Fries should be optional

[mbstanton]

After reading Ric Moore’s article regarding topographic maps triggering the requirement for a Record of Survey in the winter issue of California Surveyor, I had to reflect on how things have changed over the last 30 years.

When I was mentored in the 1980’s, the surveyors that I worked for were very certain about this issue – you “establishâ€￾ a property line by setting a monument on the ground. If you “establishâ€￾ a property line on the ground, then you must file a record of survey, it was just that simple. Now the same law that we have had for decades is now interpreted differently. Now, it is asserted that merely drawing a line on a map is “establishingâ€￾ the line. I am struggling with that interpretation.

Now, could there be situations where a boundary is “establishedâ€￾ on a topographic map? In certain cases, I would say yes. How about surveyors that show dimensional ties between the record property line and a fence, or that show a distance between the corner of an existing house and the record line? In these limited situations, the surveyor has established the property line with the dimensional ties, and a record of survey should be filed showing how that line was established. With the distances shown, the landowner has every expectation that he/she could pull the indicated distance in the field from the physical objects you located and then know where their line is located (on the ground).

Have I performed topographic surveys without filing a map? Yes
Do I have a disclaimer similar to the ones mentioned in Ric’s article? Yes, in fact, here it is:

THE BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN HEREON WERE COMPILED FROM RECORD INFORMATION (I.E. RECORDED MAPS OR DEEDS) AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT THE TRUE OR ACTUAL BOUNDARY LINES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL WILL REQUIRE A COMPLETE BOUNDARY SURVEY, THE SETTING OF PROPERTY MONUMENTS AND THE FILING OF A CORNER RECORD OR RECORD OF SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITH STATE LAW (LS ACT SEC. 8762). APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONAL TIES FROM THE BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN TO PHYSICAL FEATURES (E.G. BUILDINGS, FENCES, WALLS OR TREES, ETC.) SHOWN ON THIS MAP CAN BE DERIVED BY SCALING THE FINISHED WORK PRODUCT WHICH IS PLOTTED AT THE SCALE INDICATED. HOWEVER, DIMENSIONAL TIES DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM THE DIGITAL PRODUCT (AUTOCAD DRAWING) ARE NOT ACCURATE AND CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR DETERMINING BUILDING SETBACKS OR THE PLACEMENT OF ANY PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE LOCATION OF NEW CONSTRUCTION CAN ONLY BE PROPERLY DESIGNED WHEN IT IS BASED ON AN ACTUAL BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE PARCEL, OTHERWISE, MODIFICATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE MAY BE NECESSARY DURING CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLY WITH AGENCY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.[/SIZE]

So the accuracy of the boundary that is graphically shown on my topographic map is directly related to the finished scale of the drawing. If the map is drawn at 1â€￾=8’ and you can scale within 0.1 feet, then my boundary is also established to that tolerance. If it is drawn at 1â€￾=100’ and you can scale within 5 feet, then the boundary is established to that same tolerance.

I’ve been preparing topographic maps for 34 years this way, and I’ve never had a misunderstanding with the owner or the Board with this approach.

A boundary can only be “establishedâ€￾ when it is physically placed on the ground or when dimensional ties are shown from physical objects to the boundary.

Michael Stanton, PLS

[Jim Frame]

In my opinion -- and my practice of 20+ years -- a boundary line shown on a topo map (or any map) represents the professional opinion of the land surveyor as to the location of that line, and any disclaimer to the contrary violates the statute as well as the standard of practice. The lay public may reasonably rely upon a professional representation of boundary line location, and I suspect that civil liability would also tend to follow this line of thinking. (I know of one LS who lost in court -- to the tune of $250k -- because the boundary line shown on his map wasn't distinct enough to inform the owner that some parking spaces were outside the limits of his ownership.)

I believe you're either in or you're out. Show it and dimension it according to the standard of practice, or don't show it at all. A map that says, "here's the boundary, only it really isn't necessarily there" is a sham.

[hellsangle]

Here's a true story, Michael:

Surveyor performed a topographic map for client. NO BOUNDARY was delineated.

Client turns it over to architect.

Architect submits plans using topographic map . . . only he "alters" the map and shows a boundary.

After years . . . the project is approved (with architect's boundary).

Parcel is sold as "approved" project.

Contractor calls the surveyor who performed the topography - "stake out the building. Time is money," he says. The surveyor then informs him that no boundary was done and it will take a lot of time and money to get to where he wants with his "approved project".

Grapevine: attorneys are now involved.

So, Michael . . . it's about "reliance" by-others.

But more importantly, it is also about the duty of the city/county to do their job! Request a wet-stamp! (Of 'course - you can't sue a public agency, huh? Another reason I believe the County Surveyor's money trough should be excluded. Surveyor to Recorder. Period.) Uh oh . . . I started to go off on another rant, huh? Sorry. LOL

Like Jim says - show a boundary - file a record of survey (in some cases).

That's my two cents, Michael. Good question though . . .

Phil - Sonoma

[LS 4722]

THE BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN HEREON WERE COMPILED FROM RECORD INFORMATION (I.E. RECORDED MAPS OR DEEDS) AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT THE TRUE OR ACTUAL BOUNDARY LINES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL WILL REQUIRE A COMPLETE BOUNDARY SURVEY, THE SETTING OF PROPERTY MONUMENTS AND THE FILING OF A CORNER RECORD OR RECORD OF SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITH STATE LAW (LS ACT SEC. 8762). APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONAL TIES FROM THE BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN TO PHYSICAL FEATURES (E.G. BUILDINGS, FENCES, WALLS OR TREES, ETC.) SHOWN ON THIS MAP CAN BE DERIVED BY SCALING THE FINISHED WORK PRODUCT WHICH IS PLOTTED AT THE SCALE INDICATED. HOWEVER, DIMENSIONAL TIES DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM THE DIGITAL PRODUCT (AUTOCAD DRAWING) ARE NOT ACCURATE AND CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR DETERMINING BUILDING SETBACKS OR THE PLACEMENT OF ANY PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE LOCATION OF NEW CONSTRUCTION CAN ONLY BE PROPERLY DESIGNED WHEN IT IS BASED ON AN ACTUAL BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE PARCEL, OTHERWISE, MODIFICATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE MAY BE NECESSARY DURING CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLY WITH AGENCY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS

Pathetic is the only thing I can say.

[LS_8750]

I agree with every statement said so far.

When I show a boundary line on a map, and that is 99.7% of the time, I will defend that boundary line location with the evidence recovered during my survey. I make no disclosures such as the example given. I may however leave the door open at times to suggest that my opinion may change given the presentation of, or the opportunity to discover for myself, additional evidence that may warrant further evaluation. I may not want to chainsaw a one foot deep gap into a redwood tree to tie out a spike, which as a result may compromise the tree's integrity and cause it to fall into somebody's living room and kill a family.

Phil, I've seen a couple of scenarios like your example up here in the North Bay. Ghastly! Never seen it anywhere else.

In land surveying, there are always exceptions to every rule. As for the 8762 stuff, a professional knows when to file a map. Back off Orange County with your stupid free filing. You don't want to clutter the public record with garbage. You want to leave a little for the next guy/gal to figure out. The essence of the Record of Survey.

Imagine how much garbage we would have to sift through if everybody filed R/S and Corner Records for everything done in this state. I for one don't want to sift through the crap. I for one believe that quiescence is the goal, especially when curious neighbors are looking over my shoulder.

I, for one, believe that there are enough quality land surveyors in this state to maintain at least some informal police power over the quacks. Each one of us knows the hierarchy of the land surveyors practicing in our communities, who is good, who is questionable, who is honest and honorable, who is a quack, and who is a criminal. Let us all admit that this is true.

8762 is no land surveyor's friend when you look at if for what it is. It takes the professional's judgement aspect out of the equation. It strips the surveyor of his professional integrity.

Anybody who researches a chain of title abhors clutter. Imagine, if 8762 was actually realized, how much garbage would exist in the archives. How many records of survey does it take to change a lightbulb?

Give the power back to the surveyors. Most of what I see in modern maps is nonsense anyway, only inciting litigious impulses.

When we cannot figure out how to do our job as a professional whole, then for God's sake don't make us advertize our work product to the public at large.

[bruce hall]

................"You want to leave a little for the next guy/gal to figure out. The essence of the Record of Survey......"

and wonder if I should really try and remember this. I'm a old dog and certainly would like to learn some new tricks, but should this be the essence of my maps? I know, stupid question. :)

[mbstanton]

Appreciate the comments from both sides of the issue. Just for the record, 99% of the time, the boundary that I show on the topographic map is a resolved boundary based on found mounuments and prorated positions (or deed calls) - to the point where if the client later asks us to set monuments, we don't have to change a thing, we just set them at our previously resolved boundary and then file an R/S map. The note that I came up with is supposed to encourage the client or architect to have us set monuments and file a map up front, but 80% of the time they are out to save money and defer setting monuments until construction begins. What I am trying to avoid is filing an R/S for every topo map.

The lawsuit that was mentioned above seemed to deal with a property line not being delineated clearly enough on the topo map (confusion about location of parking spaces). It didn't appear that the placement of the line based on record information had anything to do with the claim of damages.

If someone asks me to find and flag their corners and I use survey equipment to find them, I am technically performing a "survey" as described under 8762(a) and and if I find them a few hundreths from record position, thats techically a "material descrepancy" under 8762(b)(2), and and a Record of Survey should be filed. Do we really want an R/S filed everytime we flag someone's existing monuments? Do we need a R/S filed when lines are graphically shown on paper? Do we really want an R/S filed when nothing is set? I don't think that this strict interpretation of 8762 serves the public or our profession.

[pls5528]

After being with dozens of different firms in the 40+ years in this business, I have seen a lot of differences of opinion on this subject. I, have had some heated conversations with the upper ranks of these firms many times. In fact, I most likely have lost my position with that firm (a time or two) because of just that. I just know that when they put me in the ground someday, I did the right thing. When I approach any job, I due my share of up-front due-diligence (sometimes way more than I should). Contractually, I add the Record of Survey as a possibility and relate it to the section of the B&P Codes. If a Record of Survey is needed, then it (contractually) allows you to provide for it as an additional scope and fee.

[Jim Frame]

It didn't appear that the placement of the line based on record information had anything to do with the claim of damages.

No, but it had everything to do with the public's right to rely upon information presented by a licensed professional as a prudent layman would understand it. And a lay person will reasonably believe that something depicted on a survey map as a property line accurately represents the location of the property line, disclaimers to the contrary.

The note that I came up with is supposed to encourage the client or architect to have us set monuments and file a map

It's worth pointing out that setting monuments isn't now and never has been a trigger for having to file a Record of Survey. Establishment of a boundary that meets one of the statutory triggers is. Monuments are the result of a ROS, not the cause.

and if I find them a few hundreths from record position, thats techically a "material descrepancy" under 8762(b)(2)

Maybe, maybe not. "Material" is subject to interpretation, and there's no one-size-fits-all definition. Since there's no statutory definition of "material," the question goes to the standard of practice. If you can honestly say to yourself, "The majority of a statistically valid sample of my fellow professionals would say this isn't material," then it's probably not material. If, on the other hand, you find yourself saying, "I probably won't get in trouble for not filing a Record of Survey," then you might want to give serious consideration to filing.

Another way of looking at it: if a complaint were filed against you for not filing a Record of Survey, how confident are you that you can successfully defeat the complaint?

Do we need a R/S filed when lines are graphically shown on paper?

In theory (see below) it can happen. What's far more common is having to set monuments in support of the Record of Survey that has to be filed because a boundary was established that triggered the statutory requirement (think ALTA or topo).

Do we really want an R/S filed when nothing is set?

I'm not sure I've ever done it, but in theory it can happen: monuments accepted at a sufficient number of corners such that the boundary is adequately marked on the ground without any new monuments set. But this situation is very different from someone thinking he doesn't have to file just because he didn't set any monuments.

[LS_8750]

Mr. LS 4743. Lay down! Stay on the porch!

And by the way, the inspiration for my statement came from an LS from the 3200s. And he was/is absolutely correct.

Now go fly some RC airplanes with your grandkids. Go have some fun.

We will take care of things.

[kwilson]

I have not posted anything on the forum for a while but today I read the CLSA Exam Guide and in Chapter 1 was an article. I started reading it in the middle and I thought I was reading something fresh and new by one of the authors of the Exam Guide. Here is what I read:

"The surveyor who discovers and alters evidence, has a duty to record and maintain a record of what he did, and unless the record is a public record, it will soon be lost with the death of the surveyor. This is the reason that California has a law that makes it mandatory to file a record of survey under certain circumtances, and these circumstances are:

(a) Material evidence, which in whole or in part does not appear on any map or record previously recorded....

(b) A material discrepancy with such record.

(c) Evidence that, by reasonable analysis, might result in alternate positions of lines or points.

(d) The establishment of one or more ines not shown on any such map, the positions of which are not ascertaininable from an inspection of such map without trigonemteric calculations.

On the record of survey must be shown all evidence found and all new points set. Whenever a monument is discovered it has little value without evidence of its origin. By requiring a license number on every point set by a surveyor, the identity of the point can usually be established by calling the surveyor." (END OF QUOTE FROM ARTICLE)

So I thought to myself, that's good that someone who is involved with new examinees is encouraging them to file records of surveys and place their tags on property corner monuments. Then I looked to see who wrote the article. Curtis Brown. Wait a minute, Curtis Brown died in 1993. So when was this article written. I looked at the date - 1961!!!!!

Just today I did a survey for a fellow building a house. Before I began the job he told me he already had a "surveyor" provide him with a "topo". The lot was a 42 foot wide portion (deed parcel) of an original 50 foot lot in a 1904 subdivision. The 42 foot parcel had NEVER been shown on a previously recorded map. The "topo" showed the existing house and fence with dimensions to the tenth of a foot to the boundary lines. It also had meaningless control points on the map with no ties to the boundary. In fact there was no way at all to determine the location of the boundary from the "topo" map except by scaling and the fence ties. The fellow told me that his surveyor (license number in the 8000's) had set three "stakes" in the field that supposedly were the boundary. I told the client that this surveyor had likely provided exactly what the client asked for and the work was not only illegal but almost worthless. So I charged him $2350 (which was about the same that he paid to the previous surveyor) to do a proper boundary survey, set corners with a LICENSE TAG on it and file a RECORD OF SURVEY which will cost the man an additional $625 in the County of Santa Clara.

Maybe the previous surveyor figured retracing a 1904 boundary would be too difficult. We found several monuments that were shown on a very nicely done Record of Survey from about 1980 and everything fit within 0.10. We will be filing a Record of Survey and providing the man with a form certification.

This guy was a stickler for detail and was fairly ticked off when he realized he would need to pay for another survey that should have been done right the first time.

What does this all basically boil down to. It is actually surveyors cutting corners to get a job as a low bidder and then providing illegal work to clients who end up getting the short end of the stick. And you want to call yourself a "professional"? By the way, that was the main point of the Curtis Brown article which is entitled "The Professional Status of Land Surveyors"

Every time I see a new little 2x2 with a tack and a little 2' lath with red ribbon marked Property Corner (and I have seen quite a few in the past few years here in the San Jose area) I think to myself - there goes another cheater. Either ignorant of the law or in defiance of it. If someone wants to claim ignorance, isn't this one of the most basic of all the things we as surveyors do? Fairly soon here our construction staking work is going to be nearly gone. Anyone can measure with GPS now, it's so easy. What really more is there unique to surveyors besides boundary retracement. And we can't teach our younger licensees how to properly perform and complete a boundary survey and when to file a map?

Then there is this comment:
QUOTE (I don't know how to do the quote thing)
"Imagine how much garbage we would have to sift through if everybody filed R/S and Corner Records for everything done in this state. I for one don't want to sift through the crap. I for one believe that quiescence is the goal, especially when curious neighbors are looking over my shoulder."

WHAT?? Having records to "sift" through is so much easier than finding a no record monument and not knowing how it got there or if it's an offset. Please go and re-read the Curtis Brown article and see if that makes any sense. I want to know what the previous surveyor found and set as it provides me with more evidence to do my work.

QUOTE
"Section 8762 is no land surveyor's friend when you look at if for what it is. It takes the professional's judgement aspect out of the equation. It strips the surveyor of his professional integrity."

Section 8762 has been around longer than any of us (I have 30 years in business myself) and it has stood the test of time (with a few minor revisions). The principle of that law is just as Curtis Brown said "The surveyor is given exclusive privilege to monument property lines, and in exchange for this exclusive privilege he ought to and does have obligations to the public. Original monument evidence should never be the exclusive property of one, it should be the knowledge of all."

We all know what happens when the surveying community hoards evidence and fails to file maps (insert Marin County - a place I stay away from). This scenario has been going on for a long time in Santa Clara, Alameda and San Mateo counties and continues. However I must add that Santa Clara County is almost up to 900 volumes of recorded maps which may be the highest number in the state. Surveying here is actually pretty nice compared to places where there are hardly any recorded maps to review.

This little discussion may not do much but perhaps we, the readers of this forum, who are likely more on top of our boundary games than those who are not keeping informed, may bring to the attention of those who cut corners and anger clients not only the law but the principles behind the law so that their inadequate and illegal products will no longer do damage to the profession.

When you survey a deeded parcel you are required by Law to file a Record of Survey after you establish the boundary. You give evidence that the boundary has been established when you show it on your topo, ALTA, easement map, or whatever other map you prepare. It does not matter if you set a monument and as stated so well by previous posts, you are much less likely to be misconstrued if you monument your positions in the field.

Former employer of mine, who will remain unnamed, did a survey once. It was disputed by another surveyor and went to court. Instead of setting monuments and filing a Record of Survey my employer waited to see what the judge would say about his boundary. The judge basically said, "If you don't have the guts to set monuments at the boundary you established, it must not be worth much." My employer lost the case. Do we have the guts to stick to our guns and tell our clients that a Record of Survey is required and along with it the extra $1000 or more that will be required to get it filed? Or are we going to cave in when they tell us that they "don't need it to be recorded". We need to tell them it's not negotiable. It's the law.

I won't be surprised though if I still come across wooden hubs set for property corners since I don't see the world getting any more honest. I though enjoy and take pride in preparing and filing a record of the surveys I have done. Once in a while I come across my own work after years have gone by and find that I have actually forgotten the details of how I resolved the boundary and without the recorded map I would be lost trying to figure out what I actually did or thought I did. It can be a pain when the County Map Checker bleeds all over our map correcting our mistakes and errors. But in the final analysis, when all the numbers mathematically work and all the evidence is shown, is that not a service to the future surveyor who does a closure on our map and finds that it works and then goes out and finds right where it should be one of our lowly little pieces of metal with a dirty plastic cap and our LICENSE number on it.

[LS 4722]

It amazed me that the OP even made the post in the first place. It was like he had thrown a glove down at Ric's feet, challenging him. It reminded me of what Jack Palance had said to Billy Crystal in "City Slickers II"

"Come and get me!"
"Come and get me!"
"Come and get me!"

That disclaimer has a lot of holes in it. It's weak and smacks of 'hidden charges' to me.

Sell a topo with no defined boundary (monuments set and record filed) and the when it's time for construction the poor client who trusted the surveyor now has to pay for monuments and the preparation of the required record and construction just comes to a standstill.

Back in the day when I was maybe 6 years into surveying I worked for a company that wrote contracts that always had hidden extras. Such as a 50 lot hillside development and a contract that stated ' 1. one blue top per pad' or 'one set of slope stakes' .. stuff like that.

I really don't like dishonest people. If you cannot be fair with your client ...

Enough said. I'm glad I don't do stuff like the OP does.

[pls7809]

My opinion, disclaimers like the one above, really only describe to your client (or whoever reads it) how the survey is deficient.

[Cody Hustead]

My experience tells me a few things.

- There will always be someone willing to ignore any level of disclaimer one can concoct on their map.

- Disclaimers are easily deleted as linework gets forwarded around digitally.

- Clients sometimes request a cheaper solution (paper boundary), then turn around and make real decisions/assertions based on the fake boundary (regardless of the disclaimer).

That said, I think it's up to the PLS to ultimately verify/decide what level of accuracy is actually needed for any specific project. A disclaimer may absolve you of responsibility, but it might still be a bad idea. If the project is a mile from the boundary, perhaps a paper boundary will do. But, if it's close, somebody could get hurt. Particularly if the digital drawing gets forwarded around. It's also the PLS's responsibility to advise the client about the risk levels involved. If it's too risky, I'd require an actual boundary survey or refuse the work. I wouldn't affix a disclaimer as an excuse to appease a client who can't see reason.

I do agree with the OP's last sentence though.
QUOTE:
"A boundary can only be established when it is physically placed on the ground or when dimensional ties are shown from physical objects to the boundary."

Unfortunately, nowadays any linework in CADD drawings have dimensional ties whether they are labeled or not. There will always be someone ignorant enough to ignore the disclaimer and add dimensional ties to your "unestablished" boundary line.

Cody Hustead

[Jim Frame]

I should add to my previous comments that there's nothing wrong with doing a topo and not showing any boundary at all. I don't get asked to do this often, but I've done it a few times when the client didn't want to pay for a boundary survey. For projects that don't require regulatory or lender approval, a standalone topo can work just fine.

[Mr. Smith]

As far as Topography is concerned here is my $.02

First: If a line is shown representing R-O-W or private property you need to be sure it is correct.

Second: If you show bearings, distances, and ties to physical features one could be stepping into ROS zone.

Third: Cody you have a great point, on electronic data anybody can inverse to anything to the .01’

Fourth: As far as the discussion about disclaimers, I use some but they tend to involve Utilities under the ground I cannot see or easements I have no idea about.

Brian

[desert turtoise]

[quote=" Sell a topo with no defined boundary (monuments set and record filed) and the when it's time for construction the poor client who trusted the surveyor now has to pay for monuments and the preparation of the required record and construction just comes to a standstill.
[/QUOTE"]

You mean feel sorry for that "poor" guy who is an example of the part of the public that refuses to see reason ? When you warn him ahead of time of the need for further surveying, sometimes due to complicated or conflicting circumstances ? That guy you try to protect by informing him of the need to finalize the boundary before the project goes to construction or final design and he says not needed ? The guy who is not naïve, who has been in the development business like so many of them ? The scope of work the client wants in the contract is honestly reflected in the disclaimer.

Like M Stanton says, the placement of that disclaimer hammers home to the developer, owner, and any reasonable laymen who read it that more needs to be done.

I don't see where the "hidden charges" come in. You brought it all out into the open once again with the explanation on the drawing.

I have had a couple of clients who I had explained to earlier that there would be such a disclaimer on the drawing due to their wants. They objected to the disclaimer and at the same time insisted on no final boundary.

You know what you do with them ? Tell them they can have exactly what they want, a topo with no property lines shown. For them, I deleted all property lines and delivered the topographic product with no PL representations at all, and got paid. They took it with no complaints and went floating into space with it. They got what they wanted and deserved it.

[LS 4722]

The scope of work the client wants in the contract is honestly reflected in the disclaimer.

This I can agree with. See attached PDF.

My contract actually read ".. provide four spot elevations behind patio wall to show general down slope pattern.." to which the architect agreed with and informed the client that would be sufficient for her needs, which was just an addition to the main residence in a flat patio area maybe 10 feet away from a back yard patio wall and toe of slope.

So I take a few more shots, give a better idea of the topo than 4 shots would have done and made two more friends that will refer me for more work.

Some clients I will not work for. If someone approaches me and wants just a paper boundary and topo, I would probably do it if the parcel was a CR filing, but would not touch that if it was an RS filing.

I use disclaimers. They refer to substructures from city records and easements that may exist but no title report was provided.

Any survey I do I usually go beyond what the contract says. If I can make life easier for the client, then I do so.

This one client in particular asked me what I meant in my contract by the phrases ".. wet signature.." and ..monument..' I was a bit surprised the guy needed an explanation about a wet signature, the monument question I have heard many times.

To make a point, very few clients understand what a survey is, so I just take care of them.

[Civil Engineer]

Thanks for the excellent post mbstanton—thanks for stepping up. Cody Hustead's post was also excellent. Your input is much appreciated. I've struggled over the years with this topic.

All sorts of plans and exhibits showing “rubber stampedâ€￾ property lines are regularly submitted to building and planning departments by architects, drafting services, developers, and owners. Google, Zillow, Trulia, and local government GIS typically all show property lines. Times have changed rapidly for surveying.

The problem may be that property lines are required to be shown on nearly everything now. I'm in-line with Hustead's thinking that the decision should be left to the PLS. Every boundary determination has some level of inaccuracy and a GIS type accuracy may be appropriate for a specific project where topo is nailed-down, but the current boundary needs to be stated as uncertain and approximate.

I also agreed with LS_8750's comments about minutia being filed. There is a lot of sub-par filings, and it doesn't need encouragement.

Thanks again.

[LS_8750]

They are surveyors.

All right boys and girls, follow along:

Available records diminish = demand for land surveyors increases. -- Think back a hundred years or so, when perhaps the courthouses burned down leaving no records. Land surveyors were in high demand.

But on the other hand, when available records increase = demand for land surveyors diminishes. -- Nearly every single modern Record of Survey map or Subdivision Map calls a predecessor's monument out of place somewhere on that map. What exactly does that mean, when only one legal corner is contemplated in law?

It means that with more and more recorded maps containing the ever-more presence of discrepancies between recorded maps, or surveyor's "professional opinions" as related to the location of legal boundary line on the ground, the law and the public look at surveyors with disdain. The result is, and has been, that the law and the public look at surveyors with distrust. The profession of land surveying is dying, or dead, as a consequence.

8762 in this climate only invites a flood of information, conflicting of course, that leaves legal and title professionals, not to mention surveyors, with more questions than answers.

It appears to me that 8762 was written at a time when land surveyors "followed in the footsteps of their predecessors." Back before calling each other off was en vogue.

What exactly happened to cause this trend, or this cancer, of calling monuments out of place, to overtake the profession of land surveying?

[Warren Smith]

Good post, Clark!

It is a sorry trend - the lack of appreciation of the climate under which rural boundaries were monumented, which have now become part of an urban fabric.

[LS 4722]

It appears to me that 8762 was written at a time when land surveyors "followed in the footsteps of their predecessors." Back before calling each other off was en vogue.

That's been taking place a very long time. I have seen numerous old maps where a tract map finds a monument of a preceding tract and the common corner monument was rejected with N xx and E yy of corner. Seen them in the 20's and forward.

This rejection of boundary monuments will not stop.