Not sure if there is already a posted subject. Sorry!
I do have a question and hope someone in this group could help explain
or help me out.

I live in VA and recently settled. I found out that my lot size on the
survey is much smaller than the one on the subdivision's map which I
was given to pick out my lot. The difference is more than 1000 sq ft.
I talked to the builder and they said that the Survey Co said that was
the correct lot size. I think the Survey Co based their info on the
builder's submission error.

Can it deviate that much? What can I do to get the builder to fix it?

Thanks

omg. i would see an attorney post haste. how big is the lot ?

It's 7035 sq ft on the subdivision's map and 5888 sq ft on the survey.
Thanks!

There was no fill-in-the-blank for lot size in the contract form. All
I got was a map from the builder's sale rep. And there is no way to
find out until I got the survey back at settlement. Thanks a whole
bunch for your quick reply.

"swift3d" writes:
Not sure if there is already a posted subject. Sorry!
I do have a question and hope someone in this group could help explain
or help me out.

I live in VA and recently settled. I found out that my lot size on the
survey is much smaller than the one on the subdivision's map which I
was given to pick out my lot. The difference is more than 1000 sq ft.
I talked to the builder and they said that the Survey Co said that was
the correct lot size. I think the Survey Co based their info on the
builder's submission error.

Can it deviate that much? What can I do to get the builder to fix
it?

That's certainly an error. And a great case in point as to why
survey's are done every time a property changes hands.

On the Illiois multi-board approved contracts, at least, there is a
fill in blank for approximate lot size. If your contract to purchase
was similar, and you filled it in with the builder's estimate of lot
size rather than "per survey," and the survey came back that much
less, you'd have a pretty good case for walking from the contract and
getting your $ back, I'd have to think. Caveat: I am not a lawyer.

I'd get one post haste as another poster sagely suggested.

If you've already closed on this property, good luck having anything
done.


Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

swift3d wrote:
It's 7035 sq ft on the subdivision's map and 5888 sq ft on the survey.
Thanks!

Does the subdivision include the easments in the size? Does the survey
include them or the usual front easement?

I doubt this would cover 1000 sq ft on a lot of 7000 sq ft. and I don't
think it is the norm.

swift3d wrote:
There was no fill-in-the-blank for lot size in the contract form. All
I got was a map from the builder's sale rep. And there is no way to
find out until I got the survey back at settlement. Thanks a whole
bunch for your quick reply.


You were certainly entitled to the survey before the closing. You most
likely are the one that paid for it, didn't you? I remember ordering
surveys for homes I purchased and getting them for the mortgage company
to review well in advance of closing.

I also got not only a survey but also had the survey company come out
and place markers so I knew where the boundaries are.

The questions now a

1 - Are the property boundaries about where you thought they were, but
just the total square footage is 1000 ft less? Is the difference in
one area, say a side yard or back yard that makes an obvious difference
or perhaps even violates some zoning reqt, like side yard reqt, set
back, etc?

2 - What would the property have sold for with a lot size that is 1000
ft less?

If similar houses are going for the same price on the smaller lot,
you'll have a pretty hard time proving damages.

I am in VA and not sure how it works elsewhere. Typically, when you
buy a new home, the sale rep shows you a map layout of a subdivision
with lots and their sizes. You would pick one and go from there. The
map I got only shows the lot # and its size. There is no indication of
easement around the house.

I would never think that it would deviate that much from the
subdivision's map

Thanks

That big a percent deviation sounds fishy but again, an hour or two w/
a real estate lawyer would be a good use of money.

In article om,
says...

You were certainly entitled to the survey before the closing. You most
likely are the one that paid for it, didn't you?

Common practice varies dramatically from state to state. There are
states where a buyer will usually get a survey before closing as a
matter of course, and states where getting survey for a standard home
purchase is almost unheard-of.

Best I can tell, our property was last officially surveyed when the
plat was recorded about a hundred years ago, no recorded surveys
since then, though there have been recorded surveys of two out of
three neighboring properties in the past hundred years.

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html

Joshua Putnam wrote:
In article om,
says...

You were certainly entitled to the survey before the closing. You most
likely are the one that paid for it, didn't you?

Common practice varies dramatically from state to state. There are
states where a buyer will usually get a survey before closing as a
matter of course, and states where getting survey for a standard home
purchase is almost unheard-of.

Even if a survey is not routinely given out before closing, you could
ask for it. Someone has to have the survey discription of the property
so that the deed can be correctly recorded. Where did the one come
from that showed that the property was smaller?



Best I can tell, our property was last officially surveyed when the
plat was recorded about a hundred years ago, no recorded surveys
since then, though there have been recorded surveys of two out of
three neighboring properties in the past hundred years.


This doesn;t make any sense. You state this property was a 7000 ft
lot, part of a sub division. It's hard to believe the 7000 foot lot in
a sub divsion, along with the necessary roads, easements, etc were all
created with the last survey being 100 years ago.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Joshua Putnam wrote:
In article om,
says...

You were certainly entitled to the survey before the closing. You most
likely are the one that paid for it, didn't you?

Common practice varies dramatically from state to state. There are
states where a buyer will usually get a survey before closing as a
matter of course, and states where getting survey for a standard home
purchase is almost unheard-of.

Even if a survey is not routinely given out before closing, you could
ask for it. Someone has to have the survey discription of the property
so that the deed can be correctly recorded. Where did the one come
from that showed that the property was smaller?



Best I can tell, our property was last officially surveyed when the
plat was recorded about a hundred years ago, no recorded surveys
since then, though there have been recorded surveys of two out of
three neighboring properties in the past hundred years.


This doesn;t make any sense. You state this property was a 7000 ft
lot, part of a sub division. It's hard to believe the 7000 foot lot in
a sub divsion, along with the necessary roads, easements, etc were all
created with the last survey being 100 years ago.


Trader - Joshua is not the OP.....

On 06 Feb 2006 11:03:53 -0600, someone wrote:

... you'd have a pretty good case for walking from the contract

Too late for that, he already owns it. No longer "under contract",
the contract has been completed.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.