Legal Descriptions: Metes and Bounds

Recently, a legal description found its way across my desk that piqued my interest. I thought I would share a few  ideas about it.  A piece of property can be described in many ways, but the three most common forms are: lot and block, metes and bounds, and aliquot parts.  The metes and bounds description usually has a point of commencement, a point of beginning and makes a closed geometric figure.  For example, Smith's property might be described as:

Start at the Big Rock by the Old Church and go North 10 feet, West 10 feet, South 10 feet and East 10 feet.


This description makes a closed, geometric figure.  If one of the called distances were substituted with a distance of 8 feet, the previous square would now have an opening of 2 feet somewhere along the boundary.  This would result in a non-closure, a bust, or an error of closure.  What it really means is that there is an error in one of the calls. The error could be in any of the distances or a combined error of a bearing and a distance or maybe more.  The converse of this is also true, and here's the real kicker.  If a metes and bounds description, like the example above, makes a closed geometric figure, then each of the calls is proven to be correct.  Some exceptions exist, but very, rarely.  The value of a metes and bounds description is that it can be proven to be correct.  To rephrase: a closing metes and bounds description proves the validity of each of the called angles and distances.  A valuable tool to say the least.  Being able to prove mathematically, that a particular angle, bearing or distance is valid and accurate can turn out to be the missing puzzle piece when determining a property boundary.  It's not just the subject property description that I'm talking about.  Many times, calculating the adjoining property description can be just as helpful.
Here's a perfect example: an unrecorded subdivision of 8 parcels in a box canyon community are all described by metes and bounds descriptions.  The legal description of the subject property (the one I'm surveying) contains a scrivener's error that was perpetuated from the last set of transactions.  The subject property description doesn't close.  This is a problem that doesn't repair itself easily.  The solution: calculate the closure of each of the adjoining parcel descriptions to prove their validity and apply the resulting adjoiner angles and distances to the subject property.  Then, make notes and sketches describing the calculations to prove your results.  Maybe I would recommend a new legal description to be written based on those results.  Maybe a new legal description isn't necessary if the scrivener's error is an obvious blunder, and  can be verified by evidence found in the field.
The bottom line:  checking closure on a metes and bounds description is the first step in determining a property boundary.  This week, the words "more or less" within a metes and bounds description eliminated the possibility of checking its validity.  However, the adjoining descriptions, combined with the field evidence, clarified the subject property boundary.  
Problem solved.
more to follow