Good morning, I am doing what is essentially an ALTA update for a commercial propeerty done 2 months ago by a colluege that is no longer with us, the new title report contains a sch. B item that refers to the previuos ALTA, the item in question is the main sign for the shopping center that is half on the subject parcel and half in the adjoining right of way. The sch. B states "All rights, interest, claims....disclosed by survey, job no., date, ect. a)A sign encroaching onto street right of way along east property line" the previous ALTA shows said sign but makes no mention of encroachment and I hate to use that word.
My question is, what note, if any, would you make, do I use the word encroachment and point out the sign on the new ALTA?, do I just ignore it and let the client sort it out?
I have not researched the possibility of a city varience but it appears that no addition right of way was taken. what would you all do? I find it a little disturbing that the title co. added the word encroachment to our previous ALTA, but maybe I am making too much of it - thanks in advance
To read the rest of this thread go to www.i-boards.com/bnp/pob/messages.asp?MsgID=1468162&ThreadID=138614&IsResponse=False#1468162.