68 of you Seminar Manual I have run the figures up and as you can see they are ambiguous. The projected bearing for the line for the north terminus of TC Jester, which it purports to be the south line of Highland Heights Annex No. 4, is 12.97' south of where it turns north for the west line of Balbo Avenue. Not only that if we compute where it then says it strikes the South Line of Highland Heights Annex No. 4 on paragraph 7, page 67 of your Seminar manual and then starts traveling easterly along it, that projected line is now a total of 18.95' south of where it said the south line of Highland Heights Annex No. 4 was previously. 

Obviously there are some ambiguities in the metes and bounds descriptions for the roadways of TC Jester and Tidwell. The parent tract description on page 65 of your Seminar Handout looks like the Surveyor just forced it to work somehow, although they do mention finding 5/8" iron rods at 5 of the corners of the subject tract even though the record monument descriptions for the roadways of TC Jester and Tidwell do not call for those irons. If we look carefully at the Reserve at West Tidwell Map Record on Page 62 of your Seminar Manual it says it found a bent 5/8 inch iron rod at the northwest corner (which could be the same as the one described in the Parent tract) however it goes on to state that all the other 5/8 inch iron rods they found are not on the computed corners and it holds a ? inch iron rod on its northeast corner which is not called for in any Public Record we have reviewed. It goes on to describe holding a pipe and a capped ? inch rod along its northerly line for the south line of Highland Heights Annex No. 4 even though it jogs around TC Jester Business Park Section 2 which purports to out of Highland Heights Annex No. 4. 

The Surveyor who prepared the survey for the subject tract in the Reserve At West Tidwell Map Record on Page 62 of your Seminar Manual never went beyond the boundaries of the property they were surveying in order to locate it according to the Map Record they prepared. Obviously that was a mistake on their part. 

Would it surprise you if we found compelling evidence that places the south boundary of Highland Heights Annex No. 4, 4 or 5 feet to the south of where Reserve at West Tidwell Map Record depicts it being located? 

Finally lets take a minute to look at page 69 of your Seminar Manual where you will find the instrument H.C.C.F. No. D363703 for the taking of land for TC Jester Boulevard out of Lot 14 Block 21 Highland Heights Annex No. 4 to the north.

See anything that jumps out at you? 

(It shows a depth of 485' for Block 21 of Highland Heights Annex No. 4.)

TC Jester Business Park Sec. 2 purports to be 51' wide at the south end and depicts Lot 13 of Highland Heights Annex No. 4 adjoining it to the east. It is a replat of a plat out of Lot 14 of Highland Heights Annex No. 4. This instrument takes the west 39' of the south line of Lot 14 for T.C. Jester and the call width for Lot 14 according to Highland Heights Annex No. 4 is a total of 90'. They agree. 

You cant read the date on it and I did not include the date for Volume 7984, Page 608 D.R.H.C. but they are dated within 1 year of each other. 

In other words it is fairly obvious that the intent of Volume 7984, Page 608 and Harris County Clerks File No. D363703 was for them to meet at a common point for the east line of TC Jester. This means that just looking at the Reserve At West Tidwell Map Record we can see that the subject tract been mislocated by at least 12.75' too far to the west and 3.92' too far to the north and we have yet to even look at the evidence on the ground.  

In most cases a Land Surveyor never really knows if they correctly retraced the location of a particular Real Property Boundary, so being a good Land Surveyor is more about how not to try and retrace them. A good start is to always survey the adjoiners first before you try to survey your own property and this means both on the ground and on paper. 

Any good Land Surveyor must possess the perspicuity to be able to place themselves in the shoes of the Grantor, Grantee, Scrivener and Original Surveyor; to have the power to transport themselves to that time and place when that Real Property was first being severed from the parent. 

A Land Surveyor that is a professional will also have to learn to be able to reverse their opinion if better evidence of the location of a Real Property Boundary becomes available and this is why it is so important for Land Surveyors to perform adequate research in the Public Record and on the ground before they try to form an opinion on where a Real Property Boundary might be located. There is nothing preventing other evidence from coming to light that would prove a Land Surveyor has made a mistake and this is one of the reasons why the Texas Property Code (3) works so well.

1) Ballard v. Stanolind Oil and Gas Co., 80 f 2d 588 (1335).

 State v. Franco American Securities, 172 S. W.2d 831 (1943).

2) https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=3&ti=22&pt=29

3) https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PR/htm/PR.12.htm

   https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PR/htm/PR.5.htm

     ? Understanding and using geographic information systems (GIS)

  Solving land description and boundary location problems

Geographic Information systems are useful for a variety of purposes and have been around for a long time. Generally it can be defined as a map composed of attributes associated with certain locations or areas within those maps. A geographic information system is only as good as the information that is put in it. For example if a tax map is used to define the location of the boundaries of the parcels in a geographic information system then the location of those boundaries in only going to be as accurate as the tax map.

The City of Houston for example has a geographic information system it calls GIMS that contains vast amounts of information about the location of sewers, waterlines, flood plane locations etc.. They have attempted to bring survey grade locations to the underlying boundaries depicted in the GIMS but unfortunately this effort has not born fruit for a variety of reasons. (The Surveyors uploading Map Records approved by the City of Houston have not determined the State Plane Coordinates shown on those maps correctly or in other cases with sufficient accuracy to be of any benefit). (The underlying software design was flawed leading to inability to load the information into that system in a scale compatible with the State Plane Coordinate system). Etc... I once was involved in a boundary dispute and was talking to my client about what the other Land Surveyor had told them and they said that they had told him their boundary had to be right because it matched Google Earth. This belies a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the other Land Surveyor and my client as to the limits of the information such a geographic information system can provide. 

A client I once had purchased a lot at a County Tax Auction. The lot was part of a recorded subdivision in my city and It had an old house on it which he planned to fix up and sell. My client lived out of town and Six months went by before he was able to get to Houston to start working on it. When he went to the lot he though he owned he found that the house that was on it had been torn down and there were strangers living in a new house that had been built there. He talked to the people there who assured him he was mistaken and told him that he must have purchased the lot next door, which was vacant. That is when he contacted me to do a survey of it. All the lots that this subdivision were located in were very narrow and deep, perhaps 60' of road frontage, extending back 300' to the rear of each Lot. In the course of performing the survey I talked to the people in the new house who provided me with a copy of the Survey that had been performed for their purchase and had been used for their subsequent building permit to build the new home there. It was an Express Map created by combining information from the County tax mosaic, Google Earth and the City of Houston GIMS. Unfortunately the tax map was not a survey grade location of the boundary lines it depicted and thus the lot in question that they had constructed the new home on was actually the vacant lot next door that they claimed my client owned.