Intent

[subman]

Working on a lot survey where I find a 1/2" IP near the SW corner of the adjacent lot. The Corner Record filed for the lot next door shows: Fd. 1/2" IP, 0.2' W'ly flush; Set Nothing.

My question is what was his intent (I have emailed him, but no reply yet). I am used to seeing an actual bearing and distance for a found monument that is slightly off from the established lot corner.

Is the 1/2" IP at a bearing N90W from the actual corner or is the 1/2" IP W'ly along the southerly property line produced which has a bearing of N71-49-08W?

Appreciate your input.

[btaylor]

You are only talking about a 0.05' difference in position either way.

[Ian Wilson]

Dennis:

Since a Corner Record was filed, I have to assume that a monument was "reset" during the course of the previous survey.

From what you are saying, the surveyor of the CR found a monument to be out of position by 0.2 feet on a "Lot Survey". What sort of precision does this represent? On a 50' wide lot, that would be something on the order of 1 part in 250. I have a hard time accepting this as not being prima facie evidence of a material discrepancy.

The intent of the CR was to skirt 8762. Nothing more, nothing less.

The result of the failure to properly perform the surveyors duty is that a competent surveyor, today, must do far more work to fathom the true extent of the situation and decide if the CR is a real survey document worthy of consideration or a red herring tossed out by a house painter masquerading as a land surveyor.

[land butcher]

I would not go so far as to calling this a material discrepancy.

It would have been nice if the CR surveyor had placed a bearing on the offcall. I would guess it's on the sly line .2 west of the corner.

If I had drawn it, and the pipe is on the south line, I would have extended the south line and at a NTS distance drawn the pipe on the line with the o/s distance. If drawn correctly a bearing is not required but does substantiate the location.

Of course many times this question is answered by the field survey.

[btaylor]

Not getting the ROS trigger here either Ian. Suppose there are street monuments that fit well for record. The pipe is simply an open pipe that is called off 0.2'. Basically if this triggers an ROS there are a lot of us skirting things.

I sometimes will set a monument at the calculated location but it depends on what the client is doing with the work.

I prefer to dimension how the pipe fits the corner via 90 degree ties or a bearing-distance from the corner.

[bruce hall]

pipe was found on the southerly line but 0.2' westerly. That would be my intent if I used those words to describe where the pipe was in relation to the corner.

Stating the bearing and distance of the found pipe from the true corner is a relatively new way of describing the "falling", when the distance is not great. And when I mean "new" I mean since 1990 or thereabouts. At least in my neck of the woods.

[Gromatici]

He found a pipe and calls it off 0.2' away from the "true corner" for which he set nothing but has the called-off monument witnessing it. Based on what you told us, he did not give any ties from the "true corner" to the found monument.

If this is a new CR under review; This is what he needs to put down:

Bearings and distances from the found to the true corner. Hopefully he describes the pipe's character, and even a reason for rejecting it (and I hope it's not because it's off by 0.2') unless he can show that he tied out several lot corners by the same surveyor and they're all within a certain minor amount from the record and 0.2' is a result of being disturbed. It's a hard sell though.

As for the ROS vs CR: I believe a CR is fine for the following reason's:

1. If I find a pipe and don't accept it why would I have to file a record of survey? I mean: one time I found a pipe laying on the side of the road. I didn't accept it and it was a few feet from where it was supposed to be. I have to file a record of survey for that?

2. If this is a subdivision area and he found a pipe within a 0.2' of the "calculated" corners, sounds like this is the original surveyor's monuments unless it is untagged, or there is compelling reason not to accept it. A couple tenths, whether it's in 1000' or 100' is simply not reason enough to file a ROS. It's only going to encourage unlicensed people to get more work when we try to get home owners to try and pay us to do ROS for a couple of tenth's (or encourage LS's to simply ignore state law - which is a problem in some counties). Some County Surveyor's have argued that a "material discrepancy" is a 0.01' or 1" from the published data. I don't think the intent of the LS Act was to capture such small differences in the record vs. measured. They are trying to create technical rules and regulations instead of promoting a professional environment of judgement and reason.

I believe that the intent of state law was to have the surveyor do a Record of Survey where a "significant" difference in the record data from his measurement or a viable alternate answer needs to be published so others can view it and decide to accept his solution.

The best way to look at it is this way:

We are PROFESSIONALS, and as such, the professional needs to be in a position to make professional judgements like when to file an RS and when to file a CR. True, many do this as a function of the bottom line and the only recourse that other have (clients, County Surveyor's, colleagues) when a surveyor is practicing outside the normal standards of care or is in obvious violation of state law is to file a complaint (much like people do with Doctors and other professionals). When we try to dictate what is and what isn't a "material discrepancy" to the professional by mathematical rules we are demoting ourselves to technicians who follow manuals and laws, not principles, reasoning, art, and quasi-judicial duties.

As professionals we regulate ourselves locally, regionally and through the state offices. There is a danger in creating too much regulation because any good attorney will simply convince a jury that the LS didn't follow the rules, even if following the short-sighted rules results in the wrong answer.

[dmi]

Is the found pipe evidence of an alternate position? If not why not? If it is evidence of an alternate location, why? just for fun take a look at this case

Hoffman v. Van Duzee, 19 Cal. App. 2d 517, 65 P.2d 1330 (2d Dist. 1937) courtesy of Thread killer D. Woolley.

[BoundaryMan]

From the limited information I read, I have to assume this ½â€￾ pipe is a no ref. monument. You will have to see how does it fit your calculated position? If this was a no ref. monument referenced by the neighbor submitting surveyor, you can call it off by showing detail dimension relative to your calculated position. The “0.2’ w’ly flushâ€￾ is just an opinion of the neighbor submitting surveyor; it’s not a constructive notice.

[7702]

If I find a pipe and don't accept it why would I have to file a record of survey?

If this is a subdivision area and he found a pipe within a 0.2' of the "calculated" corners, sounds like this is the original surveyor's monuments unless it is untagged, or there is compelling reason not to accept it.

Seems like there must have been "compelling reason" not to accept it, since it was NOT held as the true corner position. I would think that the reasons NOT to accept a monument would, in most cases, trigger the ROS requirement as described in 8762.

[dmi]

From PLS ACT

(3) Evidence that, by reasonable analysis, might result in materially alternate positions of lines or points, shown on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey previously recorded or filed in the office of the county recorder or the county surveying department, or any map or survey record maintained by the Bureau of Land Management of the United States.

As posted we have
1 record evidence, the map for the lot corner
2 measurement evidence
3 physical evidence, the pipe

Would one have to have evidence by reasonable analysis that the found iron pipe does not support a materially alternate in order to justify filing a corner record?

What would that evidence be?

[btaylor]

I did not get the impression the pipe was of record.

I think we are over-analyzing this a bit. I thought it was just a question of the perpendicular distance to the lot line, which calculates to be about 0.06'.

[dmi]

The initial post is a question as to the meaning of the evidence submitted on a corner record. That initial question makes me think of other questions. I do not believe submitting questions for consideration as to the method of practice of other surveyors and what they might consider and why is OVER ANALYZING the question.

[btaylor]

We have no information upon which to make the analysis. The only thing we know is the pipe was shown on a Corner Record. I have no idea if that pipe was of record prior to that, and the Corner Record is showing a difference from some other record.

[dmi]

I am not trying to solve this puzzle with only the facts as presented. But these facts as presented puts me in mind of other more general questions about evidence and how it is used to determine what filing one is going to make.