There’s a saying in surveying that should be pinned above every research desk: “Yesterday’s land descriptions are the cause of today’s boundary problems.”
Metes-and-bounds descriptions were often written by attorneys, engineers, and even laypeople with varying degrees of skill, experience, and no requirement for a surveying license.
A license is required to perform a legal survey, but the description in a deed only needs to be signed by a grantor and grantee to be legally binding.
That gap has produced a century’s worth of ambiguity, gaps, overlaps, and outright errors sitting quietly in deed records, legal time bombs just waiting for a retracement survey or a construction project to set them off.
The good news is that most of these problems typically aren’t invisible. They leave tracks in the records and on the ground. The key is building a systematic research-and-correlation process that catches metes-and-bounds mistakes before a dispute erupts, not after. Here’s a practical checklist for doing exactly that.
Why Metes-and-Bounds Descriptions Fail
Before getting into the checklist, it helps to understand the landscape of failure. Boundary conflicts show up for a few recurring reasons:
- Poorly executed original surveys: The lines were wrong from day one, and every subsequent description has just propagated the error.
- Destroyed or missing monuments: Without physical proof, retracing a surveyor’s intent becomes an exercise in interpretation rather than measurement.
- Descriptions written without survey control: A grantor who conveys “the north 150 feet” of a lot without a survey can create a jigsaw puzzle of junior and senior rights and properties whose boundaries may not fit together without discrepancy.
- Ambiguous language: Patent and latent ambiguities allow for varying interpretations of a document that was intended to place a line in one, and only one, location on the earth’s surface.
- Gaps and overlaps: Discrepancies within the chain-of-title of a parcel, or between it and adjoining parcels, are among the most “fruitful grounds for boundary disputes,” as one course resource puts it bluntly.
- Dubious intent: In most states, the written intent of the parties will control over almost any other evidence. Problems arise when the words of the document fail to state the intent, do so poorly, or are in conflict with the description of the property.
- Duplicate monumentation: The only thing worse than finding no monument at a boundary corner is finding several; my personal record is eight—pipes, rods (with and without caps), concrete monument, and a fence post—found within an eighteen-inch circle. But even finding two that match the called for monument are enough to throw the location of the corner into question.
Boundary disputes also come in every size, from a few inches of fence to acres of claimed land. The common thread is that they were usually detectable in the record long before they became litigated.
Office Research: What to Pull and What to Flag
The standard is clear across most states: a proper boundary survey requires reviewing not just the subject deed, but also the relevant historical record descriptions of the subject parcel, all adjoining parcels, descriptions of physical monuments at each property corner, prior plats and surveys (especially useful in states which require surveys to be recorded), and any other relevant public records including tax maps and GIS data.
That’s not a formality; it’s your first and best chance to catch problems.
What to Look For as You Work Through the Record
Does the Description Close Mathematically?
This is the baseline test. A metes-and-bounds description must return to the point of beginning and close mathematically within the applicable tolerances. Run the closure before you go anywhere near the field. A description that doesn’t close is the very definition of a latent ambiguity, indicating an error in bearing, distance, or both.
You need to rectify this issue before you’re standing on a corner monument (or looking for one) trying to reconcile field evidence with a call that was in error before anyone set foot in the field.
If the closure error is small and resolvable (adjoining deeds and other evidence can be of assistance), courts may overlook it. But if the description fails to define the boundaries with mathematical certainty, it may be legally void, and that changes your entire approach to the survey.
Is the Point of Beginning Tied to a Recoverable Monument?
A metes-and-bounds description needs an acceptable point of commencement, a true point of beginning, a basis of bearings, consecutive calls, and a closed figure. If the POB is described vaguely, say “on the northerly line of Main Street” without a tie to a corner, section line, or recoverable monument, you have a problem.
A description that traverses to a “point” without referencing stable physical objects has a patent ambiguity built in from the start. There’s no physical proof that the point a subsequent surveyor finds is the same point the original grantor intended.
I tell my students that if you don’t find the monument called for in the deed, you have found nothing. How can you find a ‘point’?
Are Adjoiner Calls Consistent with Adjacent Deed Descriptions?
Pull the adjoining deeds. Do they agree with the subject deed or amongst themselves? A description that calls “along the easterly line of John Smith’s property” should be reconcilable with the Smith deed’s westerly line.
If those two descriptions don’t match in bearing, distance, or point of termination, you have either a gap or an overlap—and that discrepancy is the boundary dispute in waiting. In Louisiana, for example, when a comparison of adjoining deeds indicates the existence of a gap or overlap, the plat must include a detail or insert clearly showing the area.
Is Curve Data Complete?
Ambiguous curve calls are a recurring source of grief. Many descriptions contain curves, and when they are defined precisely in the description, there is typically no issue.
Unfortunately, descriptions often only list the radius and length of the curve, leading to a plethora of issues.
Is the curve concave to the right or left? Is the curve tangent to either, or both, of the adjoining lines?
Listing the chord bearing and distance, central angle (delta), whether the curve is tangent or non-tangent, in addition to radius and length provides a properly defined curve which leaves nothing to chance.
Is There a Clear Basis of Bearings, and Does It Match the Survey?
Maryland’s standards require a note on the drawing if the record basis of bearings differs from the survey basis, along with what that difference is. This matters because a bearing in an older deed may be referenced to magnetic north, an assumed meridian, or a state plane grid, and which can meaningfully change where a line lands.
If the basis of bearings is unstated or ambiguous in the record, flag it before the field crew goes out. Unfortunately, even in states that require a basis of bearing to be listed in the description, and on the survey plat, surveyors are often working with deeds from previous decades (or centuries) far predating the current standards.
Are There Any Correction Deeds or Re-Recordings in the Chain, and Do They Hold Up?
When your research turns up a correction deed, treat it as a red flag worth investigating, not a problem already solved. A correction deed is designed to fix clerical errors in a prior conveyance, but it can also introduce new ambiguity or overstep its legal authority—particularly when it makes substantive changes to the geometry of the description, timing of the conveyance, or parties to the transaction.
For a detailed framework on how to evaluate these instruments, see Correction Deed Red Flags: What Land Surveyors Should Look For.
Field Correlation: Connecting Record to Ground
Office research tells you what should be there. The field tells you what is there. The job is reconciling the two and documenting every place they don’t agree.
Remember, your job is not to fix the problem; that is for the courts. Your job is to report the problem.
Locate Lines of Occupation and Measure Them Against Deed Lines
Fences, walls, hedges, and other lines of occupation must be located, and their relationship to the boundary documented. When occupation lines don’t match deed lines, that’s either evidence of a long-standing practical location (possibly relevant to adverse possession or acquiescence claims) or evidence that someone built without any reference to the actual boundary.
You can’t know which without research, and you can’t evaluate it without measurement. Locate the physical evidence first; interpret it after.
Document All Discrepancies Between Record Calls and Measured Values
Show deed calls that are at variance with measured bearings and distances.*
Mississippi’s minimum standards state this directly: when an inconsistency is found, including a gap or overlap, excess or deficiency, erroneously located boundary lines or monuments, or any doubt as to the true location of the boundary, the nature of the inconsistency shall be clearly shown on the drawing.
Alabama takes the same position: any discrepancies between survey results and the record description shall be shown and explained in notes on the face of the map, including a comparison of record directions and distances with surveyed directions and distances.
Per most state standards, this is not optional or discretionary.
* In my opinion, you should always list the record bearing and distance in parenthesis below the recitation of the found bearing and distance whether they agree or not. This shows you have done your diligence and removes any doubt that the bearing and distance stated on your description and survey plat are typographic errors.
If You Disagree with a Prior Surveyor’s Work, Make Contact
Idaho’s minimum standards specifically address this: if you discover a disagreement with the work of another surveyor, you should contact that surveyor and strive to resolve the disagreement. There may be evidence the prior surveyor weighed that you haven’t found yet, or they may agree that their work needs correction.
Either way, document the communication and its outcome. It is not a matter of who is right or wrong; it’s doing your best to protect the public’s interest by striving to avoid possible litigation.
Flag Anything that Warrants a Report to the Client Before the Plat Is Finalized
West Virginia’s standards are instructive: prior to the survey, the discussion with the client should cover disputes with adjoiners, claim or possession areas, encroachments, and other relevant information that will affect the final location of the boundary.
If you discover title gaps, overlaps, or conflicting claims in your research, report them in writing. Don’t just note them on the plat and hope the client reads the fine print.
Documenting Your Reasoning: The Part That Protects You
A plat shows what you found. A survey report explains how you got there. When the record is messy, with inconsistent calls, missing monuments, or occupation lines that don’t match deed lines, your documentation of the decision-making process is what distinguishes professional judgment from arbitrary line placement.
Note the controlling evidence and why it controls. Note what you weighed and why. Note where the evidence was ambiguous and how you resolved it.
The goal isn’t just a defensible plat; it’s a record clear enough that a surveyor picking up the project five years from now, or an expert witness evaluating your work in litigation, can follow your reasoning step by step.
Boundary disputes must eventually be resolved. Your documentation either helps resolve them efficiently, or it becomes part of the problem.
A surveyor’s report, whether required by the state you are working in or not, is an excellent way to make your client aware of the findings of your survey, your opinions, and the reasons behind the decisions you made.
Keep Your Edge with McKissock Learning
Metes-and-bounds retracement, boundary law, and deed research are the kinds of topics that reward continuous study, because the record keeps changing and the case law keeps evolving.
McKissock Learning offers continuing education courses built specifically for licensed professional land surveyors, covering standards of practice, legal descriptions, boundary disputes, and the professional ethics frameworks that govern how you handle the hard calls.
Explore McKissock’s Land Surveyor continuing education courses to find the CE that fits your state requirements and where you want to grow.
The more complex the record, the more your training matters.
