Legal description, plat map, surveyor all say something different

[George Paquette]

Hi all-

Bought a property in Los Angeles County a year and a half ago. I studied the plat map and the legal description thoroughly being an appraiser. We’re building a new patio and the city tells us that there was a conveyance of land in 1937 with 2 feet given to the city.

We got a survey done, and it shows nothing. The pins show what we thought, and there is nothing supporting what the city is saying except a plat map in 1919 showing 42 feet in width, then a newer map in 1940 showing 40’ with hash marks where they say it was. But nothing showing on the legal description and the lot size did not change.

My question is, what trumps all? The deed? The legal description? The pins? Waiting to talk with a RE attorney, but thought I’d throw it out to see if anyone had dealt with this before. Thank you ..

[Guy Gimenez]

1.  If you closed the transaction with a title insurance and you asked for/received boundary coverage, the title company insured based on the survey. This is where the survey certification language becomes very important. 

2.  If the title commitment missed the alleged conveyance in 1937 (T.C. likely didn't research back that far), then you should have a claim under your title policy. 

3.  The public records will likely prevail in such a matter, but again, your attorney will need to see your title policy and survey to see who may be the responsible party in the event you make a claim.