What liability or recourse exists if a town approves a subdivision
plan, and it is later discovered that the plan was based on an
inaccurate survey?

An accurate survey would have shown that the plan violated a provision
of the town's subdivision regulations. In this situation an accurate
plan would not have been approved without changes.

Further, let's assume these events occurred over 20 years ago and the
company that performed the survey no longer exists.

Could current property lines be challenged on the basis that the town
approved an illegal subdivision?

My initial assumption is that liability would primarily lie with the
suveying company that made the mistake, or with the company that
contracted the surveyor. I further assume that the town probably bears
little responsibility, and that current landowners probably have
little recourse if they are affected by the mistake.

But I don't know, which is why I'm here :)

In answering the question, I'm looking for a general elucidation of
some of the legal principles involved. For example, the general legal
liability of towns for mistakes made in the planning process,
liability for survey mistakes, and mechanisms for correcting mistakes
many years after the fact.

---

Request for Question Clarification by justaskscott-ga on 17 Apr 2003 19:08 PDT

As the disclaimer at the bottom of the page notes, answers and
comments on Google Answers are general information, and not
substitutes for professional legal advice.  Only a lawyer can provide
complete and up-to-date information about your legal options.  That
being said, perhaps we can point you to some information that you can
discuss with a lawyer.

What town (and state) is involved in your question?  If you don't wish
to identify the town, then what county (and state) is involved?  It is
conceivable that the answer varies in different towns, counties, and
states.

---

Request for Question Clarification by richard-ga on 17 Apr 2003 19:43 PDT

Flubber-ga:
I can give you an answer that reviews generally applicable principles,
and tells you what the answer would be under Florida law.  Would that
be an acceptable answer?
richard-ga

---

Clarification of Question by flubber-ga on 18 Apr 2003 05:14 PDT

In response to justaskscott-ga, the state is NH.

In response to richard-ga, that would be acceptable, but bonus points
for any information regarding NH.

The title insurance aspect brought up in the comments was one I hadn't
thought of, and a discussion of that would be appreciated.

---

Request for Question Clarification by expertlaw-ga on 18 Apr 2003 22:20 PDT

Dear flubber,

What is the injury to the homeowners as a result in the erroneous
subdivision plan, and how would it be remedied by shifting property
lines? (Or is it that you are looking for a very broad analysis,
without regard to any specific injury that might have been suffered?)

---

Clarification of Question by flubber-ga on 19 Apr 2003 10:57 PDT

re: expertlaw-ga

The knowledge of the inaccurate survey came to light because of a
proposed subdivision that requires a road be built much closer to
existing property that would otherwise be allowed if the town's
subdivision requirements had been met in the first place. That's the
injury (not sure if that would even legally be considered one,
though).

The line is not in dispute. What happened was that the plan that was
approved showed a structure a legal distance from the property line,
when in fact it was much closer to the line. If the town had been
aware of the true location of the structure, the subdivision plan
would not have been approved.

Hello and thank you for your interesting question.

It raises an interesting legal issue.  Of course, my answer is not
intended to substitute for informed professional advice, but I think
you will find my answer helpful.

If you want to sue the town, the threshold question is whether you can
sue it for failing to realize that the survey was faulty, and thereby
approving a subdivision plan that it should have rejected.  As noted
in hlabadie-ga's comment, you will not be able to sue the town if
sovereign immunity bars this sort of suit.  [Because the King could
not be sued, neither can governmental agencies or agents be sued if
their action falls within the scope of the rule (unless they consent
to be sued)]

Here's the New Hampshire rule:
"[M]unicipalities are immune from liability for acts and omissions
that constitute 'the exercise of an executive or planning function
involving the making of a basic policy decision which is characterized
by the exercise of a high degree of official judgment or
discretion.... [the Supreme Court of New Hampshire has] recognized
that '[c]ertain essential, fundamental activities of government must
remain immune from tort liability so that our government can govern.'"
"'We distinguish policy decisions involving the consideration of
competing economic, social, and political factors from operational or
ministerial decisions required to implement the policy decisions.'"
HACKING v. TOWN OF BELMONT
May 14, 1999
http://www.state.nh.us/judiciary/supreme/opinions/1999/hacking.htm

In other words, you can't sue the town for its zoning policies and
decisions.  Nut you can sue the town for an "operational or
ministerial" decision.

I think that based on the facts as you show them, you can get past the
soverign immunity barrier, if you can show that the town was careless
in accepting an erroneous survey--it's not that their judgment was
bad, but rather that they mishandled the operational aspect of
reviewing the survey.

Then the next barrier is whether they actually were careless in
reviewing the survey.  Here I think you have a real problem.  I don't
think it's the town's job to hire a surveyor to verify whether the
survey submitted to them is accurate.  So unless the surcey was faulty
on its face, it doesn't seem that the town should be liable.

So let's consider a second approach.  Instead of suing the town, can
you ask the town to rescind the grant of the subdivision?  Probably
not - - and certainly not if the person who applied for the
subdivision acted in reliance on it.  So if they've put in sewer and
electric lines or spent other money in reliance of having the
approval, you should be out of luck there.  Have they spent that kind
of money?  I get the impression from your question that the
subdivision may be unimproved.

That brings us to the issue that's raised in hlabadie-ga's second
comment.  You would need to ask the legislature to pass special
legislation to grant to the town the ability to revisit the
subdivision issue. Without this legislative authorization, it is too
late for the town to revisit the question.  Here again I think your
chance of success will turn on whether the person who applied for the
subdivision has spent money and acted in reliance of it.  And even if
he hasn't, you can assume he will be arguing against you in the
legislature, and you'll face a greater burden since you're asking them
to act, and he's asking them not to act.

Finally there is the title insurance question.  Surely you don't have
title insurance to cover you here.  You have a policy that says you
own what you own--and you do, don't you?  So there's only one way that
the insurance is relevant--and that is if there is a policy issued to
the subdivider that he can claim against if your action ends up
costing him money.  In other words, if his title is based on the
erroneous survey and the title insurance failed to spot the mistake,
then if he loses his subdivision rights he may be able to make a claim
against his title policy.  You can't make that claim because you are
ot the person who bought the policy.  But maybe he will not oppose
your application for the special legislation if he knows that he can
get money from his insurer if you win.

Google search terms used:
"sovereign immunity" "new hampshire" town
subdivision "erroneous servey"
--and a tip of the hat to hlabadie for discovering
AGO 9/9/98 
http://www.state.nh.us/nhdoj/OPINIONS/9998AGO.htm 


I hope you find this answer useful.  If any of it is unclear, please
request clarification.  I would appreciate it if you would hold off on
rating my answer until I have an opportunity to reply.

Sincerely,
Google Answers Researcher
richard-ga

---

Clarification of Answer by richard-ga on 20 Apr 2003 06:23 PDT

Hello again:

I would like to add to my answer something about the likelihood of
getting relief from the subdivider rather than the town.  In your
question, you talk about the "company that hired the surveyor."  Can I
assume that the company that hired the surveyor is the same as the
property-owner to whom the subdivision rights were granted?  Also, I
would like to know what the property-owner did after receiving the
subdivision rights.  Did they make improvements?
Thanks,
Richard-ga

---

Request for Answer Clarification by flubber-ga on 20 Apr 2003 17:10 PDT

richard-ga,

Thank you for the thorough and informative answer. I'd like to answer
the questions raised in your answer clarification.

At the time of the original subdivision, several small house lots were
created and sold, and a large parcel was left unimproved. The large
parcel changed hands several times over the years, and the current
owner has applied to further subdivide it. Nothing has been built yet,
but significant sums have been spent on surveys, studies, etc.

So, to directly answer your questions:

>Can I assume that the company that hired the surveyor is the same as
the
>property-owner to whom the subdivision rights were granted?

Yes. It has been long enough that both parties (land owner and
surveyor) are deceased, if that makes any difference.

>Also, I would like to know what the property-owner did after
receiving the
>subdivision rights.  Did they make improvements?

The propery owner sold the smaller lots, but left the large parcel
unimproved (as have subsequent owners until the current owner, who
proposes to develop the land).

---

Clarification of Answer by richard-ga on 21 Apr 2003 09:55 PDT

Hello again:

The key fact for your case is that the current owner has applied to
further subdivide the large parcel.  The only likely way that you will
prevail is by making a review of the old subdivision a part of the new
application process.

Take a look at page 21 of the New Hampshire
Subdivision and Site Plan Review Handbook (SwRPC)
http://www.state.nh.us/osp/library/docs/SubdivisionAndSitePlanReviewHandbook.pdf
[It's an 81-page .pdf file, so it may take a long time to download. 
Or you can use the order form to obtain a printed copy
http://www.state.nh.us/osp/forms/order_form.html]
Section IX. Previously-Approved Subdivisions
"If any land shown on a sub division plat has been part of any
previous subdivision approved, constructed, or created by conveyance
no more than ___ years prior to the new proposal, any such previous
subdivision will be treated as part of the new proposal for purposes
of analyzing its effect and applying all review criteria."

[Subdivision and Site Plan Review Handbook (SwRPC 12/01) - Written by
the Southwest Region Planning Commission in 1995 (and revised in
2001), this document is a companion to the OSP Handbook of Subdivision
Review and is recommended as a resource for model subdivision and site
plan review regulations and related forms and notices.]

I am not sure why the # of years is left blank in the document - -
perhaps the individual towns have discretion as to how far to look
back.

So clearly, the best way for you to proceed is to ask the town to
extend its review of the current application to the prior one, in
light of the erroneous survey.  I'm betting that if they agree to do
so, you're almost sure to win!

So in summary, here's my final answer:
1. Forget about suing the town - - even if sovereign immunity does not
apply, they're not responsible for acting on the erroneous survey.

2.  Forget about suing the old (defunct) surveyor and the old
(deceased) landowner.

3.  Do make a spirited opposition to the current subdivision
application, on the ground that the old subdivision was erroneously
granted.  If you can get the zoning board to include the old
subdivision within the scope of its current review, you're almost sure
to win!

Good luck.  It's been a pleasure reviewing these issues for you.
Google Answers Researcher
richard-ga

Extremely thorough, clearly explained, and persistent enough to get to
the heart of complicated question.

Incorporated towns enjoy sovereign immunity in planning matters, which
are considered discretionary and quasi-legislative. There might be
some recourse to title insurance companies that were supposed to
insure that bounds were accurate, but that is a long shot.

hlabadie-ga

Mistakes occur, even when great care is taken, And some work is
sloppy. The sensible proceedure would be to spead the hurt among the
current residents as painlessly as possible. Lawyer fees will do
little, but increase the financial loss. I think it is reasonable to
ask the title insurance companies to help mediate the problem and pay
at least part of the loss. If hlabadie is correct: Shame on the title
insurence companies for stealing our primiums for the last century or
so.   Neil

Presumably, part of the injury that the property owners suffered is
that they would be unable to demonstrate a clean title, that they
would be unable to transmit the title if they decided to sell, that
the prospective buyers could not obtain title insurance, etc. In
addition, assessments would be incorrect and taxes unfairly
apportioned. The only legal remedy appearsto be be to petition the
Legislature for relief by special legislation.

See:

Opinion of the Attorney General of New Hampshire's office regarding
the local law that addressed the request by the Town of Raymond to
create and record a corrected plat of the Green Hills Trailer Park,
for which the original was rendered inaccurate due to road
construction inconsistent with the approved plan.


AGO 9/9/98
http://www.state.nh.us/nhdoj/OPINIONS/9998AGO.htm


"In order to clarify this issue, you have requested our opinion with
respect to the following issues:

l. Is the Legislature empowered to correct inaccuracies in a recorded
subdivision plan by establishing a process for creation and
recordation of a corrected assessor's plat, which supersedes, corrects
and amends the existing and recorded subdivision plan and all deeds
and instruments of conveyance which refer to or are based on the
original subdivision plan?

2. Does HB 160-LOCAL satisfy the constitutional and common law
requirements for enactment of a local law?

3. Is the process for the amendment of an original subdivision plan
established by HB 160-LOCAL adequate to establish marketable title in
lots within the Green Hills Trailer Park affected by the corrected
assessor's plat recorded in conformity with that law?

I. History of HB 160-LOCAL

Green Hill Estates is a manufactured housing community located in
Raymond, New Hampshire. It contains approximately 362 lots with 200
individual homes. An original subdivision plan and assessor's plat,
laying out road locations and lot dimensions was recorded in 1965.
However, after the recordation of the subdivision plan, the main road
of the park was laid out at a different angle than that depicted in
the original plat.

As a result, virtually all lots in the park are laid out in
configurations which were at variance with the recorded plan. Nearly
all deeds to lots within the park, to the extent they reference or
incorporate the original subdivision plan, contained inaccurate
descriptions of lots.

In recent years, the existence of an inaccurate site plan and the
prevalence of inaccurate deeds caused title companies to raise
questions of marketability with respect to several lots within the
community. In consequence, residents of the community sought abatement
of taxes from the Town of Raymond to reflect the systemic defects in
title affecting lots within the community. See, HB 160-LOCAL, sec. 1,
I(b),(c),(d) (Statement of Purpose).

HB 160-LOCAL was enacted to address this issue in a systemic manner.
As enacted, the statute authorizes the Town of Raymond to address and
cure this localized problem. The statute provides that, upon the
petition by a majority of the residents of the park, the Town may, by
warrant article approved by the board of selectmen or town meeting,
cause an amended assessor's plat to be created for the purpose of
conforming the actual dimensions of all lots in the subdivision with
dimensions recorded on a valid assessor's plat. HB 160-LOCAL, sec. 2,
3, 6.

The statute further provides for acceptance of the plat by the Town
Planning Board after public hearing, Id., sec. 7, I, and states that
notice of the application for acceptance shall be given to owners of
record of lands in the plat, the applicant, abutters, the public and
to mortgagees according to the procedure set forth in RSA 676:4, I
(d), Id., sec. 7, III. Any person aggrieved by a decision by the
Planning Board regarding approval of an assessor's plat may appeal
such decision to the Superior Court pursuant to RSA 677:15. Id., sec.
8, IV. The statute provides that, upon acceptance by the Town in
conformity with the procedures discussed above, the plat shall be
placed on record. Id., sec. 8, I. The corrected plat shall supersede
any existing and inaccurate plat and that such existing plat shall be
vacated to the extent it is included in or altered by a new assessor's
plat. Id., sec. 3, III."
[...]
"It has been brought to our attention that certain title examiners
have raised the question of the Legislature's authority to enact HB
160-LOCAL. As set out above, it is the view of this office that the
Legislature had authority to enact HB 160-LOCAL and to prescribe the
procedures and methods for creation and recordation of an assessor's
plat contained in that statute. Therefore, questions concerning the
authority of the Legislature to enact this statute should not preclude
a finding of marketability of title. I trust the foregoing is
responsive to your request."

hlabadie-ga

Purchasers of land or improved land in the subdivision prior to the
discovery of the survey error may have recoverable losses under the
terms of the standard owners's title insurance policy.

The American Land Title Association
http://www.alta.org/

American Land Title Association Homeowner’s Policy of Title Insurance
for a One-to-four Family Residence
Adopted 10/17/98
Section II-14
http://www.alta.org/store/forms/homeown.pdf

"COVERED RISKS
[...]
6. Your Title is defective.
[...]
10. Someone else claims to have rights affecting Your Title arising
out of fraud, duress, incompetency or incapacity.
[...]
16. You are forced to remove or remedy Your existing structures, or
any part of them, because they violate an existing zoning law or
zoning regulation. If You are required to remedy any portion of Your
existing structures, the amount of Your insurance for this Covered
Risk is subject to Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit
of Liability shown in Schedule A
[...]
26. Your Title is unmarketable, which allows someone else to refuse to
perform a`contract to purchase the Land, lease it or make a Mortgage
loan on it.
27. A document upon which Your Title is based is invalid because it
was not properly signed, sealed, acknowledged, delivered or recorded.
[...]
29. The map, if any, attached to this Policy does not show the correct
location of the Land according to the Public Records."


However, depending upon the particular terms of policy, the insurance
company may have an exclusion of any or all of the above, as can be
seen in the language for standard exclusions. This would be probable
in the case of any sales after the date that the survey error was
discovered.


STANDARD EXCEPTIONS FOR THE ALTA LOAN POLICY
(ONE-TO-FOUR FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
http://www.alta.org/store/forms/standexc.pdf

"The ALTA Standard Exceptions are suggested for use in one-to-four
family residences. The Standard Exceptions are intended to facilitate
the electronic transmission of title insurance policies.
The Standard Exceptions are also intended to promote a prompt and
efficient review of the Schedule B Exceptions from Coverage by
lenders.
The suggested ALTA Loan Policy Standard Exceptions relate to
residential transactions and matters that are commonly excepted from
coverage in Schedule B. A title company using the suggested Standard
Exceptions will be able to expedite the lender's policy review. As
lenders become familiar with their text or unique coding, the
suggested Standard Exceptions will be readily distinguished from other
exceptions peculiar to the title examined. The lender may be able to
recognize Standard Exceptions by the text or by the suggested ALTA
coding."
[...]
"Acreage
Exceptions
ACRX01 Any Inaccuracy in Area
Any inaccuracy in the area, square footage, or acreage of land
described in Schedule A or attached plat, if any. The Company does not
insure the area, square footage, or acreage of the land.
[...]
Boundary Lines
Exceptions
BOUX01 Boundary Line Conflict
Boundary line conflict with the adjoining tract along the ____________
line of the land.
BOUX02 Boundary Line Agreement
Terms and provisions of boundary line agreement concerning the
__________ line of the land recorded ____________..
BOUX03 Exception to Disputed Area
The following portion of the land is specifically excepted from the
coverage of this Policy: ___________________________.
[...]
Encroachments
[...]
Extended Coverage
Exceptions
[...]
EXTX03 Survey Exception - Owner's Policy
Rights or claims of parties in possession and easements or claims of
easements not shown by the public records, boundary line disputes,
overlaps, encroachments, and any matters not of record which would be
disclosed by an accurate survey and inspection of the land.
EXTX04 Survey Exception - Mortgagee Policy
Any state of facts as would be disclosed by an accurate survey and
inspection of the premises.
[...]
Marketability
Exception
MKTX01 Unmarketability of Title
Unmarketability of title due to _____________.
[...]
Setback Lines
Exceptions
SBLX01 Setback Line on Map
___________ foot setback line along the ___________ side of the land
as shown on or described in the plat of the subdivision recorded
____________.
SBLX02 Setback Line in Document
____________ foot setback line along the ___________ side of the land
as shown by or described in the instrument recorded ______________.
SBLX03 Setback Line on Survey
__________ foot setback line along the _________ side of the land as
reflected by survey dated __________ made by ___________, surveyor.

Streets, Alleys and Roads
Exceptions
STRX01 Located Road (No Recording Reference)
Title to and easements in, that portion of the land within the
street/alley/road along the __________ of the land.
STRX02 General Roads Exception (No Recording Reference)
Title to, and easements in, any portion of the land lying within any
highways, roads, streets, or other ways.
STRX03 Future Widening
Title to, and easements in, that portion of the land along the
_________ of the land reserved for the widening of ___________ as
disclosed by ____________.
STRX04 Located Road (With Recording Reference)
Terms and provisions, including title to, and easement for, street or
road along the ______ of the land as provided in instrument recorded
___________.
[...]
Surveys
Exceptions
SURX01 Facts Disclosed by Survey
Any rights, easements, interests or claims which may exist by reason
of or reflected by the following facts shown on the survey dated
______________ by _____________.
SURX02 Facts Disclosed by Inspection
Any rights, easements, interests or claims which may exist by reason
of or reflected by the following facts: ________.
SURX03 Survey Matters After Stated Date
Any discrepancies, conflicts, or shortages in area or boundary lines,
or any encroachments or protrusions, or overlapping of improvements
which would be disclosed by an inspection and accurate survey of the
premises [arising subsequent to ___________]."


Concerning the sovereign immunity of the town, the planning activities
are normally immune from all tort liabitity. See the Google Answers
question:

http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=185197

CTCW Newsletter _ The Scope of Municipal Immunity
http://www.ctcw.org/newsletter/may-02/municipal_immunity.html

"Immunity for negligent acts is not absolute. Courts have recognized
exceptions to immunity where:

1. the conduct amounts to the performance of a ministerial duty;
2. an existing "known present danger" makes the duty to remedy the
danger "so clear and so absolute" that there is no room for
discretion;
3. the conduct arose out of the performance of "professional" or
"non-governmental" conduct; or
4. the conduct was "malicious, willful and intentional"."



Still, even though an official has failed in a ministerial duty, the
Court may find that immunity applies. Legislative direction appears to
be a requirement for ministerial duty.


"Ministerial duties have been recognized when an official fails to
follow statutes prescribing the manner in which to erect signs [Chart
v. Dvorak, 57 Wis. 2d 92, 203 N.W.2d 673 (1973)]; the failure to
strictly follow contract language governing conduct [Major v. County
of Milwaukee, 196 Wis. 2d 939, 539 N.W.2d 472 (Ct. App. 1995)]; and
the construction of sewers in accordance with specific designs.
Allstate v. Metropolitan Sewerage District, 80 Wis. 2d 10, 258 N.W.2d
148 (1977)"



And the New Hampshire cases:


FREDERICK AND SHIRLEY DELANEY
v.
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
March 21, 2001
http://www.state.nh.us/judiciary/supreme/opinions/2001/delan050.htm

In Delaney, the Court found that the State was liable because it had
failed to follow an established policy to the letter.


LINDA M. BERGERON & a.
v.
CITY OF MANCHESTER & a.
November 9, 1995

"Neither the city nor the State enjoys full sovereign immunity from
tort liability. Merrill v. Manchester, 114 N.H. 722, 725, 332 A.2d
378, 383-84 (1974); RSA 541-B:19 (Supp. 1994). In fact, immunity is
the exception, rather than the rule, in tort cases. See RSA 541-B:19;
Schoff v. City of Somersworth, 137 N.H. 583, 589, 630 A.2d 783, 787
(1993)."
[...]
"Government entities are immune from liability for conduct that
involves "the exercise of a legislative or judicial function, [or] the
exercise of an executive or planning function involving the making of
a basic policy decision which is characterized by the exercise of a
high degree of official judgment or discretion." Gardner, 137 N.H. at
256, 624 A.2d at 1339
(quotation omitted); see RSA 541-B:19. In the instant case, the trial
court concluded that the decision whether to install a flashing beacon
at the subject intersection was not, as a matter of law, a
discretionary function.

In resolving discretionary immunity questions, we distinguish between
planning or discretionary functions and functions that are purely
ministerial.

When the particular conduct which caused the injury is one
characterized by the high degree of discretion and judgment involved
in weighing alternatives and making choices with respect to public
policy and planning, governmental entities should remain immune from
liability."


Immunity exists because there is a presumption of negligence, but the
government must be free to govern.

hlabadie-ga

TITLE LXIV
PLANNING AND ZONING
CHAPTER 674
LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING AND REGULATORY POWERS
Site Plans
Section 674:44
674:44 Site Plan Review Regulations. – 
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIV/674/674-44.htm

Part of which law provides that the Planning Board must:


"       (e) Include provision for waiver of any portion of the
regulations in such cases where, in the opinion of the planning board,
strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship to the applicant
and waiver would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the
regulations."

The new subdivision can be approved, even if it does not comply with
all regulations. The developer could argue that he was being deprived
of the use of his property. That might prove to be a cogent argument.
This comes back to the discretionary functions of planning. Legally,
the situation is fraught with difficulties and possible pitfalls.

hlabadie-ga

My suggestion is that you work with the other affected property
owners, assuming they also object to the proposed placement of the
road, and consult with a real estate lawyer. The lawyer will be able
to fully evaluate your situation for any possible legal action, and
may also be able to achieve the desired result without litigation. A
lawyer should also be able to figure out the nature of the entities
involved in the original action (whether they were individuals,
partnerships, corporations, etc.), and whether any current entities
(e.g., a successor corporation) bear responsibility for their
mistakes. Further, a lawyer will be able to assess the application of
the statute of limitations (and exceptions, such as the "discovery
rule") to the facts you describe.

As has been outlined above, the chance of being able to bring a
successful action against the municipality is slight. However, the
original landowner's successors in title may remain liable for his
mistakes, and there may be insurance policies floating out there
somewhere which could at least provide a source of financial
compensation.

My assumption is that the proposed placement of the road is that which
maximizes the value of the unimproved parcel, which is now to be
subdivided. It may well diminish the value of that parcel to move the
road, but that's not your fault. You may be entitled to some form of
equitable relief, as an innocent landowner affected by somebody else's
mistake.

It would be interesting to know which, if any, of the intervening
owners of that property (those who owned it after the original
developer, but before the present developer) had survey work done.
That is, to find out when this situation first became known to the
owner of that property.