ALTA survey due diligence is one of the most technical — and most underappreciated — parts of a commercial real estate transaction. The ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey is prepared by a licensed surveyor and reviewed by a title attorney, but neither discipline brings the construction and site development perspective needed to catch the issues most likely to affect deal execution and long-term asset performance.

At Natura Architectural Consulting, we review ALTA surveys as part of every Architectural Document and Cost Review and due diligence engagement, with a particular focus on multifamily affordable housing and LIHTC transactions. Over 21 years in the field, the same five categories of problems surface repeatedly. Here’s what we look for every time.

1. Easements That Encumber Buildable Area

Easements are legal rights granted to a third party to use a portion of a property for a specific purpose — utilities, drainage, access, pipelines, and more. Many are routine. Some are not.

In affordable housing development and rehabilitation, the critical questions are: Where exactly does the easement run? What does it prohibit? And does it conflict with what the developer intends to build or preserve?

Utility easements running beneath proposed building footprints, drainage easements crossing parking areas, and access easements that limit site reconfiguration are among the most common conflicts we encounter. These aren’t always visible in the title commitment — the survey is where you see them mapped against actual improvements.

What to look for: Cross-reference Table B easement callouts with the survey graphic. Confirm no easement runs beneath or through a proposed structure, that required utility work doesn’t conflict with easement restrictions, and that ingress/egress easements are consistent with the site plan.

2. Encroachments — In Both Directions

An encroachment exists when a structure or improvement crosses a property line — either onto the subject property from an adjacent parcel, or from the subject property onto a neighbor’s land. Both scenarios create title risk.

Encroachments from neighboring improvements — fences, walls, paving, outbuildings — can create adverse possession exposure over time and complicate future development. Encroachments in the other direction can require cure prior to closing, generate title insurance exceptions, or — in the worst case — require physical removal of improvements.

In rehabilitation projects, we’ve encountered encroachments that have existed for decades with no prior owner ever addressing them. When a property is being repositioned for LIHTC financing, those dormant issues become material fast.

What to look for: Review the survey graphic carefully for any improvement that crosses or approaches a boundary line. Check note callouts that reference encroachments. Confirm with the title company whether any encroachments are excepted from coverage.

3. Setback Violations and Non-Conforming Conditions

ALTA surveys prepared to current NSPS standards can include, as an optional Table A item, the plotting of setback requirements from applicable zoning. When included, the survey will show whether existing improvements comply with current setbacks — or whether they don’t.

Non-conforming setback conditions are common in older affordable housing stock, particularly in urban infill markets where zoning has changed since original construction. The risk isn’t that the building needs to be moved. The risk is what happens when the rehabilitation scope triggers a zoning review — or when a future casualty loss requires rebuilding to current code.

We’ve reviewed projects where significant rehabilitation budgets were underwritten without accounting for costs to bring site improvements into compliance — costs that only surfaced when the municipality reviewed the building permit application.

What to look for: Confirm whether Table A, Item 19 (setback requirements) was included in the survey scope. If setback lines are shown, verify that all structures comply. If non-conforming conditions exist, assess whether the proposed rehab scope will trigger a zoning compliance review.

4. Access — Legal vs. Practical

A property must have legal access to a public right-of-way. This sounds simple, but it’s more nuanced than it appears — especially for multi-building affordable housing developments where site circulation crosses internally held parcels or shared access agreements.

Legal access means there is a recorded right — direct frontage or an easement — providing ingress and egress to a public road. Practical access means the physical configuration actually works: the drive isn’t blocked, the easement is wide enough for fire apparatus, and the route isn’t encumbered by conditions that could be terminated or disputed.

We’ve reviewed portfolio transactions where one parcel’s access was entirely dependent on a private easement across an adjacent parcel under separate ownership. Consolidated, it works. If ownership ever changes, the access disappears. That’s a risk that deserves to be underwritten explicitly.

What to look for: Confirm that every parcel in the transaction has recorded legal access to a public right-of-way. Review access easement terms including maintenance obligations and termination conditions. Verify that the physical access configuration matches the legal grant.

5. Boundary Gaps, Overlaps, and Parcel Assembly Issues

Many affordable housing projects sit on assembled parcels — multiple lots combined over time to create the development site. When parcels are assembled, the boundaries need to fit together cleanly. They don’t always.

Boundary gaps — thin slivers of land between recorded parcels that belong to neither owner — and overlaps — where two recorded parcels claim the same area — are more common than most people expect, particularly in older urban neighborhoods where historical plats were inconsistently recorded.

A subtler version of this problem: improvements that straddle an interior lot line. Even when all parcels are under common ownership, a structure sitting on a lot line can complicate financing, permitting, and code compliance — particularly if the parcels haven’t been formally combined through a lot consolidation or replat.

What to look for: Verify the survey covers all parcels in the legal description and that boundaries are contiguous and consistent. Look for note callouts referencing gaps or overlaps. Confirm that major improvements sit entirely within the assembled parcel boundary.

The Bottom Line: ALTA Survey Review Requires a Technical Eye

Attorneys handle title risk. Surveyors map the land. But neither discipline is asking the question that matters most for deal execution: does this site actually work for what we’re proposing to do with it?

An architect reviewing an ALTA survey isn’t looking for abstract legal risk — they’re cross-referencing the survey against the physical inspection, the rehabilitation budget, and the regulatory requirements of the transaction. When something doesn’t line up, it needs to surface before commitment, not after closing.

At Natura Architectural Consulting, ALTA survey review is a standard part of every multifamily due diligence engagement. If you’re working through a LIHTC transaction or commercial acquisition and want a second set of eyes on your survey, we’d be glad to help.