Limitations on Legal Description Checkers

[pls5528]

I know I have touched upon this issue before, but feel that "WE", as a professional group, need to enact some new laws to define limitations on "checkers". I won't name the city agencies, but will say they are in the Bay Area. I have pretty much followed "Wattles" procedures through my career, and find it covers nearly all types of legals. Caltrans also has a good manual on writing legals. I have provided a couple of my recent experiences below for your amusement:
1) In my preparation of a Lot Line Adjustment, we were required to provide legals for the resultant parcels. The checker required me to show "field ties to the boundary", and show the deviance's between record and measured. I explained that a Lot Line Adjustment does not require field surveys, and typically is based upon the original lots or deeds. I informed him, that if this is a requirement, there should be a Record of Survey for nearly every Lot Line Adjustment and Merger that is done in their jurisdiction. I also explained that we are doing a final map on these parcels, and these deviations will be reflected on the map. He said he would not sin off until I did what he had proposed.
2) After performing dozens of legals in a small wealthy town in the bay area in the last couple of years, I found the town sub-contracts out the checking services to a local engineering firm (common in this area). The firm has three or four typical "checkers" which deviate methods within themselves. Some, require a current title report and to show geometry of remote Lands. The way the legals are required by these "checkers" deviate from the standards of Wattles and/or Caltrans as I mention above.

A legal description and plat used to be typed up and a sketch (by hand) in perhaps a half a day. Now, it may take up to two days on some (including the "checkers" needs and wants). As long as it is clear, written in a manner acceptable by standards in the industry and the geometry closes, it is the Land Surveyor that is responsible for that legal. The "checker" should be responsible for checking the geometry and perhaps making sure that spelling or naming is correct. We needed to do a similar thing with the Record of Surveys in the past, and I feel it's time to make these positive changes for the benefit of future surveyors and OUR clients.

[RAM]

ask the board to "educate" the checkers.

[Mr. Smith]

I am curious, are these “checkers” making suggestions? or are these
mandatory changes for controlling authority approval?

Brian

[E_Page]

The type of changes described by pls5528 in paragraph 1) of his post are not something that should be mandatory for controlling authority approval. If the controlling authority is requiring that he recite both record and measured in the description, they are going beyond their authority.

[dedkad]

When they said "field ties to the boundary," were they referring to lot lines in relation to existing buildings? If there is a potential building setback issue being created as a result of the lot line adjustment, the agency can require that field ties be shown to ensure compliance with applicable building codes per 66412(d).

[pls5528]

"I am curious, are these “checkers” making suggestions? or are these
mandatory changes for controlling authority approval?"

One of the changes which they required, was to revise language on the "recorded deed" for the "before" legal on a Lot Line Adjustment (or rewrite it the way "they" prefer). Another instance was they wanted to see all radial bearings of the tangent curves on the legal plat on the property boundary (all identical to the record map which created the subject property, which, did not indicate as such). I have explained myself to the checkers which I refer to, and they are the final authority for approval. These are not suggestions, it's their way, or the project is at a standstill.

[pls5528]

When they said "field ties to the boundary," were they referring to lot lines in relation to existing buildings? If there is a potential building setback issue being created as a result of the lot line adjustment, the agency can require that field ties be shown to ensure compliance with applicable building codes per 66412(d).

What they are requiring is that a field survey be done for the Merger or Lot Line Adjustment, deviations, on the plat, and legal description, which, under BP Codes 8762, require a Record of Survey. I tried to explain this to them, but, this is how they role. On this particular project, we are doing a Tract Map for Condominium purposes, and, I informed them that all of the deviations between deed and measured will be reflected on this map. Since we are doing the civil improvement plans, construction staking etc., the setback requirements have been satisfied, however, the legal description of a Lot Line Adjustment/Merger does not require field measure cites.

[Warren Smith]

It sounds as if PLSA section 8765 (c) applies, wherein a record of survey is not required when a map is in preparation for recording under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act.

Does your Condominium final map encompass the newly adjusted lot lines?

[pls7809]

I would contact BPELSG.

[pls5528]

It sounds as if PLSA section 8765 (c) applies, wherein a record of survey is not required when a map is in preparation for recording under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act.

Does your Condominium final map encompass the newly adjusted lot lines?

Warren;
The Merger is first to record (soon) and we have a Tentative Map in the works. The final map will show one of the newly created parcels form the Merger.

[land butcher]

I stated similar issues in another post. In the case I posted about the local agency checker over a series of 8 checks had turned a lot and block desc into a metes and bounds. A 2 paragraph desc became a full page. He too would not approve the desc without the changes.
My issue is, It's the private practitioners name and number on the legal not the checkers. This stuff is getting out of control.

[pls5528]

This is what I am attempting to do, is get a start on making legal changes to correct this problem.
Thank you for all comments, and have a Merry Christmas.
Michael J. Walters PLS 5528

[7976]

I wish it was not necessary to check other surveyor's and engineer's legal descriptions and plats. I wonder sometimes if I should send some of the descriptions I receive to the board for their opinion on whether the scribner is practicing out of their area of knowledge.

[Mr. Smith]

" I wonder sometimes if I should send some of the descriptions I receive to the board for their opinion on whether the scribner is practicing out of their area of knowledge."

7976 Don't you have too? see original surveyors act section 11 of chapter 247 act to define the duties of land surveyors approved 1891
and 1907, due to stare decisis this may still holds true.

side note, back then we had only 60 days to file a map.

Brian

[Warren Smith]

Here's a copy of the 1891 Land Surveyor's Act. It's a pretty easy read.

{edit} Side note - the map was to be drawn on firm paper, a uniform size of 21 by 30 inches.

[Mr. Smith]

in the attached act section 13 gives it some teeth.

[Warren Smith]

And that still applies today through the complaint process. Available for download from the Board's website.

[7976]

I apologize for not being clear. My complaint was in some of the legal descriptions that checkers receive to check. It is almost easier for the checker to tell the preparer how it it should be written than it is to redline the description with "suggestions". It is sometimes obvious that some scribners have not read Wattles or the Caltrans guidelines, or perhaps have rejected the valuable concepts therein. I'm not sure how far one would want to limit the authority of a checker to insure that a description is technically correct.

Thank you for the reference and copy of the 1891 LS Act. As always this forum and its' members are a great resource.

" I wonder sometimes if I should send some of the descriptions I receive to the board for their opinion on whether the scribner is practicing out of their area of knowledge."

7976 Don't you have too? see original surveyors act section 11 of chapter 247 act to define the duties of land surveyors approved 1891
and 1907, due to stare decisis this may still holds true.

side note, back then we had only 60 days to file a map.

Brian

[Warren Smith]

There isn't much in the way of statutory regulation of the preparation of descriptions. PLSA section 8726 (l) lists it as among the definitions of land surveying:

"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."

And section 8761 specifies requirements relating to signature, seal, name and license number to be included.

The checking of submitted descriptions in relation to local agency review for purposes of acceptance of right of way dedications, easement acquisitions, approval of lot line adjustments, and the like are regulated under ordinances comprising a Development Code. A City or County Surveyor is the designated, or appointed, official charged with the proper form and content of these descriptions.

The preparation of these documents is thus doubly "attested to" by the submitting surveyor and the designated surveyor on behalf of the local agency. Each needs to practice within his or her area of competence.

[mpallamary]

It is to be remembered, by and large that private sector surveyors are motivated by profit and production while, in many cases, public sector employees are motivated by getting a paycheck and it behooves them to be unproductive and to drain every second they can in "reviewing" projects. This problem is commonly associated with unions. I have seen many instances where employees scrounge other projects to see if there is any time they can harvest. This latest thing with the Coastal Commission is nothing short of obscene.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/new ... ion-pilot/

It was worse years ago before we enacted the LS review provisions. You should be able to talk to the LS in charge. Some agencies - one state agency in particular - will not reveal who is in charge. We did our best to fight this battle years ago.

8726. Land surveying defined ....(n) Renders a statement regarding the accuracy of maps or measured survey data.
Any department or agency of the state or any city, county, or city and county that has an
unregistered person in responsible charge of land surveying work on January 1, 1986, shall be
exempt from the requirement that the person be licensed as a land surveyor until such time as the
person currently in responsible charge is replaced.

The review, approval, or examination by a governmental entity of documents prepared or
performed pursuant to this section shall be done by, or under the direct supervision of, a person
authorized to practice land surveying.

*******************************************************
My comments are not intended to disparage hard working public employees. I am not speaking of them.

[Mr. Smith]

7976, Also sorry for not being clear, my point:: if you consistently are reviewing unsurveyable legal descriptions from a surveyor don't
you have to report this incompetency to BPELSG by statute?

Brian

[Warren Smith]

I'm unsure that there is a statutory mandate to report incompetent or negligent practice, but it certainly is an easily accomplished act to do so.
If, in the course of review of submitted work product, your office becomes aware of a trend that is not showing signs of improvement, and repeated attempts to intervene (as in the practice outside of area of competence) don't mitigate the poorly crafted submittals, then filing a complaint with the Board is valid.
Looking at the Board's flowchart, there is an investigative process which serves to put the respondent on notice and would seem to stem the issue.
Many CLSA chapters have a Professional Practices Committee for local review and resolution as an intermediate step.

[dedkad]

7976, Also sorry for not being clear, my point:: if you consistently are reviewing unsurveyable legal descriptions from a surveyor don't
you have to report this incompetency to BPELSG by statute?

Brian

Although I have thought about it many times, the need for me to continue working relationships with the offenders in my small community precludes me from stepping on toes just to prove a point that so-and-so's work is sub-par. If I can work it out with the surveyor and they address my comments, why burn bridges? I just keep reminding myself that we all have things to learn.

[mpallamary]

As a standing policy, the board will not pursue complaints against public sector employees. I have some 8 to 9 years old and these are brazen violations cited in court cases and court decisions but the board will not pursue any of these. At best they throw them away. I have a lot of these. They are worthless.

[desert turtoise]

" At best they throw them away. I have a lot of these. They are worthless."
MP, please clarify; the filing of complaints is a worthless enterprise or the board is worthless?

I had the privilege to be involved as a consultant to surveyors who had unhappy neighbors file complaints against them. I observed the Borpels process in some instances to be incompetent starting at the bottom level of the investigator, with the incompetence reaching up one level to the next. For a very basic example, the unhappy neighbor, after filing a complaint, hires their own surveyor to verify the earlier survey. The second surveyor verifies and the unhappy neighbor is satisfied. The investigators at Borpels then fail to check back with the complaintant as to current situation, instead opening an unnecessary full-scale investigation. These last about 18 months, per Borpels own statistics. Talk about waste of public funds anyone ?

It is also my observation that the first time I typically see competence and professionalism by Borpels is at complaint hearings. At that time they appear to have done all their homework for the first time. (you and I are expected to perform our due diligence at the start of our work) They deserve a grade of B to B+ for their hearing process. Just my 2 cents.