Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Land Court (Massachusetts)
Land Court (Massachusetts)
Posted by not-my-real-name on January 27, 2020 at 3:43 pmI had a request to survey some land in Massachusetts. During research on the property I found that the land was issued a certificate of title by the Land Court long ago in 1907.
May I survey this property as any other and record a map of my findings or does one need to present results to the Land Court?
I should note that I am not planning a subdivision of the property, just finding the boundary.
Tiglinda replied 4 years, 2 months ago 7 Members · 18 Replies- 18 Replies
If you are not creating new lot lines with a Definitive Subdivision, or an Approval Not Required plan, and you are not “updating” the record Land Court plan in conjunction with a Supplemental Petition to the Land Court, then you don’t need to submit anything to the Land Court for review. You can draw up plot plans for your client, for submission to town regulators, and ALTA/NSPS survey plans.
A 1907 Land Court Decree Plan probably does not show bearings or angles on the lot lines. You should definitely request a copy of the surveyor’s Petitioner’s Plan (also called “File Plan”) as it will probably show more survey data on it. Just beware, the final Decreed lot lines may not match the surveyor’s opinion of the boundary on the Petitioner’s Plan. There was a court process and adjudication of the boundaries that happened in between the drawing of the two plans.
That said, it
would behoove you to get familiar with the Land Court Manual of Instructions, should you ever have to submit plans for review.
Thank you Peter, You are right. The first certificate of title in 1907 does not have bearings. However, there was a later certificate filed fr in 1911 that does have bearings. I am attempting to get the petitioner plan or the plan that was filed by the Land Court. I did look at the manual, but, did not find anything pertaining to my specific case. I only want to survey the perimeter and record the results without the Land Court. Also, I called the Land Court with my question and was only able to reach numerous robot menus.
Historic Boundaries and Conservation Efforts“May I survey this property as any other and record a map of my findings or does one need to present results to the Land Court?”
So far as I know, there is no prohibition against recording a “No New Lot Lines” plan of a survey done on registered land. It’s just one surveyor’s opinion, like any other recorded plan. You might want to call the survey department at the land court and ask their thoughts on it. They might ask for a copy for their files, as supplemental information.
OK
Historic Boundaries and Conservation EffortsI had to do this once. The subject property was made up of several parcels of land, all registered in Land Court, and the owner wanted to put an addition on the house. The house straddled one of the interior property lines. The building inspector insisted that the owner have a survey done to “remove” the interior property lines. I thought that was unnecessary since the lots were in common ownership. He wouldn’t budge. I contacted the Land Court about it, and they told me that I could make a perimeter survey of the parcels (not showing the interior lines) and file it at the Registry as an ordinary recorded plan. I believe the Land Court staff person I spoke with told me that if done that way, my survey wouldn’t affect the registration of the same land. It would not appear in the list of encumbrances, and would not affect the title, nor would it be reviewed by the Land Court. Owner decided to do it that way, rather than fight the building inspector (work was underway).
There may be advantages to doing your work within the Land Court system, but in that case, expect additional time and additional costs. Depends on what you and your client are trying to accomplish.
I only want to find and mark the boundary, unless marks are found. Then record a map of the results showing the existing lines, buildings and improvements.
It may be just me , but, I thought the manual did not describe such.
Historic Boundaries and Conservation EffortsI don’t think the fact that the land is registered prevents you from surveying it as you would for a normal boundary survey of non-registered land.
The only thing is, the monuments you set may not be recognized by Land Court in the future if someone divides the parcel, and it goes through the Court. Land Court has evolved, so they may in fact hold them.
I think I’d still want to show a dashed line showing the Registered/Non-registered parcels, making up the one lot.
Dealing with these municipal employees/officials who don’t really understand where their jurisdiction ends, can be tiring. But as you say, sometimes it’s easier to comply with their stupidity than to fight it.
Thank you. I wondered about that too. In fact, I called the Land Court about it, but, have yet to receive a response. They don’t have email so I will need to write a letter.
Historic Boundaries and Conservation EffortsTry Cal Frank <[email protected]>
He’s the person I contact for copies of the petitioner’s plans. He’ll tell you the fee to mail to the survey department, then when the check is received he will email you scanned images, or mail hard copies if you prefer.
HEY! I’m doing a ANR for an owner with registered property RIGHT NOW in massachusetts. how ironic! Stephen Lamonica is the cheif surveyor and a wealth of resources, but he does request you email him first. His information is public so i do not feel bad about posting his name. That being said, in my unregistered opinion, you do not need land court permission to do a retracement survey and mark the boundary. Also for a plot plan that shows existing improvements to the lot (buildings, driveway, fences, etc) i dont think the land court is interested in, since they deal with boundary lines and not the actual improvements on the lot, unless there is apparent encroachments. I think a plot plan would be filed with the town, with a note referring to the land court plan. I could be wrong so dont hold my words as gospel.
What is this for may I ask? If youre not doing any adjustments to the boundary i dont think land court needs to be associated/notified. But this is Massachusetts, so who the hell knows.
I had a similar situation, in MA, buying land adjacent to land I already owned and wanting to build a barn on the new lot. The barn location is close to the interior boundary between the original lot and the new lot — closer than any of the zoning bylaw’s minimum setback requirements for front yards, side yards, or rear yards (all three are different, and that’s a whole other question: how to interpret front, side, and rear for lots that are more complicated than simple, rectangular urban-style lots with a single road frontage). In preparation for the building permit, I discussed this with the building inspector and as I expected, he said that the two lots would have to be combined onto one deed. Or, I’d have to place the barn more centrally located on the new lot.
If you’re willing to accept the legitimacy of the zoning bylaw (and that is an “if”), then this is a reasonable stance. If the two lots remained on separate deeds, with the barn built close to the interior boundary, and I eventually sold one lot, or sold each to a different buyer, then there’d be a nonconforming situation with nothing to trigger notice by the town or the state (i.e. no subdivision plan).
By the way, both lots were simply recorded land, not registered land.
Correction to the email address for Cal Frank:
Hi Bill,
Check out http://masscases.com/cases/app/7/7massappct286.html
A reference to the case was provided to me by a clerk at the Land Court. The court concluded, after reviewing specific bylaws of the town:
“We are of the opinion that, under the 1957 definition of “lot,” a common owner of contiguous parcels which were described separately for conveyancing purposes could treat them as one lot for zoning purposes. Such an assembled lot could be the site for one main commercial building. A fortiori, a common owner could treat parcels with separate sources of title as one lot under the 1965 definition.”
Why building inspectors insist upon doing otherwise I don’t know, but is maddening all the same.
Al
I took a quick look at the above-linked case (Heald v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Greenfield, 7 Mass App. Ct. 286 (1979)), and then Googled to try to find a more-readable PDF version of it. That search turned up a reference in the Google Books copy of “Handbook of Massachusetts Land Use and Planning Law: Zoning, Subdivision Control, and Nonzoning Alternatives,” 2002 edition (there’s at least one more recent edition). Merging of lots is discussed around pages 159 through 163.
In footnote #50 on page 160 of “Handbook…,” the author cites Heald and a few other cases, and says: “These cases involved a landowner who wanted to merge serveral adjacent and nonconforming smaller lots into a single buildable lot. This is a far cry from the Vetter line, in which the landowner is trying to avoid this result.”
“Vetter” is a reference to the case: Vetter v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Attleboro, 330 Mass. 628 (1953).
Table 5-1 on page 161 of “Handbook…” is “a synopsis of all appellate level decisions (and a few Land Court decisions) in which a landowner has attempted to preserve the individual identity of two or more adjacent lots.” Vetter is in the table; Heald is not. The author goes on to say: “Of the 15 appellate level decisions, eleven have resulted in merger of adjacent lots. Of the four decisions holding that merger need not occur, one has been labeled a very limited precedent and two of the decisions were decided under extremely liberal local by-laws granting generous exemptions to landowners.”
I wonder if building inspectors have been reading the “Handbook…”
Good writing, Bill. I don’t own a copy of Bobrowski’s book, but I too looked at the Google Books result. It’s obviously a complicated subject. When the owner wants to build, he wants to treat the several individual lots as one and disregard the interior lines. And then when he decides to sell, he wants to be able to preserve those same interior property lines he disregarded during building and maximize his sale price.
I’m going to dig into these references when I have some free time. I wanted to make a quick comment based on a recent project. My client had purchased a lot that was in common ownership with the abutter. The abutter constructed a new structure few years ago with the no issue with building permits. New owner, my client, had me survey it for them. The abutters new structure is over the property line. Now everyone is fighting and there are lawyers involved.
I used to believe the building inspector was over reaching in requiring lots to be merged. Now I’m leaning the other way and they should require surveys before they issues permits to avoid this issue. If the owner can show the improvements are on only one lot, then no need to merge.
Log in to reply.