Legal Descriptions

[Gromatici]

Good job Greg,

The mark of a true professional isn't knowing all the answers but knowing where to look!

[Propst]

Attorneys and Title companies often try their hand at writing legals, with mixed results, but they do not sign as preparer.
Public utilities which meet certain criteria also do not need to have their legal signed, but do have to state their exemption per section 8730 of the LS Act.

[Gromatici]

Edison. I've seen some really awful ones from them too! Seems like they have a lot less clout than they used to, maybe we should get rid of that.

Attorneys and Title companies do write legals, but I don't think it's legal.

Funny how you have to be licensed unless your a tech working at Edison.

[Ian Wilson]

8726. A person, including any person employed by the state or by a city, county, or city and county within the state, practices land surveying within the meaning of this chapter who, either in a public or private capacity, does or offers to do any one or more of the following:

(l) Determines the information shown or to be shown within the description of any deed, trust deed, or other title document prepared for the purpose of describing the limit of real property in connection with any one or more of the functions described in subdivisions (a) to (f), inclusive.

Since the easement affects title and the description of the easement will appear in a deed of some sort, the short answer to your question, Armand, is: Yes.

A longer answer would be: HELL, Yes!

Now, how many Recorder Clerks know this and how many enforce it?

[7702]

See the January thread "New Deed After Subdivision" for further information.

[7702]

see also:


http://www.californiasurveyors.org/clsa ... scriptions

[E_Page]

See also §411(g)(2) of the Board Rules.

[Propst]

That had a nice quote of Roy Minnick's as to why Title Officers and Attorneys are not constrained by the PLSA.
I do not believe the property owner, as in Marois' theoretical above, would be subject to the act either. If not exempt by statute then by common law. I have always heard that an owner could prepare just about any document affecting his property he wanted, so long as innocent third parties interests were not affected, e.g. mortgage holders, etc.
"Protection of the public shall be the highest priority of the Board . . . "
Not protection of Land Surveyors.
As far as i know a person can still locate their own property boundaries, and that is clearly a defined Land Surveyor task.

[Ian Wilson]

"As far as i know a person can still locate their own property boundaries, and that is clearly a defined Land Surveyor task."

Absoultely. However, them may NOT locate the boudaries of others! Half that line belongs to the adjoiner. Guess what.

I have often heard this little chestnut myself. I have yet to find the statute or have it shown to me. It's sort of like the old "If I fence it off for more than 7 years, it's mine." logic. Sounds interesting, but isn't true.

[subman]

The B&P Code seems to address a property owners ability to practice civil engineering without a license on his own property (subject to public health, safety, etc.); however the PLS Act does not appear to have a comparable statute. Being silent on the issue might imply they do not have the authority to practice land surveying without a license on their property. The legislature felt compelled to grant them that authority in the PE Act. Makes you want to say "hmmm"...

6744. This chapter does not require registration for the purpose of
practicing civil engineering, by an individual, a member of a firm
or partnership, or by an officer of a corporation on or in connection
with property owned or leased by the individual, firm, partnership,
or corporation, unless the civil engineering work to be performed
involves the public health or safety or the health and safety of
employees of the individual, firm, partnership or corporation.

[Jim Frame]

There is partial recognition of a land owner's right to perform land surveying on his own land. §8725 states that it is "unlawful for any person...to set, reset, replace, or remove any survey monument on land in which he or she has no legal interest..."

.

[Gromatici]

That brings up a more important question: Do you really want land owners to "set, reset, replace, or remove any survey monument"?????

I could just see it now.... "It’s here! NO! It's here! NOOO! It's here, right in your living room, NO! It's here, right in between your eyes....."

We would see carnage every night at 6:00pm on the news.

That would be a disaster! I'm wondering if the Constitution played a role in the wording of that but the fact that monuments are common to others really prevents land owners from "doing their own survey" due to the fact that it's a misdemeanor to disturb boundary markers you share in common. Additionally, the preservation of monuments of your neighbors goes back at least 4000 years because of numerous citations in the Bible regarding the disturbing or moving of boundary markers.

This concept has been ingrained in our culture, except for fence builders and landscapers since this county started. I think we've established a good precedence for only those qualified and legally endorse should be resetting, replacing and removing any monuments (I'm pretty sure we can't even remove a monument). If they want to set their own markers for an interior lot, they could (before the SMA).

[Anthony Maffia]

In my studying books and at lectures, I've understood that a property owner can write a legal descriptions relating to their own property.

But, the examples shown were of a subdivision, never a re-write of their boundary. And they were used to teach how to interpret "poor", "bad" and "erroneous" descriptions.

I'd expect local regulations now to require legals to be written by licensed surveyors.