Monumenting LLA's

[Jim Frame]

A monument set to mark or witness a proposed parcel corner doesn't fall under the definition of land surveying per §8726 -- it's a legal nullity. If you set monuments in anticipation of an LLA and the transfer of land fails to occur, there's no need to file anything, because the monument wasn't set during the performance of a survey as defined in §8726.

The above doesn't apply if the monument also marks the location of an existing line or corner. In that case you'd have to file a CR or a ROS.

.

[Jim Frame]

"The City of Placerville also has a requirement for a ROS with the LLA."

This would seem to be in direct violation of §66412(d) of the Government Code:

"No record of survey shall be required for a lot line adjustment unless required by Section 8762 of the Business and Professions Code."

.

[btaylor]

Jim, I guess the gray area would be if they require the new lines to be monumented, but then, it is not really their purview to require it since it is state jurisdiction. That can be a touchy issue with the local agency.

[PLS7393]

It only makes sense to set property corners when performing a LLA, but as stated, it is not required unless the agency requires it. How can an agency require the setting of monuments for a LLA you ask???

If the agency approves an ordinance mandating the setting of corners for a LLA, then you shall set corners and file a Record of Survey.

Better yet, in San Mateo County, planning has an ordinance requiring a parcel map for any property applying for a Certificate of Compliance. I questioned the filing of a Parcel Map, verses a R.O.S., and planning says they get more money through the process of a Parcel Map. I think that is a crime within itself, but don't want to high-jack this thread.

Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion on LLA, heheheee!

[E_Page]

The City of Placerville generally defers to the County of el Dorado as they contract with the County Surveyor's office to do all map checks for maps within the City.

Here's how it works in EDC: If you are performing an adjustment that requires no field measurements, say something straightforward like taking X feet of Lot 105 and appending it to Lot 106 of Happy Trails Estates, no field work involved, then they require no RS nor PM.

They way Dan Russell put it, if you go to the site and do any measurements, even so much as a taping some rudimentary measurements, then you are performing a field survey to determine the location of this proposed boundary. A map will then be required.

If it is an adjustment between two or more owners, you file an RS and exchange deeds. If it is an adjustment between parcels of a common owner, you file a PM. But that PM does not cost anymore than if you are filing an RS for the LLA, and it does not go through the usual review or have conditions imposed as you would in a normal PM process. Since one cannot convey land to oneself, the PM serves as a resubdivision to create new lots reflecting the adjusted boundary. It's pretty clean and fairly simple, and done in a manner that does not violate 66412(d).

Every once in a while, Development services (Planning) and/or DOT miss the fact that a PM is for an LLA and start in on conditions. Usually having the surveyor's office tactfully remind them that they can't impose conditions solves that problem.

Call Rich at the CS office for clarification.


Jim, re: Post #2. I'm not so sure about that.

[LA Stevens]

It sounds like El Dorado County has it perfect!

Evan,

Can you send me their requirements. I'm in discussion with Marin County and would love to see what they have in writing. Larry@LAStevensInc.com

Thanks,

[E_Page]

Larry,

Shoot me an email reminder and I will dig up the County Ordinances on LLAs and get them to you in the next couple of days.

evan@homesteadsurveying.com


Edit: Better yet, here is the ordinance attached. See Ch 16.53, beginning on Page 63.

It looks like a couple of things have changed since i was involved in negotiating this chapter.

§16.53.040(B) states that Boundary Line AGREEMENTS will be forwarded to the County Surveyor for approval, at the Director's (of Dev. Svcs) discretion.

I'm sorry County, but it is not up to you to approve or disapprove a Boundary Line Agreement. It is an agreement, as correctly defined earlier in the ordinance, to fix an uncertain boundary. Running it through the LLA process is just a good way of noticing the various departments of the agreement. If the parties wanted to, they could execute the agreement, take it straight to the Recorder's office and file it, and it would be just as valid.

It is possible, and I believe the basis of the County's desire to review, that someone may try to disguise a LLA as a BLA, in which case, the County would want to challenge the validity of the basis of the agreement (that the boundary line is not certain). There are reasonable people at both the CS and Deputy CS position at this time, so the current effect of this provision is not unduly burdensome. But that may not always be the case. If the CS or Dev Svcs Director positions were to be occupied by bureaucrats drunk with their own perceived regulatory power, this provision could prove to be very problematic.

§16.53.08(A) provides that DOT can require IODs over any access easements created. This was a major sticking point when the ordinance was negotiated 2 or 3 years ago. I and another private surveyor argued, at that time successfully, that requiring an IOD was expressly against §66412(d) as it is an exaction. The county's argument is that if at some later point, a landowner fronting a public road closed off access over a private easement to an otherwise landlocked parcel, that they would be powerless to compel that landowner to open the road. With an IOD in place, the County could threaten to, or actually accept the road as a county road at any point and then compel it to be opened. Without the IOD, it's a civil matter.

My retort to that is that the county has very noble motives for wanting to ignore the law, but noble motives are not a valid reason to do so. The approval of an LLA is supposed to be a ministerial matter, not a discretionary one.


But even with these two sticking points I have with the ordinance as it is, I think that it is a very good one overall, and works quite well in practice with the personalities that are in the CS office, and some that are in Development Services.

[Paul Goebel]

I'm working on an LLA on deed lots where I'm filing an RoS, but the client does not want monuments to be set. Has anyone else filed and RoS without setting monuments? The survey could be retraced from the found points shown, but seems less than ideal to me.

[subman]

Evan, you said it does not violate 66412(d). How does the PM LLA process in EDC get around the SMA provision:

"No TM, PM or FM shall be required as a condition to the approval of a LLA. The LLA shall be reflected in a "Deed", which shall be recorded."

I agree procedurally it seems neat and clean, but how does the local ordinance not conflict with the SMA on a technical basis? A PM is a certificate of compliance, but is it a "Deed".

[E_Page]

Dennis, it reads in the County Subd Ord that no survey will be required unless it is required under §8762. So it's not the LLA that has the RS requirement attached, but any survey that might have been performed to effect the LLA.

If no survey is required, no RS required.

As for the PM, they make both the cost and the process the same as for submitting an RS with your LLA, so other than map format, there's no difference. Again, if no survey is required, then no PM required.

No violation of §66412(d).

[btaylor]

I'm working on an LLA on deed lots where I'm filing an RoS, but the client does not want monuments to be set. Has anyone else filed and RoS without setting monuments? The survey could be retraced from the found points shown, but seems less than ideal to me.

Sure Paul why not? If it is retraceable without those monuments, the ROS is still important. I have done several ROS maps without actually setting anything but perhaps some reference marks on curbs.

[Ric7308]

Enjoying this thread so far, but have to ask...

What makes anyone think that a local agency (City or County) has the authority to require a field survey or Record of Survey?

First of all, only the Board has the authority to require a Record of Survey...and that is only within the confines of the Professional Land Surveyors Act. No other agency, not the City, not the County, regardless of what that agency states...has that authority.

Second of all, State AG Opinion 94-518 clearly states in no uncertain terms "...that a city or county may not require a field survey to be performed or a record of survey to be filed for a lot line adjustment which involves the creation of new points or lines not shown on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey..."

The same opinion also states that "...a city or county must limit its review and approval to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to local zoning and building ordinances."

Based on my reading of this AG opinion, the local agency does not have the authority to require monuments, as that would be a requirement to perform a field survey, which this AG opinion has stated that the local agency does not have that authority to require.

At the time a field survey is conducted, the licensed Land Surveyor has the SOLE responsibility to comply with the mandatory statutes regarding filing procedures, above and outside the perview of the lot line adjustment process.

Based on this AG opinion, the local agency does not have the authority to finalize approval of a lot line adjustment application soley for the purposes of requiring a field survey or preparing a Record of Survey.

[E_Page]

OK, Jim. I've had a chance to think about what you wrote in Post #2, and if those monuments for proposed lines existed in a vacuum, you may be right as there is nothing in §8726 about proposed corners and it technically might fall through the cracks.

But how would anyone know where to set mons for an LLA without reference to the current boundaries? I contend that it can't be done. The new lines must be referenced to the old lines to be at all meaningful.

Since the setting of mons for the new boundary are tied to the old boundary, we have a retracement, or identification of actual boundaries, which are clearly within §8726. Then the requirement of filing a map goes back to a reading of §8762. Are any of the monuments set for the new line(s) on an existent exterior boundary? Can their positions be discerned from an existing record map?

A question, perhaps for another thread: Is it permissible to remove those monuments if the LLA falls through? If so, by who's authority?

[pls7809]

I set some mons in prep for doing an LLA. I waited quite some time - almost 90 days for the LLA to record and the client said his deal fell through with the neighbor and they weren't on good terms anymore (I doubted they ever were to begin with - but oh well). I told the client my situation since monuments were in the ground marking the now-not-proposed proposed line and what the options were. He opted to have me file a map showing the existing boundary with offsets to my set points rather than remove them, in case they were able to get their agreement back in place later.

[pls7809]

Dave & others,

That's the discussion that was raised between me and my colleagues in the office here. There definitely is a conflict and I think it is mainly because planners have no idea what we do to get the info they are requesting, which is part of the problem. Another part is that 99% of cities process their LLA's through Planning and not Engineering (although there are many engineers who also have no clue).

If there is an ordinance on the books requiring monuments from the local agency, I never argue to get out of doing an RS and I actually just tell the client the city requires it and then do the RS that is required with that. In fact, I personally won't offer to do an LLA without the client further agreeing to have me set monuments and do the RS after the perfecting deeds are recorded even if that particular city does not require setting monuments. I just describe a situation where 20 years from now the neighbor wants to build a fence or wall along the adjusted line and then a mess ensues, 100% of the time the client says okay.

Personally, I think we should push for an RS requirement after the perfecting deeds are recorded, but that's just me.

[Ben Lund]

I see this as a very critical issue and it goes back to Mike Pallamary's thread "Who can prepare a Tentative Map?” Is there a way to create a site plan showing buildings, property lines, setbacks, areas, etc without performing a field survey? Most architect’s and planners would say a field survey is not needed. If a field survey is not needed (from a planning stand point) can you use aerial photography, previous plans, taping between fences and buildings to show planning compliancy?

What are the ramifications of violating a setback by 0.5’? Does planning care? Was the ordinance written to prevent this gross violation of setback?

I don’t know which way I would go on this but I see the logic that if a field survey cannot be required for a LLA, the agency cannot require anything that would trigger the need for a field survey.

[Jim Frame]

"But how would anyone know where to set mons for an LLA without reference to the current boundaries? I contend that it can't be done. The new lines must be referenced to the old lines to be at all meaningful."

I agree with your last sentence, and will qualify my earlier statement to say that §8762 doesn't comes to bear until the relationship between those monuments and an existing parcel line is disclosed to a party outside the control of the surveyor.

I have a project in progress right now that can serve as an example: an odd-shaped cutout of a city block that the city wants to transfer to the RDA. The city's project manager met me on site to explain what physical features were to control the new parcel configuration. I conducted a field survey, including tying down the block. I created the new parcel configuration and set monuments in anticipation of a ROS that's part of my contract. However, until I delivered the draft description and drawing to my client, those monuments were legally just random points in space, not tied to anything.

As soon as I turned the draft documents over to the city for review, an argument could be made that the monuments reference the block line. If that line hasn't been established by prior surveys, then a ROS would be required. However, what if the block line was already well-established? I can see a requirement to file a CR for the monuments that sit on the block line, but what good would it do to show the relationship between those oddball interior marks to the block line? I'd be inclined to just let them lie in peace.


"If a field survey is not needed (from a planning stand point) can you use aerial photography"

I've used both aerial and satellite photography in order to ensure setback compliance, though I wouldn't try it if the clearance was near the expected accuracy of the photoregistration. I've used Google Earth imagery, registered to road intersections for which I had distances accurate to 5 feet or less, to demonstrate that a barn was about 150' clear of a line with a 20' setback requirement. I've also used 0.5-foot-per-pixel aerial photography, registered to the center of centerline monument covers, to demonstrate that a house was about 15' clear of a line with a 10'-foot setback requirement. The latter case was for a LLA, and no field work was required except to drive by and verify that the photo correctly represented the circumstances on the ground.

.

[Ric7308]

Dave,

Interesting to see the checklist from City of Santa Ana. It has been my experience that there are as many different forms of LLA requirements as there are local agencies in our state.

I did not see any requirement to depict dimensions between existing buildings and the property line? Some requirements only request an overlay sketch showing pictorially the location of existing structures, septic systems, etc. without dimensions. I did see other requirements, that if checked by the agency official, would lead a land surveyor to the position that you stated. I am aware of examples for either of those two.

My point in my previous post though had more to do with a local agency requiring a ROS as a condition of approving the LLA. The local agency does not have the authority to issue that requirement or to refuse to finalize the LLA process on that account.

I agree to the difficulty with delivering on these requirements if the AG opinion states pretty clearly that an agency cannot require a field survey. I don't believe the AG limits their opinion on what type of field survey. As all of you are very much aware, many times the basis for a LLA adjustment is some sort of existing improvement that is physically contradictory to the location of an existing property line.

I still state that regardless of the agency requirements, the land surveyor is soley responsible for complying with the ROS (or CR) laws and if the licensee initiates a field survey that necessitates that requirement, whether in reaction to an agency requirement, a property owner request or of their own accord, it is the responsibility of the land surveyor to convey that to the client ensuring appropriate compensation.

A couple of years ago, I had a situation arise where a City Surveyor would not approve a LLA until the private land surveyor filed a ROS. This had to do with two deed lots and the surveyor had set monuments along the new line as part of the process. After several emails and phone calls, I basically told the City Surveyor that he could not refuse to finalize the LLA on that basis and he asked how could he be assured that the private land surveyor would fulfill his obligations and file an ROS. I reminded him that the land surveyor had professional obligations and that if a professional told him that a ROS was going to be filed, he had to take that professional at his word. I also suggested that in his official capacity and intending to serve the public in a positive manner, he could monitor the ROS submittal and if compliance was not in order, he could then contact the land surveyor to verify intentions. And if all else failed, he could file a complaint with the Board. It is also important to note that the private land surveyor was the first to contact me and had a draft ROS ready to submit to the County Surveyor upon recording of the new legal descriptions...and this was all known by the City Surveyor. However well intentioned by both sides, the application of the laws were misdirected.

Interesting note...later the City Surveyor contacted me about requiring monuments to be set and would that satisfy the City requirements. I replied that it would not change the City's authority.

On another note, I do not foresee a situation where I would set monuments marking the location of proposed "new" property lines until after the LLA adjustment is finalized and the new deeds are recorded. I felt this way for awhile and my experiences with the Board over the last 3+ years as only reinforced that belief. I have seen many times when this has come back to bite the land surveyor involved.

Ric

[E_Page]

I can envision a scenario where retracement of the exterior boundaries would not trigger 8762. That is where only the newly placed mons might trigger it.

If the LLA falls through, would it be a violation of any particular section(s) of the PLSA or Board Rules to remove the new mons if you had the landowners consent to do so?

[Ben Lund]

What part of the LLA documents constitute survey documents. We all agree that the plat and legal are survey documents and must be signed and stamped by a licensed LS. Is the “site plan” showing record boundary dimensions, setbacks, areas, easements, and buildings considered a survey document? Does it depend on how you got your information or what accuracy you’re using? Ballparking a building footprint on a record boundary shape via aerial photo is not very accurate yet probably falls under 8762(b):

“Determines…the position of fixed objects above…the earth’s surface…by applying the principles of mathematics or photogrammetry.”

Example documents that don’t need to be signed and stamped by a land surveyor are a site plan, tentative map, grading plan, and septic layout. All of these documents show fixed works in relationship to property lines yet they are not required to be stamped by a land surveyor. So either we fight to make these survey documents or we treat them like they are not survey documents.

If they are NOT survey documents then the land surveyor creating them or helping to create them should not be held to a higher standard than if he wasn’t licensed.

If they ARE survey documents they should be signed and stamped by an LS and the work performed be controlled by the appropriate laws.

Is section 66412 of the SMA essentially saying that the site plan associated with a LLA is NOT a survey document? Is Section 66424.5 of the SMA essentially saying that the TM is not a survey document?

[Scott]

Steve,
Ryan mentioned above exactly what I have done in the past, filed a RoS before the LLA and set monuments on the new line without showing the new line and calling them witness corners to the old line. I've actually posted that RoS here at
"http://www.californiasurveyors.org/clsa ... #post13248"