Do i need to pay a lawyer or subscription mapping site to gain the specific location of my parcel within its survey in Nacogdochos County Texas? AI indicates it is lawyer or pay site - but that’s AI. I have tried RRC and others. Great to find this forum. 1st post. Thanks!
@WeeWhiskey, do you have any legal description?
Better yet, is there a way/place for me to get the specific map of the parcel within its survey. I have found ways to get the specific shape of the parcel, but it is the parcel’s relationship to the survey it is in as a whole and surrounding landmarks that I need.
Hi PeteR, Yes, including what i believe are called the “calls” needed for some of mapping software. Do you have the ability/access to map?
@WeeWhiskey, yes, with luck and some information, me or someone else on the forum may be able to locate your parcel. Sometimes it is helpful to look at older deeds in your title chain.
Hi PeteR, If you or someone else on the forum could map my parcels in Nacodochos county in context to the surveys inwhich they reside, that would be great and sooo sooo appreciated. I have the deed description and some information on the family title chain, and AI has provided what it thinks are the the “calls” for the mapping software. Newby needs help 
Thanks!
Your deed should contain a legal description of the acreage. For a square section, it could be the North half or the North half of the Northeast quarter. Other tracts are described in metes and bounds, which are the legal calls of each segment of the perimeter. This was often due to tracts being subdivided with sides following a canal or some other feature. There are programs which can map the metes and bounds for the outline. Its placement within the section or survey will depend on the starting point, such as XX feet or rods from the southeast corner. If you own an undivided share of an entire survey or section, it will cite only the section. The legal description in your deed should be the same as in earlier deeds in the chain of title, back to when the tract was subdivided out of the larger survey or tract.
Thanks. Mine is metes and bounds and the two parcels are in separate surveys. They are part of the surveys (not the whole survey) and i believe them to be contiguous.
If anyone can map parcels in Nacogdoches county Texas with my metes and bounds parameters (I also have the “calls” that AI produced for what that is worth) i would really really appreciate it. I am new to this and truly appreciate (and need) the information on this forum. The parcels are an inheritance that I want to lease but need to confirm they are contiguous and understand where they are within the two surveys inwhich they reside. Thank you for any help and/or advice.
@WeeWhiskey, can you share your metes and bounds calls by uploading, typing in or photographing? Note the upload icon (up arrow icon) in the posting window.
Thanks!!! Here are the descriptions and the AI generated calls:
Tract 1 : Being 55.16 acres, more or less, out of the Henry Bailey Survey, and being out of the 160 acre tract conveyed to G.W. Hogan by Deed dated November 28, 1900, recorded in Volume 42, Page 263, Deed Records, Nacogdoches County, Texas; said 55.16 acres being described as follows, to-wit:
BEGINNING at a stake on the East right-of-way of Highway 259 and in the South Boundary Line of the 160 acre tract;
THENCE North with the meanderings of the highway right-of-way a distance of 1312 to the Southwest corner of a three acre tract conveyed to C.B. Horton, by Deed recorded in Volume 327, Page 16, Deed Records, Nacogdoches County, Texas;
THENCE South 80 045’ East with Horton’s South line passing Horton’s Southeast corner at 373.5 feet and continuing East to the West line of the 160 acre tract in the old colony lane a total distance of 1800 feet;
THENCE South 12-1/2 deg. East with the old colony lane and the East line of the 160 acre tract, 104 feet to the Southeast corner of the 160 acre tract to stake in the fence corner;
THENCE South 77-1/2 deg. West with the South fence line of the 160 acre tract 2178 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and containing 55.16 acres of land, more or less.
Tract 2: Being 61.58 acres, more or less, being the South One-half of a 123.44 acre tract conveyed to G.W. Hogan by E. Hogan, et. al. by Deed dated December 7, 1917, recorded in Volume 86, Page 454, Deed Records, Nacogdoches County, Texas, and being out of the John Yancey League and the Northeast corner of the Howard Bailey Survey, described as follows:
BEGINNING at a stake in the old colony lane in the West boundary line of the Henry Bailey Survey and the East Boundary Line of the H.W. Bailey Survey, being the most Southern Southwest corner of the 123.44 acre tract;
THENCE North 12-1/2 deg. West with the old colony lane and the West Boundary Line of the 123.44 acre tract 1151 feet to a 1" iron pipe in the center of the lane;
THENCE in an Easterly directly 2937 feet to a 1 " iron pipe to stake in fence line in the East Boundary Line of the 123.44 acre tract;
THENCE South with the East fence line 866 feet to the Southeast corner of the 123.44 acre tract;
THENCE West with the South fence of the 134.44 acre tract, 2528 feet to a stake in fence line;
THENCE South 12 deg. East 242 feet to a stake in fence corner;
THENCE west with the fence line 272 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING, and containing 61.58 
acres of land, more or less.
Here is what AI has as the calls:
TRACT 1: The 55.16-Acre Bailey Parcel (Abstract 83)
- Point of Beginning: A stake on the East right-of-way of Highway 259 and in the South Boundary Line of the 160-acre tract.
- Call 1: North along the meanderings of the Highway 259 right-of-way a distance of 1,312 feet.
- (Landmark Intersection: Hits the Southwest corner of the C.B. Horton 3-acre tract).
- Call 2: South 80° 45’ East with Horton’s South line, passing Horton’s Southeast corner at 373.5 feet, and continuing East a total distance of 1,800 feet to the West line of the 160-acre tract in the Old Colony Lane.
- Call 3: South 12-1/2° East with the Old Colony Lane and the East line of the 160-acre tract, a distance of 104 feet to a stake in a fence corner (the Southeast corner of the 160-acre tract).
- Call 4 (Closing Call): South 77-1/2° West with the South fence line of the 160-acre tract, a distance of 2,178 feet back to the PLACE OF BEGINNING.
TRACT 2: The 61.58-Acre Yancey Parcel (Abstract 512)
- Point of Beginning: A stake in the Old Colony Lane on the West boundary line of the Henry Bailey Survey and the East Boundary Line of the H.W. Bailey Survey.
- Call 1: North 12-1/2° West with the Old Colony Lane and the West Boundary Line of the 123.44-acre parent tract, a distance of 1,151 feet to a 1" iron pipe in the center of the lane.
- Call 2: In an Easterly direction a distance of 2,937 feet to a 1" iron pipe at a stake in a fence line on the East Boundary Line of the 123.44-acre tract.
- Call 3: South with the East fence line a distance of 866 feet to the Southeast corner of the 123.44-acre tract.
- Call 4: West with the South fence of the 134.44-acre tract, a distance of 2,528 feet to a stake in a fence line.
- Call 5: South 12° East a distance of 242 feet to a stake in a fence corner.
- Call 6 (Closing Call): West with the fence line a distance of 272 feet back to the PLACE OF BEGINNING.
Let me know if there is any additional information I can share that would help. Thanks!!!
The metes and bounds are the legal description which determines the location of the tract. Unless, there has been a transcription error over the years, they should be the same as in prior deeds back to when the tract was first subdivided out of the larger survey. AI is providing no useful information here, and should not be making any changes to the original language.
Hi TennisDaze, Thanks. I have no idea if the AI calls are relevant. I include them in case they provide any value to @PeteR in the mapping process.
You should be very wary of the veracity of any information from AI and confirm it on independent and reliable source, particularly with respect to any legal matters. AI spits back whatever programming information it has and is often not updated. In the case of legal descriptions in a deed, they are precise and not subject to summaries and changes.
@weewhiskey, as @TennisDaze noted, the AI was apt to be misleading. It picked up incorrect abstract numbers since Tract 1 is in A-6, and Tract 2 is in A-35 & A-83. The 104 ft call on Tract 1 seems to be an error…more likely 1040 ft or something close to that. Not possible to get 55 acres with the 104 ft dimension. Attached some sketches with the modern parcel map.
Tract 1
Tract 2
On RRC
No oil wells appear to be involved.
1 Like
@PeteR Thanks!!! The maps are hugely hugely helpful. Thanks again!
As I move forward to lease, I would welcome any and all advice from you and anyone on the forum regarding lease value and the best path for leasing.
Overview: My parcels in Nacogdoches county Texas total 116.74 acres. Based on my research and the rrc.texas gis viewer (not AI 
), the nearest well to my parcels is Lilly. I believe Lilly to be about 0.3 of a mile away, give or take. Lilly is an 11,000 ft vertical well that produced for 25 years from 1999 to 2024 before its third operator went out of business. It was taken over by Atlas two years ago. At this point, Lilly doesn’t show production under Atlas but is showing on schedule. Branch Midco Investments has a pipeline to Lilly that runs along the boarder of one of my parcels. The next nearest well is Angela Faith GU 1 Operated by Texian Operating Company. It is probably less than a mile from one of my borders. It is also on schedule.
I have no idea what all this means in terms of a lease value and which path to lease is best – broker, managed auction, or unmanage auction with lawyer assistance. The internet warns that the boilerplate contracts can be heavily operator favored and that there are specific clauses that I should consider changing via a lawyer.
Sooooo, one confused (and thankful for the maps) mineral rights owner open to whatever help and advice anyone would care to share regarding value and leasing. Thank you.
@WeeWhiskey , unfortunately patience is often required in waiting for a lease offer. There generally isn’t a way to hurry the process. You are correct that standard or first draft leases may not be favorable for the mineral owner. If your name is recorded as the owner in the county deed records that is usually the way possible lessees will find you.
@PeteR Thanks. I had a purchase offer four years ago, but that is the only interest to date (although I am probably not that easy to find these days after several moves since the gift deed). What are your (or anyone’s) thoughts on the auction option? And if possible or advisable, how best to set the minimum acceptable price? Thanks.
You need to file an address change with the Nacadoches county recorder to make sure that the leasing agents can actually find you. Aetheon and JCC Energy have been leasing nearby in the last year.
Pete was correct in that the agents will come to you if they can find your address and they are interested. The nearest permits are about nine miles away.
If you want to get a feel for how this works, the Mineral Help tab above is a good primer. Also a book called “Look before you Lease” by Jim Stafford.
1 Like
That part of Nacogdoches primarily has old Travis Peak production and not much new activity. The interesting thing you should watch is the play coming from the west. There is a lot of leasing activity happening across the line in Cherokee County which is really not that far away. If I had your minerals I would be holding onto them.
1 Like