Project I did for a client a while back got approved by the city, and they started construction. However, the city never asked for a land survey of any form until now that the foundation has been poured. Since, there is a variance, the new Bldg. Inspector wants to have the survey and markings everytime he goes to the site. The client has gotten into his head that this is my fault. Who is ultimately responsible for the land survey?
The client is responsible for paying for the survey - and would usually contract with a surveyor directly, though this could be done through the architect. It is not your fault that the client doesn't have a survey. However, a survey is almost always necessary for any project that involves new construction or any change to the footprint of an existing building - and sometimes even for renovations to an existing building if the existing building is non-conforming...
In general it would be a good idea in the future to mention to your clients that a survey may become necessary - and that as surveyors often have backlogs and this could jam up the project schedule down the line, it migt be a good idea for the client to have this done as early as possible.
I disagree, it is your fault the client does not have a survey. The client hired you because you are a professional consultant in the building industry. It is your responsibility to tell the client to get a survey. while probably no legal action can occur against you, you should owe up to your mistake and help the client get whatever information the city requires.
I'll give more background information. The client knew that the city may ask for a survey during the variance approval. However, this never happened. In my contracts it is clearly stated that surveyors, consultants, etc are out of my services. The inspector that went before this guy, didn't have much of a problem. This guy though apparently thinks that the new construction is within the other property, eventhough it is set in from the existing home. I have been helping the client out through the building process, and even with this issue, I put off meetings that morning to confer with the city and call up some of the surveyors I work with in New construction. However, he apparently thinks that I am to blame or that the construction documents were incorrect. I guess that is what happens when one tries to help out people. But back to the original question with more background to it... who is responsible?
You were responsible for telling the client that they needed a survey. If you did tell the client this, but the client decided not to listen, then that's his/her responsibility.
AIA contracts state that the client is responsible. (AIA contracts are often used as the "professional standard of care" in cases involving architects, regardless of whether the particular architect used an AIA contract.)
I agree with others (and I think I stated more or less the same thing) that you should have warned the client that he might need a survey. It sounds as though you did this, but that you and your client assumed that because you got a building permit without it you would not need it later. As you discovered, this was not a valid assumption.
Always remember that the various inspectors and officials involved are able to request more information at any point, and that sometimes they're even able to backtrack on what they've already decided. I had a situation recently in which both the building inspector and the fire official had signed off on plans, only to reverse their decision in writing two weeks later after a highly-publicized local fire in a similar building. Situations similar to yours have happened when one inspector has quit or retired during the life of a project.
vado: It is possible to get a building permit in some cases, in some places, based only on a site diagram prepared by the architect. Architects typically paste disclaimers all over such diagrams, stating from where they got the information and that this diagram does not represent a survey and that the architect is not a surveyor...
well bloo, in my experience every project i have ever worked, (with the expception of agricultural buildings; which dont need to go to the state,) has had to include a site plan with site info retention calcs lot coverage setbacks, utility location, parking etc. before a permit can be obtained.
vado: I believe you. But I've worked on quite a lot of projects that have not needed all of that information - including commercial and institutional projects. It has depended a lot on where. Some jurisdictions would not allow this but others do routinely. You're saying that most projects where you are need to "go to the state." I've worked in states that operate that way, but in others where nothing goes to the state (unless there's an appeal to some local-level decision.) Often on this site one can see both extremes: from people who have to take tiny residential projects through everything from labor and indurstry reviews to approvals of shoreline commissions to design review boards, to people who are putting up some fairly large projects with not much more than a handshake from the local official.
Another factor is whether the project comes anywhere near a site boundary. The original poster seems to be indicating that the building inspector is concerned that the project crosses the property line. I highly doubt that I would have been able to get a permit for that project without a survey - even here where the interpretation of the rules can be pretty lax, and even if somehow I could, there's no way I would take such a project beyond schematic design without a survey.
But: when it is clear that a project is solidly within the setbacks, doesn't come anywhere near the lot coverage limits, etc. it is often pretty easy to get through with just a diagram. In fact I'm working on something right now - a small addition to a commercial office building - in which the client got a variance and a building permit with just a diagram and a notorized letter from the owner of the adjacent property stating no objection. I have stated in writing to the client that a survey might still become necessary down the road, but in this case I doubt the issue will resurface.
any time you don't exactly know where the property line is and you know setbacks are critical to the project, it is your responsibility to request a boundry survey at client's expense. otherwise you are putting yourself in the midlle of liability issue by assuming the property line. like blind leading the blind. probably the visual inspection of the building triggered some doubts in the inspectors mind. an approved set of plans can be overruled by the construction inspector like it was mentioned in above post.
at this point, you just hope that the required setbacks were indeed provided and the height of the building is not triggering additional setbacks as it would be the case in los angeles.
never guesstimate the location of neighbor's fence.
what was the variance about? if it was about the setbacks and the building ht, how could they grant you a variance without a survey? where is this project and what is it?
thanks for all the responses.... here is the deal, it's a small 551 sq ft addition for my neighbor. We live in a place where the lots are narrow, and share the driveway with the other lot. In between his home and my home there is only 4'. I also wrote a letter stating that I had no problem to the addition as it was exactly in bulk as one that was done in my home(We finished it, as the bank foreclosed it from the previous owner). Same height and same length, only narrower to accomodate the easement on the other side. My home sits presumably 2' from the property line, so with that in my mind the design for his home called for a 2'6" setback. The code for this area says 4' is required but only 2' exist in actuality. The wall closest to my house was designed with Type X S-rock, and no overhang, as per Fire and Bldg codes. The project got approved with a minor variance, and then Bldg signed off on it. The Inspector that went to check the forms, saw the closeness, and suggested to the owner a verification, but that he could go ahead and pour, as long as he knew someone else might have an issue with it. I translated for the owner word for word, and told him it was his call. He decided to pour, but now the new inspector assigned has the issue. The owner got "adviced" that apparently I was to blame for the situation. At this point, I know that I should have perhaps stopped him from pouring, but I think back as to why the city approved the variance without the survey, and why the other inspector basically told him to pour, and washed his hands in the process. The project is in the bay area.
sounds like the 2' was a non conforming existing setback. usually any new construction have to comply with required setback which is 4'. or %10 of the lot with but no norrewer than 3'.
how did you decided 2'6" would be okay?
anyway, always check and double check with the building dept. some times you ask the same question to three different people in the building dept and you might get three different answers.
I came up with 2'6" after doing the schematics and realizing that a 3' setback would make the bedrooms not comply with minimum sizes in the code. Therefore, the Hallway runs along that wall, and it only has skylights setback 4' from presumed property line. No windows. The Hallway eats up 3' which leaves about 10'8" for the length of the bedrooms. It was not your typical project, my guess is the fellow at Zoning saw the pictures of my house, and how the proposed addition worked in relation to the existing and surrounding, and said looks good. Although, he did mention the preference for a 3' setback. Which it may end up actually having depending on the survey. To be exact this project is in Oakland, which may explain a lot of the current situation. No one there seems to be on the same page.....
Believe me, everytime I do a project in Oakland I check and double check..... everytime you talk to someone here, and then talk to someone else, there is always a different interpretation and enforcement of things.... I guess the Zoning guy had one interpretation, the plan check another, the foundation forms another, and this new inspector another.... I sort of wish that it never got approved in the first place now, that the Zoning people would have asked for the Survey and for it to be at 3'...... abra i'll send you an e-mail if it's cool....thanks
just post it here. there are other cats in this site so it might generate local advice from oakland and bay area. bldg. dept. guys might look at a picture and say looks good assuming all else taken care of. ie;set backs and heights. it is not their job to approve from the picture. good luck. i am not really an expert on this. just some local experience.
i also think, after your e- letter, your neighbor/client wants you to put up the money for the surveyor and trying to find fault in your work, (close but no cigar).
the point is, you've got the permit with what you had, field inspector is now calling for a survey to verify the setback (an unforseen situation) and it is still owners responsibility to pay for the surveyor as he also has to pay for tests, special inspections etc, if required. if the situation is really about 6", you might get a one time weaver for this or ask to produce neighbor's consent in a standart city form, you are the neighbor in this case. your fault comes from not finding out the actual requirements/codes and bowing into the client's corner cutting ways ending up perhaps, incorrect sideyard setback.
work in la is okay same shit different inspector. ;)
i am certain your client said at one time,'oh great i don't have to have a survey and pay somebody for a stupid map".
you got it abra.... that is exactly the situation I'm in.... most of the legit inspectors I know say it is the way things go. Instead of a survey, it could be calculations, or a foundation test, etc. Unfortunately, since you kinda have an idea what type of person I am dealing with, you can see that they don't quite understand this. You are right I was much much more willing to cutting some corners, etc. back then. But you learn as you go, the bad part is this is the only remaining project from those days. It sucks that when things are going good no one bothers to chime in with their "expertise" or opinions, but when things go bad there are always the "experts" and suggestions that just fill up other people's heads. Such is the case with this guy..... oh well, I'll keep all you posted on what transpires.... and feel free to express your opinions, I thank you all for them....
Aug 9, 05 12:44 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Who is responsible for the land survey?
Project I did for a client a while back got approved by the city, and they started construction. However, the city never asked for a land survey of any form until now that the foundation has been poured. Since, there is a variance, the new Bldg. Inspector wants to have the survey and markings everytime he goes to the site. The client has gotten into his head that this is my fault. Who is ultimately responsible for the land survey?
The client is responsible for paying for the survey - and would usually contract with a surveyor directly, though this could be done through the architect. It is not your fault that the client doesn't have a survey. However, a survey is almost always necessary for any project that involves new construction or any change to the footprint of an existing building - and sometimes even for renovations to an existing building if the existing building is non-conforming...
In general it would be a good idea in the future to mention to your clients that a survey may become necessary - and that as surveyors often have backlogs and this could jam up the project schedule down the line, it migt be a good idea for the client to have this done as early as possible.
I disagree, it is your fault the client does not have a survey. The client hired you because you are a professional consultant in the building industry. It is your responsibility to tell the client to get a survey. while probably no legal action can occur against you, you should owe up to your mistake and help the client get whatever information the city requires.
I'll give more background information. The client knew that the city may ask for a survey during the variance approval. However, this never happened. In my contracts it is clearly stated that surveyors, consultants, etc are out of my services. The inspector that went before this guy, didn't have much of a problem. This guy though apparently thinks that the new construction is within the other property, eventhough it is set in from the existing home. I have been helping the client out through the building process, and even with this issue, I put off meetings that morning to confer with the city and call up some of the surveyors I work with in New construction. However, he apparently thinks that I am to blame or that the construction documents were incorrect. I guess that is what happens when one tries to help out people. But back to the original question with more background to it... who is responsible?
normally i design based on a survey i recommend the client to get done, otherwise i have no certanty of dimensions of the site.
you could tell the client to get a survey done ASAP
Yes, never begin a project without a survey. You'll also need it for the first inspection - layout.
You were responsible for telling the client that they needed a survey. If you did tell the client this, but the client decided not to listen, then that's his/her responsibility.
how did you get a building permit with out a site plan???i'd sure like to know.
AIA contracts state that the client is responsible. (AIA contracts are often used as the "professional standard of care" in cases involving architects, regardless of whether the particular architect used an AIA contract.)
I agree with others (and I think I stated more or less the same thing) that you should have warned the client that he might need a survey. It sounds as though you did this, but that you and your client assumed that because you got a building permit without it you would not need it later. As you discovered, this was not a valid assumption.
Always remember that the various inspectors and officials involved are able to request more information at any point, and that sometimes they're even able to backtrack on what they've already decided. I had a situation recently in which both the building inspector and the fire official had signed off on plans, only to reverse their decision in writing two weeks later after a highly-publicized local fire in a similar building. Situations similar to yours have happened when one inspector has quit or retired during the life of a project.
vado: It is possible to get a building permit in some cases, in some places, based only on a site diagram prepared by the architect. Architects typically paste disclaimers all over such diagrams, stating from where they got the information and that this diagram does not represent a survey and that the architect is not a surveyor...
well bloo, in my experience every project i have ever worked, (with the expception of agricultural buildings; which dont need to go to the state,) has had to include a site plan with site info retention calcs lot coverage setbacks, utility location, parking etc. before a permit can be obtained.
and then there's something called residential construction, in particular single occupancy. You can get a building permit without a true survey.
vado: I believe you. But I've worked on quite a lot of projects that have not needed all of that information - including commercial and institutional projects. It has depended a lot on where. Some jurisdictions would not allow this but others do routinely. You're saying that most projects where you are need to "go to the state." I've worked in states that operate that way, but in others where nothing goes to the state (unless there's an appeal to some local-level decision.) Often on this site one can see both extremes: from people who have to take tiny residential projects through everything from labor and indurstry reviews to approvals of shoreline commissions to design review boards, to people who are putting up some fairly large projects with not much more than a handshake from the local official.
Another factor is whether the project comes anywhere near a site boundary. The original poster seems to be indicating that the building inspector is concerned that the project crosses the property line. I highly doubt that I would have been able to get a permit for that project without a survey - even here where the interpretation of the rules can be pretty lax, and even if somehow I could, there's no way I would take such a project beyond schematic design without a survey.
But: when it is clear that a project is solidly within the setbacks, doesn't come anywhere near the lot coverage limits, etc. it is often pretty easy to get through with just a diagram. In fact I'm working on something right now - a small addition to a commercial office building - in which the client got a variance and a building permit with just a diagram and a notorized letter from the owner of the adjacent property stating no objection. I have stated in writing to the client that a survey might still become necessary down the road, but in this case I doubt the issue will resurface.
any time you don't exactly know where the property line is and you know setbacks are critical to the project, it is your responsibility to request a boundry survey at client's expense. otherwise you are putting yourself in the midlle of liability issue by assuming the property line. like blind leading the blind. probably the visual inspection of the building triggered some doubts in the inspectors mind. an approved set of plans can be overruled by the construction inspector like it was mentioned in above post.
at this point, you just hope that the required setbacks were indeed provided and the height of the building is not triggering additional setbacks as it would be the case in los angeles.
never guesstimate the location of neighbor's fence.
what was the variance about? if it was about the setbacks and the building ht, how could they grant you a variance without a survey? where is this project and what is it?
thanks for all the responses.... here is the deal, it's a small 551 sq ft addition for my neighbor. We live in a place where the lots are narrow, and share the driveway with the other lot. In between his home and my home there is only 4'. I also wrote a letter stating that I had no problem to the addition as it was exactly in bulk as one that was done in my home(We finished it, as the bank foreclosed it from the previous owner). Same height and same length, only narrower to accomodate the easement on the other side. My home sits presumably 2' from the property line, so with that in my mind the design for his home called for a 2'6" setback. The code for this area says 4' is required but only 2' exist in actuality. The wall closest to my house was designed with Type X S-rock, and no overhang, as per Fire and Bldg codes. The project got approved with a minor variance, and then Bldg signed off on it. The Inspector that went to check the forms, saw the closeness, and suggested to the owner a verification, but that he could go ahead and pour, as long as he knew someone else might have an issue with it. I translated for the owner word for word, and told him it was his call. He decided to pour, but now the new inspector assigned has the issue. The owner got "adviced" that apparently I was to blame for the situation. At this point, I know that I should have perhaps stopped him from pouring, but I think back as to why the city approved the variance without the survey, and why the other inspector basically told him to pour, and washed his hands in the process. The project is in the bay area.
sounds like the 2' was a non conforming existing setback. usually any new construction have to comply with required setback which is 4'. or %10 of the lot with but no norrewer than 3'.
how did you decided 2'6" would be okay?
note;%10 is in los angeles.
anyway, always check and double check with the building dept. some times you ask the same question to three different people in the building dept and you might get three different answers.
I came up with 2'6" after doing the schematics and realizing that a 3' setback would make the bedrooms not comply with minimum sizes in the code. Therefore, the Hallway runs along that wall, and it only has skylights setback 4' from presumed property line. No windows. The Hallway eats up 3' which leaves about 10'8" for the length of the bedrooms. It was not your typical project, my guess is the fellow at Zoning saw the pictures of my house, and how the proposed addition worked in relation to the existing and surrounding, and said looks good. Although, he did mention the preference for a 3' setback. Which it may end up actually having depending on the survey. To be exact this project is in Oakland, which may explain a lot of the current situation. No one there seems to be on the same page.....
Believe me, everytime I do a project in Oakland I check and double check..... everytime you talk to someone here, and then talk to someone else, there is always a different interpretation and enforcement of things.... I guess the Zoning guy had one interpretation, the plan check another, the foundation forms another, and this new inspector another.... I sort of wish that it never got approved in the first place now, that the Zoning people would have asked for the Survey and for it to be at 3'...... abra i'll send you an e-mail if it's cool....thanks
just post it here. there are other cats in this site so it might generate local advice from oakland and bay area. bldg. dept. guys might look at a picture and say looks good assuming all else taken care of. ie;set backs and heights. it is not their job to approve from the picture. good luck. i am not really an expert on this. just some local experience.
i also think, after your e- letter, your neighbor/client wants you to put up the money for the surveyor and trying to find fault in your work, (close but no cigar).
the point is, you've got the permit with what you had, field inspector is now calling for a survey to verify the setback (an unforseen situation) and it is still owners responsibility to pay for the surveyor as he also has to pay for tests, special inspections etc, if required. if the situation is really about 6", you might get a one time weaver for this or ask to produce neighbor's consent in a standart city form, you are the neighbor in this case. your fault comes from not finding out the actual requirements/codes and bowing into the client's corner cutting ways ending up perhaps, incorrect sideyard setback.
work in la is okay same shit different inspector. ;)
i am certain your client said at one time,'oh great i don't have to have a survey and pay somebody for a stupid map".
you got it abra.... that is exactly the situation I'm in.... most of the legit inspectors I know say it is the way things go. Instead of a survey, it could be calculations, or a foundation test, etc. Unfortunately, since you kinda have an idea what type of person I am dealing with, you can see that they don't quite understand this. You are right I was much much more willing to cutting some corners, etc. back then. But you learn as you go, the bad part is this is the only remaining project from those days. It sucks that when things are going good no one bothers to chime in with their "expertise" or opinions, but when things go bad there are always the "experts" and suggestions that just fill up other people's heads. Such is the case with this guy..... oh well, I'll keep all you posted on what transpires.... and feel free to express your opinions, I thank you all for them....
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.