There is to be a 2nd story addition and maybe an accessory structure added. I always thought the convention was to request a survey from the owner, particularly if you are planning to build beyond the foot print of the house. However, the building department does not require the survey. I suppose I can easily design without it but isnt it always a good idea to have it done so that property lines and any other necessary features are properly located?
Yes, you want a survey. The homeowner should have gotten one when they purchased the house, and that one should suffice. If its a slightly complex site, with significant topography or any easements etc (shared driveway, for example), you would want a new survey. Better for the homeowner to get this done themselves and pay for it directly so if it is inaccurate and leads to problems later it's not on you (at least that's the way I've usually seen it structured).
Miles, actually I don't remember them teaching that kind of thing when I was in school either. Would have been considered too "practical" and beneath the gaze of the academy.
All information pertaining to the site PRIOR to the new work is always the responsibility of the owner. That would include survey, soil test, copies of covenants, legal description, zoning classification, etc. Owner tells you what is there currently, and (through your plans and specs) you tell the owner and contractor what is to be added.
A simple improvement survey may suffice depending on what you're building and what the current conditions are. If you have height or bulk restrictions, you may need topo, etc. What is the accessory structure you are talking about? A real building or a doghouse? You need to use common sense whether or not permit requires it.
If the owner is going to balk over spending money on a simple survey to verify that you are not going to have to tear and rebuild things because you didn't have good information the first time, consider that your first major red flag. Clients who want to do it wrong in the name of saving a couple of dollars are often the same kind who will save additional dollars by stiffing you out of your fee. A word to the wise!! Been there and done that, too.
if i was to build something on my lot, i would not get a survey. my lot is defined by telephone poles and fences. if i rebuilt a fence and pushed my yard a few inches bigger (or smaller), i would live with it and expect the neighbors to do the same. if they chose to make a big deal out of it, i suppose i would have to live with the consequence and potentially the regret. if i had any sense, i would get utilities and such marked first. there is a hotline you can call, and i'm pretty sure it doesn't cost anything. not that i always have sense. you should be able to look up zoning setbacks and easements to not build on those. of course it should be noted my lot isn't very big, and it's not the sort of neighborhood where expensive things are built.
if you're doing a 2nd story addition, that wouldn't extend beyond the existing footprint, right?
as long as the addition is either in plane or setback from the walls of the existing building you should be fine with a basic plot plan. You go cantilevering and screwing with the existing setbacks and the DOB will eat you alive without a measured site plan that indicates you're setback enough already from the lot line / street wall.
As we started to design the new building, I advised the owner to get a survey which he tried to avoid (very large parcel), so we used GIS mapping, which is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. We had about 5' wiggle room.
The city does not require a survey, but you have to stake the property lines before foundations are dug. Yup, GIS maps were off 13' so the setback and building locations were about that off too and now we are revising everything, moving the building closer to an existing building, rating the existing building, closing openings etc.
I have everything documented, so everything is extra but the owner was sure a little mad....at himself for not getting a survey.
It is very important to get a survey, and if the owner does not want it make sure he is aware of the problems that can arise.
What if the original survey wasn’t recorded but iron pipes were inserted at all four corners of property showing boundaries, shouldn’t that suffice without having to pay for another survey. I feel that adding a deck to back of house, building a storage shed,(permanent or temporary) shouldn’t require another survey.
As a follow up to my comment, the town in which I live requires a survey for any work/project done on the property. Setbacks are required. I feel that as long as these are met, another survey shouldn’t be required. Exception would be a fence as these could be placed within 6 inches of property.
Aug 23, 22 8:26 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
You might want to reconsider this cavalier attitude. Your neighbours might not be as cool if you encroach on their legal property because you assumed the boundaries of your properties. Point is, pay for the survey and move on. We always draft up property surveys for all permit applications and you'd be surprised how often the homeowner misunderstands/ignores/cheats on setbacks and other zoning requirements.
Whether building department requires it or not, whether owner has it or not, I have surveys as a required item for me to start a project, especially for any type of zoning change such as additions, survey has to be a recent survey 3 months or newer. No exceptions.
I would require that there be a land survey and topographical survey (if one isn't readily available that is of sufficient resolution) to be done before I start. This is crucial for additions and accessory structures built where I would be anywhere near a property boundary line or the setback lines. However, if there are markers, already in place, I may locate them and approximate within reason, where they are in relation to the building and then identify setback and give myself at least a 1' buffer to that line so no wall or projection would cross past that 1-ft. buffer to the setback if possible for preliminary design work UNTIL a professional survey is performed. NOTE: The client should be the one to pay for such service to be performed.
If there is a professional survey done, I'd update the plans and design with that info but I usually can provide a certain prelimary work based on non-qualified measuring as I am not a land surveyor. I shouldn't be off from any professional survey markers that may exist by sufficient amount and I may begin some preliminary design work while that is being done. If there is no marker, it can be more difficult and I may have to ascertain it from another marker that may exist so we can get going with less than ideal reference points. I've done enough of this in the past to get by.
In any case, I would recommend that the client get the survey done and wait for them before moving too deep into the design process. The client would need to have a professional survey and I would insist on it, UNLESS they already have done so. If they have a boundary survey done, but not a topographical, I would insist on a topographical but I could still begin some work before that is completed. Similarly, I may insist on a soil study especially if the site is, well... concerning in its conditions especially hillsides.
Where I am, it is something I would almost certainly insist on it for good reason. Anyone that knows the terrain in my area, would understand why that is prudent and sound... unless there happen to be one for the site. The city I am in, would almost certain insist on a geological/geotech study.
Soil (geologist/geotech) and boundary survey/topographical survey are things that the client should contract to be performed and provide copies of the survey/study results. I could integrate it into the billing as an additional service but I would insist that the client should directly contract those services.
Shorter answer: I'd recommend a boundary survey and ideally, also a topographical survey. Additionally, I may insist on a geological/geotech study of the site, especially areas intended to be built on. There's reasons for that.
Aug 26, 22 12:45 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.
Building department does not require a survey
There is to be a 2nd story addition and maybe an accessory structure added. I always thought the convention was to request a survey from the owner, particularly if you are planning to build beyond the foot print of the house. However, the building department does not require the survey. I suppose I can easily design without it but isnt it always a good idea to have it done so that property lines and any other necessary features are properly located?
Exactly what do they teach in architecture school?
Yes, you want a survey. The homeowner should have gotten one when they purchased the house, and that one should suffice. If its a slightly complex site, with significant topography or any easements etc (shared driveway, for example), you would want a new survey. Better for the homeowner to get this done themselves and pay for it directly so if it is inaccurate and leads to problems later it's not on you (at least that's the way I've usually seen it structured).
Miles, actually I don't remember them teaching that kind of thing when I was in school either. Would have been considered too "practical" and beneath the gaze of the academy.
All information pertaining to the site PRIOR to the new work is always the responsibility of the owner. That would include survey, soil test, copies of covenants, legal description, zoning classification, etc. Owner tells you what is there currently, and (through your plans and specs) you tell the owner and contractor what is to be added.
A simple improvement survey may suffice depending on what you're building and what the current conditions are. If you have height or bulk restrictions, you may need topo, etc. What is the accessory structure you are talking about? A real building or a doghouse? You need to use common sense whether or not permit requires it.
If the owner is going to balk over spending money on a simple survey to verify that you are not going to have to tear and rebuild things because you didn't have good information the first time, consider that your first major red flag. Clients who want to do it wrong in the name of saving a couple of dollars are often the same kind who will save additional dollars by stiffing you out of your fee. A word to the wise!! Been there and done that, too.
if i was to build something on my lot, i would not get a survey. my lot is defined by telephone poles and fences. if i rebuilt a fence and pushed my yard a few inches bigger (or smaller), i would live with it and expect the neighbors to do the same. if they chose to make a big deal out of it, i suppose i would have to live with the consequence and potentially the regret. if i had any sense, i would get utilities and such marked first. there is a hotline you can call, and i'm pretty sure it doesn't cost anything. not that i always have sense. you should be able to look up zoning setbacks and easements to not build on those. of course it should be noted my lot isn't very big, and it's not the sort of neighborhood where expensive things are built.
if you're doing a 2nd story addition, that wouldn't extend beyond the existing footprint, right?
as long as the addition is either in plane or setback from the walls of the existing building you should be fine with a basic plot plan. You go cantilevering and screwing with the existing setbacks and the DOB will eat you alive without a measured site plan that indicates you're setback enough already from the lot line / street wall.
I just ran into a problem with that issue.
As we started to design the new building, I advised the owner to get a survey which he tried to avoid (very large parcel), so we used GIS mapping, which is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. We had about 5' wiggle room.
The city does not require a survey, but you have to stake the property lines before foundations are dug. Yup, GIS maps were off 13' so the setback and building locations were about that off too and now we are revising everything, moving the building closer to an existing building, rating the existing building, closing openings etc.
I have everything documented, so everything is extra but the owner was sure a little mad....at himself for not getting a survey.
It is very important to get a survey, and if the owner does not want it make sure he is aware of the problems that can arise.
What if the original survey wasn’t recorded but iron pipes were inserted at all four corners of property showing boundaries, shouldn’t that suffice without having to pay for another survey. I feel that adding a deck to back of house, building a storage shed,(permanent or temporary) shouldn’t require another survey.
Weird necro thread to resurrect.
As a follow up to my comment, the town in which I live requires a survey for any work/project done on the property. Setbacks are required. I feel that as long as these are met, another survey shouldn’t be required. Exception would be a fence as these could be placed within 6 inches of property.
You might want to reconsider this cavalier attitude. Your neighbours might not be as cool if you encroach on their legal property because you assumed the boundaries of your properties. Point is, pay for the survey and move on. We always draft up property surveys for all permit applications and you'd be surprised how often the homeowner misunderstands/ignores/cheats on setbacks and other zoning requirements.
Whether building department requires it or not, whether owner has it or not, I have surveys as a required item for me to start a project, especially for any type of zoning change such as additions, survey has to be a recent survey 3 months or newer. No exceptions.
I would require that there be a land survey and topographical survey (if one isn't readily available that is of sufficient resolution) to be done before I start. This is crucial for additions and accessory structures built where I would be anywhere near a property boundary line or the setback lines. However, if there are markers, already in place, I may locate them and approximate within reason, where they are in relation to the building and then identify setback and give myself at least a 1' buffer to that line so no wall or projection would cross past that 1-ft. buffer to the setback if possible for preliminary design work UNTIL a professional survey is performed. NOTE: The client should be the one to pay for such service to be performed.
If there is a professional survey done, I'd update the plans and design with that info but I usually can provide a certain prelimary work based on non-qualified measuring as I am not a land surveyor. I shouldn't be off from any professional survey markers that may exist by sufficient amount and I may begin some preliminary design work while that is being done. If there is no marker, it can be more difficult and I may have to ascertain it from another marker that may exist so we can get going with less than ideal reference points. I've done enough of this in the past to get by.
In any case, I would recommend that the client get the survey done and wait for them before moving too deep into the design process. The client would need to have a professional survey and I would insist on it, UNLESS they already have done so. If they have a boundary survey done, but not a topographical, I would insist on a topographical but I could still begin some work before that is completed. Similarly, I may insist on a soil study especially if the site is, well... concerning in its conditions especially hillsides.
Where I am, it is something I would almost certainly insist on it for good reason. Anyone that knows the terrain in my area, would understand why that is prudent and sound... unless there happen to be one for the site. The city I am in, would almost certain insist on a geological/geotech study.
Soil (geologist/geotech) and boundary survey/topographical survey are things that the client should contract to be performed and provide copies of the survey/study results. I could integrate it into the billing as an additional service but I would insist that the client should directly contract those services.
Shorter answer: I'd recommend a boundary survey and ideally, also a topographical survey. Additionally, I may insist on a geological/geotech study of the site, especially areas intended to be built on. There's reasons for that.
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.