In explainable AI, Concept Activation Vectors (CAVs) are typically obtained by training linear classifier probes to detect human-understandable concepts as directions in the activation space of deep neural networks. It is widely assumed that a high probe accuracy indicates a CAV faithfully representing its target concept. However, we show that the probe's classification accuracy alone is an unreliable measure of concept alignment, i.e., the degree to which a CAV captures the intended concept. In fact, we argue that probes are more likely to capture spurious correlations than they are to represent only the intended concept. As part of our analysis, we demonstrate that deliberately misaligned probes constructed to exploit spurious correlations, achieve an accuracy close to that of standard probes. To address this severe problem, we introduce a novel concept localization method based on spatial linear attribution, and provide a comprehensive comparison of it to existing feature visualization techniques for detecting and mitigating concept misalignment. We further propose three classes of metrics for quantitatively assessing concept alignment: hard accuracy, segmentation scores, and augmentation robustness. Our analysis shows that probes with translation invariance and spatial alignment consistently increase concept alignment. These findings highlight the need for alignment-based evaluation metrics rather than probe accuracy, and the importance of tailoring probes to both the model architecture and the nature of the target concept.