Identify Issues In Altansps Land Title Survey

---
name: identify-issues-in-altansps-land-title-survey
task_id: real-estate/identify-issues-in-altansps-land-title-survey
description: Guides identification of survey and title issues in a mixed-use development site acquisition by systematically comparing the survey against the title commitment and related diligence documents and flagging issues affecting the proposed use and lender requirements.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Identify Issues in ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey — Issue Memorandum for Mixed-Use Acquisition

## 1. Subject-matter triage

- Treat the survey as a comparison document, not a standalone deliverable: identify what is plotted, noted, or omitted, then test it against the title commitment, site plan, lender instructions, and any lease or covenant materials in the package.
- If only one property is in scope, state that expressly; if multiple parcels, tracts, phases, or legal descriptions appear, analyze each separately before synthesizing project-level risk.
- Prioritize items that affect buildability, access, utilities, parking, setbacks, height, density, financing, or closing deliverability.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

- Reviewing the survey in isolation and missing discrepancies between the survey, title exceptions, and other diligence materials.
- Listing encumbrances without tying them to the proposed mixed-use program or site plan.
- Treating title exceptions as complete even when the survey reveals additional matters not yet scheduled by title.
- Missing lender-driven survey standards, endorsements, or gap conditions that must be satisfied for closing.
- Under-analyzing restrictive covenants, easements, access rights, encroachments, and lease rights that can limit development.
- Collapsing distinct issues into one generic risk statement instead of separating source, impact, severity, and cure.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

- Use the applicable survey standard for the jurisdiction and transaction type, and confirm whether optional survey items were required or provided.
- Compare the survey face, notes, legend, and exhibits against the title commitment schedule of exceptions and legal description.
- Treat unplotted title exceptions, unlisted survey matters, and mismatched legal descriptions as separate diligence gaps.
- For easements, assess beneficiary, location, scope, exclusivity, appurtenance, and consistency with proposed improvements.
- For restrictive covenants, analyze use limits, density, height, setback, parking, signage, architectural controls, and any consent or approval mechanism.
- For access, confirm that legal access exists from a public way or valid appurtenant private access right adequate for the planned use.
- For utilities and drainage, confirm easement location, width, reserving language, and whether planned improvements interfere with service or maintenance.
- For encroachments, evaluate whether they burden the subject, invade a neighbor, or sit within an easement/setback area, and whether title coverage or curative action is required.
- For existing tenancy, review whether occupancy, expansion rights, termination rights, construction access, restoration duties, or exclusivity provisions affect the project.
- For lender requirements, treat required endorsements, certifications, and survey content as closing conditions that may exceed buyer-facing title standards.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds

- Start by enumerating the property footprint, each survey-identified encumbrance, each title exception, and each lender or lease condition that could affect the deal.
- For each item, answer in sequence: what is it, where is it located, what source document shows it, does any other document corroborate or conflict with it, and how does it affect the intended development?
- Separate “survey-only,” “title-only,” and “cross-document mismatch” issues so the memo makes clear whether the problem is disclosure, scope, or curative coverage.
- For each restriction or easement, test the planned use against the governing document’s operative language and the project’s apparent footprint or operating assumptions.
- For each issue, state the practical consequence: buildability constraint, title insurance gap, financing condition, closing delay, redesign need, or post-closing operational limitation.
- Assign every issue an ordinal severity label using a consistent scale defined once at the top, and apply that scale uniformly.
- Use the project’s own dimensions, deadlines, or transaction milestones when available to calibrate urgency; if not available, say that the urgency is tied to closing, financing, or permit readiness.
- Close every issue with a concrete cure or next step, such as a survey revision, title update, endorsement request, covenant consent, easement confirmation, lease amendment, or plan adjustment.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

- Analyze vertical relationships between the survey, title commitment, and source exhibits: a matter disclosed in one but not the others is itself an issue.
- Analyze structural relationships between legal rights and physical placement: off-site rights, appurtenant access, shared driveways, setback areas, and utility corridors can all constrain the footprint even if they do not prohibit ownership.
- Analyze temporal relationships between current rights and future development: existing tenancy, deferred access, or unexpired restrictions may be acceptable now but disruptive at commencement, construction, or occupancy.
- If the package includes phased development, assess whether each phase changes access, easement conflicts, or title coverage needs.

## 6. Output structure conventions

- Open with a brief executive summary that identifies the highest-severity items, the document mismatches, and the main closing risks.
- Define the severity scale once, then use it consistently for each issue entry.
- Organize the memo by conventional diligence buckets such as survey/title mismatches, easements and access, restrictive covenants, encroachments, utilities/drainage, leases, lender requirements, and closing conditions.
- For each issue entry, include:
  - source document and location reference,
  - concise issue description,
  - cross-document comparison,
  - development or financing impact,
  - severity,
  - recommended cure or next step.
- When citing legal or transactional propositions, identify the governing authority or document provision by name and section or comparable location reference, rather than stating conclusions in abstract terms.
- End with a Recommended Actions section that assigns each action to the appropriate responsible party and ties it to closing, financing, or another relevant milestone.
- Use the requested filename: `survey-title-issue-memo.docx`.