For a legal description that uses a lot-and-block system, record subdivision, phase, lot, block, and plat reference as separate fields. For a unit, preserve building, unit, parking, storage, and common-element references independently. This makes a hidden omission easier to spot than a single long text field and lets a reviewer compare the contract with the recorded source without altering either document.
Property descriptions are often copied between a contract, deed, tax record, survey, title commitment, and closing statement. Copying makes a file look consistent, but one omitted lot, directional call, unit number, or exhibit can create a serious question. A careful cross-check does not decide title. It creates a traceable comparison so the professional responsible for the transaction can see exactly where descriptions agree and where they diverge.
Build a property identity card
Start with a one-page identity card for each parcel. Include the street address, county, parcel or assessor number, legal description label, deed book and page or instrument number, and the source date. Keep address and legal description in separate fields because an address is useful for orientation but may not define the property being conveyed. If the estate owns several neighboring parcels, never combine them merely because they share a mailing address.
Establish a source hierarchy
List every description used by the transaction: signed agreement, addenda, deed, title commitment, survey, assessor record, prior conveyance, and closing instructions. Record whether each source is recorded, issued by a public office, supplied by a party, or an informal reference. The hierarchy is a way to organize evidence, not a universal rule about which document controls. Questions about controlling language belong with the qualified professional handling the matter.
Compare identifiers before prose
Compare parcel numbers, instrument numbers, lot and block references, condominium unit identifiers, and subdivision names first. These short identifiers reveal a wrong-parcel problem quickly. Then compare the full legal description character by character, including calls, distances, exceptions, easements, and references to maps. A spreadsheet can highlight differences, but a human should inspect whether a difference reflects formatting or a genuinely different description.
Watch for copied boundaries
Metes-and-bounds descriptions may contain directional calls, monuments, adjoining owners, and closure language. Preserve the sequence and flag a missing call, changed bearing, altered distance, or inconsistent point of beginning. Do not “repair” a typographical-looking value by copying the value from another source. The comparison record should show both versions and identify the source of each value so a surveyor or attorney can determine the significance.
Treat exhibits as part of the contract file
Check whether the agreement incorporates an exhibit by name, date, or attachment number. Confirm that the signed copy actually includes the cited exhibit and that later addenda did not substitute another page. A blank exhibit reference, duplicated exhibit number, or uninitialed replacement should appear in the exception log. The reviewer’s task is to prove what was present in the reviewed file, not to infer what the parties intended to attach.
Reconcile tax and title records
Use the assessor record to compare parcel identity and the title commitment to compare the described estate. Tax data can contain useful parcel context but should not be treated as a deed. Title materials may include exceptions, prior instruments, or requirements that explain why two descriptions differ. Record the date of each search because public records and transaction documents change at different times.
Handle unit and common-interest property
For a condominium or planned community, record unit number, building, phase, declaration reference, limited common elements, and percentage interest when those items appear. A street address alone may identify a building rather than a unit. Compare the declaration or recorded plat reference cited in the deed and contract. Flag missing diagrams or schedules instead of treating a unit label as enough evidence for the complete property interest.
Close the comparison loop
Give each discrepancy a status: matched, formatting-only, source clarification needed, professional review needed, or unresolved. Attach the page reference and a plain description of the difference. Include the person who owns the next action and the date of the last check. If a corrected contract or deed arrives, compare it against the prior copy and retain the prior comparison so the chronology remains intelligible.
| Comparison layer | Capture | Escalate when |
|---|---|---|
| Parcel identity | Address, parcel number, county | Two identifiers point to different land |
| Recorded reference | Instrument, book, page, map | The cited instrument is unavailable |
| Description text | Calls, distances, exceptions | A substantive call or exception changes |
| Exhibit control | Name, date, attachment presence | The signed file lacks the cited exhibit |
| Transaction handoff | Deed and closing instructions | The closing set uses another identity |
A legal-description cross-check makes a property file easier to audit and hand off. It cannot determine conveyance validity, title quality, or the legal effect of a discrepancy; those questions require the appropriate professional review.
If a description refers to a recorded plat, survey, condominium declaration, or prior instrument, index that reference even when the attached map is not available. Record the search performed and the missing source. A map reference may explain a boundary or unit identifier that cannot be understood from the contract prose alone. The exception should ask for the source rather than guessing what the reference means.