I hereby certify to the Bank and Trust Company: (1) this survey was made on the ground as per the field notes shown on this survey drawing; (2) there are no easements or rights-of-way affecting or benefitting the property other than as shown hereon, whether or not of record; (3) all utility services required for the operation of the property either enter the property through the adjoining public streets or the survey shows the point of entry and location of any utilities which pass through or are located on adjoining private land; (4) there are no cemeteries or family burial grounds located on the site; (5) there are no violations of any applicable zoning or subdivision ordinances; (6) all improvements on the site comply with any restrictive covenants; (7) all buildings to be constructed on the site will comply with applicable building and zoning ordinances.

A few of you will recognize one or two land mines in this certification; not many surveyors, unfortunately, will have the sense to know the entire certification is a disaster. To see why, let's go through it line by line.

(1) "This survey was made on the ground as per the field notes shown on this survey drawing." This first came to me from Texas a decade ago and has since spread across the country. Aside from the grammatical error ("as per" is redundant), field notes are not shown on survey drawings. If we did show the field notes, they would not make sense to anyone but a land surveyor, especially with the electronic data collection we use today (0006 3523.12 5768.91 B FOC).

I recently asked a land surveyor why he had signed this certification when he obviously had not shown the field notes on the survey drawing. His reply was, "Because the attorneys insisted on it." (There is a name for this activity; it is called prostitution. If you doubt that is the correct appellation, look up the definition of prostitution in the dictionary. And if you think I'm being harsh, think of what your State Board will do to a surveyor who knowingly signs a false statement because an attorney insists he has to have it.)

Suggestion: Certify that "the map or plat is based upon the field notes of the survey." I have found that this compromise satisfies everyone.

(2) "There are no easements or rights-of-way affecting or benefitting the property other than as shown hereon, whether or not of record." Surveys are typically based upon the title report furnished by the client. We depend on that title report to provide the list of recorded easements affecting the property, and if the title company omits any recorded easements, we cannot be responsible for their omission. Certifying, in effect, that you have shown all easements transfers a tremendous responsibility to the surveyor's shoulders (for which you will pay dearly if you are wrong). As to the unrecorded easements, how could anyone possibly know about all unrecorded easements?

Somewhat related is a certification that "...there are no visible easements..." This is from an otherwise excellent FannieMae document, now much copied by attorneys around the country. Easements, of course, are not visible; they are a right (or burden). FannieMae has admitted what they intended to say was "visible evidence of easements." This is in accordance with ALTA paragraph 5(h), which requires surveyors to show "observable evidence of easements."

Suggestion: Certify that you have "shown or noted all recorded easements or rights-of-way listed in the title report, and shown all observable evidence of easements on the ground."

(3) "All utility services required for the operation of the property either enter the property through the adjoining public streets or the survey shows the point of entry and location of any utilities which pass through or are located on adjoining private land." The first problem is, what is required for the operation of the premises is an engineering, nor a survey matter. If needed, it should be part of a separate engineering report.

If the client so requests, we are required to show all observable, above-ground evidence of utility lines on the property, and the function of all overhead lines. However, we have no means of knowing what is below the ground. Utility maps sometimes give an indication, but not always. There is no reasonable way to determine with any certainty that we have shown all utility lines.

I sometimes have clients who insist that I absolutely must sign this certification, and I always tell them I would be pleased to sign it once they have excavated the site down to 50 feet while I watch (they quickly lose interest in this provision once they understand I am serious.)

Some of you may wonder what the harm could be in certifying that you have shown all the utility lines, so let me explain with a real-world example. A surveyor was hired to perform a standard ALTA survey, and he did a commendable job. At the last hour, the lender refused to fund the multi-million dollar project until they had assurance that there were no utility lines to interfere with the new construction. The client pressured the surveyor, who rationalized that he had looked at the site, saw no evidence of underground utility lines, had checked with the utility companies, and therefore felt fairly safe. Not completely comfortable, but somewhat safe.

You can guess the rest. They started construction, and discovered the gas line right where the building was going to go. Can you guess who got blamed? Could you afford to pay for the relocation of a gas line, and heavy equipment sitting idle for a week?

(4) "There are no cemeteries or family burial grounds located on the site." Prehistoric people were on this continent for over 10,000 years. In my state, Arizona, the Hohokam, Mogollon, and Anasazi were literally everywhere. The early settlers reported the remains of pithouses as far as the eye could see in the Phoenix area. In addition, the early settlers were frequently buried and no records kept of the site; it is not unusual to recover their bodies during construction. All of these indicate intentional burial, and the funerary sites probably qualify as family burial grounds.

(5) "There are no violations of any applicable zoning or subdivision ordinances." How would we know? If the tenant in apartment 210 has four dogs, or is babysitting six children, or selling illegal drugs, those are probably violations. There is probably not much exposure with the examples given (but see the previous discussion on prostitution). Do you really want to be known as a surveyor who will sign just about anything?

Far more serious consequences can occur if there are indeed serious violations of the ordinances with respect to the construction of the site. You may understand the ordinances (and if you do, my congratulations), but not know about the hidden violations. You can bet if you certify there are none and some turn up, there will be a demand for compensation from the client who relied on your certification (even if he is the one who talked you into it).

(6) "All improvements on the site comply with any restrictive covenants." "All" and "any" are huge, all- encompassing words. Do you really want to take (financial) responsibility for the construction of the site with respect to covenants that you may not even know about? Even the private ones never recorded? Why expose yourself to financial ruin?

(7) "All buildings to be constructed on the site will comply with applicable building and zoning ordinances." I've been accused of making this one up, but I have it in writing from a very large bank. The loan officer was quite sincere in her insistence that I certify to future events over which I had absolutely no control or influence. She saw nothing wrong with this, again, because "other surveyors sign this all the time." Amazing, just amazing.

In addition to the items listed above, here are other forms of certification to beware:"...correctly shows the location of all buildings, structures, and other improvements situated on the above premises..." All is a broad word, and would include the improvements constructed below the ground. We have no way of knowing with certainty what is under the ground.

Suggestion: Certify that you have shown "all observable, above-ground evidence of buildings, structures, and other improvements situated on the above premises."

"...the dimensions of all improvements on the said premises and the distance therefrom to the nearest facing exterior property line..." First, you should restrict the certification to above-ground improvements. Beyond that, if we did indeed dimension all above-ground improvements and show the distance to the nearest property line there would in most cases be an enormous jumble of dimensions that could not be deciphered.

Suggestion: Certify that you have shown "the dimensions of all buildings on the said premises and the distance therefrom to the nearest facing exterior property line."

In persuasion, it is important to speak in terms of the other person's interest, so allow me to explain why it is to your advantage to take an active stance in educating the attorneys who present these certifications. In simple terms: so you will stand out from the crowd and be seen as a leader. I understand that some clients want the cheapest survey they can get, and any surveyor dumb enough to sign their certification will do. However, they (the clients) are in a minority. I have a thriving business, in part from referrals by attorneys who have been impressed that I took the time to explain the certification problems to them. Contact the attorneys and explain it to them! It is a great marketing device.