The PCB designer was not very good. He may have been lazy, inexperienced, or under too much time pressure to to do the job properly. Manufacturing staff, technicians and whoever might see this as an undesired solder short. There is no reason he could not have moved this off to the mask area as Dave points out.
The designer's designator standards are a bit bizarre. MIC1 for U1? MR23 for R23? Not very efficient, not very logical and not standard. MIC is more logically for microphone, not an MPU. His MPU pin 1 marker is complete garbage (like playing Where's Wally). Also notice no teardrops, no tented vias etc. The PCB is certainly not artwork.
His "RS232" and "RX" texts overlap each other unnecessarily. Also the "TP3" with an arrow overlaps the another line co-linearly. Design rules can weed crap like that out. At least he used arrows for distant test points. Who knows what ambiguities there are with his designator placement on the board. Leaving designators out because it appears there is no room is generally bad practice. One can use call-outs to handle a tight group of components, like 0402 or 0201 R's and C's in a cluster.
On high density boards, I always aim for 100% net test point coverage (except of course for things like UHF RF transmission lines!). There is no need to "TP" to be used, because there is no other component designator standard having just a number. So for test points, if there is a lack of room, omit the "TP" everywhere and use a number. Altium handles the test point as a number perfectly as a component. For example "3" would replace "TP3". It works when you don't have much room for text. Incidentally, these days, with a reasonable PCB manufacturer, your text can go down to 0.6mm high, 0.12mm stroke width if necessary as the exception rather than the rule (ie:5:1 ratio) for decent readability. I generally go for 0.8mm/0.16mm on high density boards as standard.