Client owns three lots from a map. Parcel two from the Title Report is half a vacated street, street is shown on same Tract Map.
There is no map showing the street as vacated but it's fairly simple.
Client ordered a topo from another surveyor, wasn't thrilled with the result, called me to redo it.
Should the other surveyor have done a ROS?
I think I have to if he doesn't but don't want to charge for an unnecessary map.
Thanks
Jay
Record Of Survey needed?
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2144
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
Re: Record Of Survey needed?
Arguably, your example could fall under 8762(b)(1) Material evidence which does not appear on a previous record map, or depending upon what the previous record map expressly shows regarding the underlying property lines, 8762*b)(4). Although the fee title of street-front lots is presumed to go to centerline even if the subdivision map does not show underlying lot lines (assuming the dedication was not for fee), most people who are neither surveyors nor title officers would not know that. In fact, many surveyors and title officers who should know that don't.
If it were some form of private easement that was vacated, I'd lean toward no RS required, but a public RW, though still an easement, is quite a bit more significant because there is no limit on who may use a public RW. It's still grey area, but I would lean toward "yes", a RS is required, or at least highly advisable. My thought is when you're in doubt, err on the side of meeting the possible requirement.
If the previous surveyor is not planning on filing the RS, rather than push the point that he should have, simply explain the situation to your client. They are already dissatisfied with the previous surveyor and have seen the value of hiring someone else to do a better job. Given the choice between trying to force the last guy to file a map of a survey they most likely would not have confidence in or paying you to do it right, I would think that your client would opt for the latter.
If I were you, I would also touch base with your County Surveyor and Ric Moore at BPELSG to get their opinion on whether the situation meets the threshold of being required. Ric may ask you to put your question in the form of a letter so that he can respond to the specific circumstances, but that's good. You can use the response to help educate your client and have documentation in your project file on that question.
If it were some form of private easement that was vacated, I'd lean toward no RS required, but a public RW, though still an easement, is quite a bit more significant because there is no limit on who may use a public RW. It's still grey area, but I would lean toward "yes", a RS is required, or at least highly advisable. My thought is when you're in doubt, err on the side of meeting the possible requirement.
If the previous surveyor is not planning on filing the RS, rather than push the point that he should have, simply explain the situation to your client. They are already dissatisfied with the previous surveyor and have seen the value of hiring someone else to do a better job. Given the choice between trying to force the last guy to file a map of a survey they most likely would not have confidence in or paying you to do it right, I would think that your client would opt for the latter.
If I were you, I would also touch base with your County Surveyor and Ric Moore at BPELSG to get their opinion on whether the situation meets the threshold of being required. Ric may ask you to put your question in the form of a letter so that he can respond to the specific circumstances, but that's good. You can use the response to help educate your client and have documentation in your project file on that question.
-
dedkad
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:55 pm
Re: Record Of Survey needed?
The title report for the property probably describes it something like (bear with me, I'm going off of memory because I don't have one in front of me right now): Lot X of Map Y together with that portion of Z street ROW abandoned per Resolution # that would revert back to said lot per Civil Code xxxx
Lot X is mapped. Z Street is mapped. If the abandonment is straightforward, you might be able to argue that a reasonable analysis would not result in alternate positions of lines or points per 8762 (b)(3) and that the establishment of the new line is ascertainable from an inspection of the subdivision map per 8762(b)(4). However, a RS would certainly be nice for future reference and to help document the abandonment.
Lot X is mapped. Z Street is mapped. If the abandonment is straightforward, you might be able to argue that a reasonable analysis would not result in alternate positions of lines or points per 8762 (b)(3) and that the establishment of the new line is ascertainable from an inspection of the subdivision map per 8762(b)(4). However, a RS would certainly be nice for future reference and to help document the abandonment.
-
Johnston
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:46 am
Re: Record Of Survey needed?
I'm with dedkad. The idea that a vacation of R/W in a subdivision would trigger an R/S (if no other trigger is disclosed while doing your survey) seems to be going too far.
-
DWoolley
- Posts: 1074
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
- Location: Orange County
- Contact:
Re: Record Of Survey needed?
If you extend the lot lines to the centerline - simply answer the question "have these 'new lines' been shown on a subdivision map, record of survey or official map (as defined in the last section of the Subdivision Map Act) and the surveyor will not be filing a subdivision map"? If there has been a field survey and the answer is "no" to the previous question - a record of survey must be filed, It's black letter law. The exceptions are listed in Bus. & Prof. Code 8765 and that particular exception isn't shown.
DWoolley
Yes, after completing a field survey, the same would be true for an additional right of way take, lot line adjustment or a corner cutoff not shown on a subdivision map, record of survey or official map (as defined in the last section of the Subdivision Map Act).
DWoolley
Yes, after completing a field survey, the same would be true for an additional right of way take, lot line adjustment or a corner cutoff not shown on a subdivision map, record of survey or official map (as defined in the last section of the Subdivision Map Act).
-
William Magee
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:27 pm
Re: Record Of Survey needed?
If the R/W monuments match record across both sides of street, I see no value in filing a new R/S to memorialize where the property lines have existed all along. Just because the draftsperson "masked" the property lines by hiding them behind the R/W easement doesn't mean they aren't there. I see them. Section 831 of the Civil Code sees them.
From the O.P. it doesn't sound like there is any question where the P/L's are and have always been.
In some sense, one might consider it a harm to the public by forcing the client to pay for a R/S of questionable public benefit. If I was the surveyor who shows those existing protractions on a topo map, I wouldn't feel right in charging a client for a R/S. Now maybe if the profession ever did away with County Surveyor R/S review fees, filing a R/S would be more palatable.
From the O.P. it doesn't sound like there is any question where the P/L's are and have always been.
In some sense, one might consider it a harm to the public by forcing the client to pay for a R/S of questionable public benefit. If I was the surveyor who shows those existing protractions on a topo map, I wouldn't feel right in charging a client for a R/S. Now maybe if the profession ever did away with County Surveyor R/S review fees, filing a R/S would be more palatable.
-
DWoolley
- Posts: 1074
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
- Location: Orange County
- Contact:
Re: Record Of Survey needed?
William Magee:
The Business and Professions Code does not address the "questionable public benefit" or how the surveyor "feels" about the filing of a record of survey or whether the surveyor finds it "palatable". Black-letter-law.
Section 831 addresses the ownership of the land - not the lines now shown on map.
This sort of reasoning is a sure way to catch a citation at the Board. Minimally, providing he hasn't applied the faulty reasoning with the Board before, the surveyor will be filing a record of survey on his own dime sometime in the future.
DWoolley
The Business and Professions Code does not address the "questionable public benefit" or how the surveyor "feels" about the filing of a record of survey or whether the surveyor finds it "palatable". Black-letter-law.
Section 831 addresses the ownership of the land - not the lines now shown on map.
This sort of reasoning is a sure way to catch a citation at the Board. Minimally, providing he hasn't applied the faulty reasoning with the Board before, the surveyor will be filing a record of survey on his own dime sometime in the future.
DWoolley
-
William Magee
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:27 pm
Re: Record Of Survey needed?
When the draftsman showed that the R/W is an easement (or more likely, neglected to call it a fee thereby raising the presumption of easement), he made clear to all that there are underlying fee boundaries, masked by draftsmen's practice of not cluttering the map and not confusing the layperson.
Those lines do exist, have existed and are clear as to their location per CC Sections 831 and 1112.
Surely the draftsman never intended for persons to assume there is a gap left over between the R/W boundaries, held by the heirs of the original divider. No, he and the affirming cases have made clear that the underlying fee boundaries exist, albeit masked, and their implied location is absolute and in most cases without question.
The lines exist and to anyone educated in land title performing a cursory review of the map, are shown on the map as obvious as an orangutan's bottom. All one has to do is open one's eyes.
Those lines do exist, have existed and are clear as to their location per CC Sections 831 and 1112.
Surely the draftsman never intended for persons to assume there is a gap left over between the R/W boundaries, held by the heirs of the original divider. No, he and the affirming cases have made clear that the underlying fee boundaries exist, albeit masked, and their implied location is absolute and in most cases without question.
The lines exist and to anyone educated in land title performing a cursory review of the map, are shown on the map as obvious as an orangutan's bottom. All one has to do is open one's eyes.
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2144
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
Re: Record Of Survey needed?
WG - You hit on the reason why I believe filing an RS is advisable, and arguably (I could argue either way on this) required. You said that they underlying fee lines are commonly left off a subdivision map to 1) minimize clutter on the map, and 2) not confuse the layperson. Both very valid reasons to not show, or as you put it "mask" the underlying fee lines.
But then you go into discussing the clear intent of the Civil Code, but also extrapolate those sections as indicating the clear location of the underlying fee lines. First, while surveyors should be aware of these codes, most non-surveyors will not be. So while the existence of underlying fee being attached to the parcels adjoining the RW, or more accurately, the fee of those parcels extending under the RW is clearly implied to the surveyor, the courts, and a few professions that deal with title & boundaries, it is hidden from the average non-surveyor client and/or landowner.
Going back to 8762(b)(4), it addresses whether or not lines and points are shown, not whether or not they are clearly implied. So the argument for no RS being required rests on those lines & points being able to be discerned solely from the info on the map.
If we consider a subdivision where the sidelines are perpendicular to the RW, the argument that the location of the underlying fee can be readily discerned from the map info is pretty strong. But if the sidelines are not perpendicular, then it gets a bit murky. Would the location of the underlying fee lines be along the extensions of the sidelines, or would the go from the intersection of the lot sideline and the edge of right of way to a point on the centerline forming a right angle at the centerline? The statutes don't direct how that determination is to be made. It requires interpretation and judgment unless the formal vacation specifies particular locations to revert to particular lots.
Also, both CC 831 and CC 1112 make room for exception.
§831: An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to own to the center of the way, but the contrary may be shown.
§1112: A transfer of land, bounded by a highway, passes the title of the person whose estate is transferred to the soil of the highway in front to the center thereof, unless a different intent appears from the grant.
Can the contrary be shown? Is there a different intent contained in the grant? Answering that may necessitate more than the minimally required title research. Relying on the fact that the map does not mention a dedication of RW in fee can be risky.
Speaking to reducing or eliminating confusion for the layperson, the underlying fee might not have been shown on the subdivision map at least in part to avoid confusing the layperson. Are the underlying fee lines typically omitted under a utility easement or drainage easement on a subdivision map? No. Why is it that they are commonly omitted under a public street RW, which is an easement, but not under a utility or drainage easement?
It could be, and I think it is not only for map clarity, but because the incidents of ownership - what a lot owner may do with the surface property is far more limited in a public RW. In a public street RW, anyone can enter for virtually any roadway or pedestrian use at any time. The lot owner can do virtually nothing with that part of their lot except plant and mow grass to the extent that it does not encroach on any roadway improvements or impede the public's ability to use any part of the RW for any valid roadway use.
With the utility & drainage easements, only a few people may enter them and only for a few specific purposes. The lot owner may usually not only plant and mow grass, but may also be able to place minor landscaping, temporary structures, play structures, and in most instances fence in the easement area together with the rest of their yard as long as they are aware that these things are subject to removal for placement, maintenance, or replacement of the facilities for which the easement exists.
Now, a portion of what was once a public RW is now extinguished and the adjacent lot owner may enjoy the full incidents of ownership over the entire fee area of the lot. That particular lot owner would likely be fully aware of that, although not fully aware of the locations of the boundaries prior to them being marked. However, other members of the public may not be aware of that reversion, might view a copy of the subdivision map, and there being no other record map indicating otherwise, may assume that the RW still exists.
The filing requirement was not made for the client of the surveyor. Without a filing requirement, the client may and often does request a map of the survey for their own records. The filing requirement is to benefit everyone else who may need to be aware of changed conditions in the area that affect boundaries and title. So the argument about the client not needing a RS is moot.
You also discuss the draftsman's intent. The draftsman's intent is completely irrelevant with regard to the extent of title. Not showing lot lines to centerline, whether the RW is an easement or fee in no way implies or inadvertently creates any gaps. Depending upon the title nature of the RW, the property line is either at the RW, adjoining lands to which the government to which the RW was dedicated holds fee title as public property, or the property line is at centerline adjoining the lot or lots on the other side of the road or street. Nobody else suggested anything about title being retained by the original subdivider (or heirs).
I can't say that I've had much opportunity to gaze at an orangutan's bottom, nor would I care to, but I have had occasion to view & study thousands of maps. There are instances where the reversionary rights are not readily clear from the information just on the map. there may be a question of whether the road, if a perimeter road, was comprised of lands from only the subdivision at hand, in which case the entire width of the RW reverts to lots on one side, or if it was taken from adjacent lands as well. And if taken partially from the parent parcels of adjoining subdivisions, was it taken in equal widths? Is the original design centerline actually at the center of the RW or offset? Has there been any additional RW take along the way and if so, how is that reflected on record maps? Were the underlying fee lines intended to be extensions of the sidelines of the lots (if not at rt angle) or were they intended to be projected from the RW at right angles to centerline? Did the original subdivider even think about it or care? With no clear indication of the intent when sidelines are not perpendicular to the RW, how do you decide how to apportion the reversion?
Without being an expert on the backsides of apes, I know what the purpose of them is and know to not get too close. Being an expert regarding boundaries and maps, I can say that in some instances, the reversionary lines would be quite clear, but in others there would be questions which cannot be answered or inferred from the map alone and which may require some professional judgment to determine appropriate apportionment of the vacated RW. All one needs to do is gain enough experience to have worked from thousands of different maps to see it.
But then you go into discussing the clear intent of the Civil Code, but also extrapolate those sections as indicating the clear location of the underlying fee lines. First, while surveyors should be aware of these codes, most non-surveyors will not be. So while the existence of underlying fee being attached to the parcels adjoining the RW, or more accurately, the fee of those parcels extending under the RW is clearly implied to the surveyor, the courts, and a few professions that deal with title & boundaries, it is hidden from the average non-surveyor client and/or landowner.
Going back to 8762(b)(4), it addresses whether or not lines and points are shown, not whether or not they are clearly implied. So the argument for no RS being required rests on those lines & points being able to be discerned solely from the info on the map.
If we consider a subdivision where the sidelines are perpendicular to the RW, the argument that the location of the underlying fee can be readily discerned from the map info is pretty strong. But if the sidelines are not perpendicular, then it gets a bit murky. Would the location of the underlying fee lines be along the extensions of the sidelines, or would the go from the intersection of the lot sideline and the edge of right of way to a point on the centerline forming a right angle at the centerline? The statutes don't direct how that determination is to be made. It requires interpretation and judgment unless the formal vacation specifies particular locations to revert to particular lots.
Also, both CC 831 and CC 1112 make room for exception.
§831: An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to own to the center of the way, but the contrary may be shown.
§1112: A transfer of land, bounded by a highway, passes the title of the person whose estate is transferred to the soil of the highway in front to the center thereof, unless a different intent appears from the grant.
Can the contrary be shown? Is there a different intent contained in the grant? Answering that may necessitate more than the minimally required title research. Relying on the fact that the map does not mention a dedication of RW in fee can be risky.
Speaking to reducing or eliminating confusion for the layperson, the underlying fee might not have been shown on the subdivision map at least in part to avoid confusing the layperson. Are the underlying fee lines typically omitted under a utility easement or drainage easement on a subdivision map? No. Why is it that they are commonly omitted under a public street RW, which is an easement, but not under a utility or drainage easement?
It could be, and I think it is not only for map clarity, but because the incidents of ownership - what a lot owner may do with the surface property is far more limited in a public RW. In a public street RW, anyone can enter for virtually any roadway or pedestrian use at any time. The lot owner can do virtually nothing with that part of their lot except plant and mow grass to the extent that it does not encroach on any roadway improvements or impede the public's ability to use any part of the RW for any valid roadway use.
With the utility & drainage easements, only a few people may enter them and only for a few specific purposes. The lot owner may usually not only plant and mow grass, but may also be able to place minor landscaping, temporary structures, play structures, and in most instances fence in the easement area together with the rest of their yard as long as they are aware that these things are subject to removal for placement, maintenance, or replacement of the facilities for which the easement exists.
Now, a portion of what was once a public RW is now extinguished and the adjacent lot owner may enjoy the full incidents of ownership over the entire fee area of the lot. That particular lot owner would likely be fully aware of that, although not fully aware of the locations of the boundaries prior to them being marked. However, other members of the public may not be aware of that reversion, might view a copy of the subdivision map, and there being no other record map indicating otherwise, may assume that the RW still exists.
The filing requirement was not made for the client of the surveyor. Without a filing requirement, the client may and often does request a map of the survey for their own records. The filing requirement is to benefit everyone else who may need to be aware of changed conditions in the area that affect boundaries and title. So the argument about the client not needing a RS is moot.
You also discuss the draftsman's intent. The draftsman's intent is completely irrelevant with regard to the extent of title. Not showing lot lines to centerline, whether the RW is an easement or fee in no way implies or inadvertently creates any gaps. Depending upon the title nature of the RW, the property line is either at the RW, adjoining lands to which the government to which the RW was dedicated holds fee title as public property, or the property line is at centerline adjoining the lot or lots on the other side of the road or street. Nobody else suggested anything about title being retained by the original subdivider (or heirs).
I can't say that I've had much opportunity to gaze at an orangutan's bottom, nor would I care to, but I have had occasion to view & study thousands of maps. There are instances where the reversionary rights are not readily clear from the information just on the map. there may be a question of whether the road, if a perimeter road, was comprised of lands from only the subdivision at hand, in which case the entire width of the RW reverts to lots on one side, or if it was taken from adjacent lands as well. And if taken partially from the parent parcels of adjoining subdivisions, was it taken in equal widths? Is the original design centerline actually at the center of the RW or offset? Has there been any additional RW take along the way and if so, how is that reflected on record maps? Were the underlying fee lines intended to be extensions of the sidelines of the lots (if not at rt angle) or were they intended to be projected from the RW at right angles to centerline? Did the original subdivider even think about it or care? With no clear indication of the intent when sidelines are not perpendicular to the RW, how do you decide how to apportion the reversion?
Without being an expert on the backsides of apes, I know what the purpose of them is and know to not get too close. Being an expert regarding boundaries and maps, I can say that in some instances, the reversionary lines would be quite clear, but in others there would be questions which cannot be answered or inferred from the map alone and which may require some professional judgment to determine appropriate apportionment of the vacated RW. All one needs to do is gain enough experience to have worked from thousands of different maps to see it.
-
subman
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:22 pm
- Location: Ventura County
Re: Record Of Survey needed?
Just trying to stimulate some creative thinking. The impediment here appears to be the financial cost of filing a ROS. What about filing a Certificate of Correction to the original recorded tract map under SMA 66469(b) or (g) (nominal recording fee, little or no plan check cost). The COC exhibit could show the property lines for the lot under discussion extending to the street centerline as dashed lines with B&D. In LA County, if this were a Private & Future Street, the lot would be dimensioned to the CL. If it is dedicated and accepted by the County on the final map, we "omit" these details for a cleaner map product. OMIT being the operable word to trigger SMA 66469(b) or (g).
In LA County we attach the recorded COC to the recorded map and therefore one can make the argument that these are now lines shown on the final map. If the County Surveyor is open to the use of this SMA tool in such a manner, What is the down side? Open to opinions.
In LA County we attach the recorded COC to the recorded map and therefore one can make the argument that these are now lines shown on the final map. If the County Surveyor is open to the use of this SMA tool in such a manner, What is the down side? Open to opinions.
-
David Kendall
- Posts: 687
- Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
- Location: Ferndale
Re: Record Of Survey needed?
I've never drafted a certificate of correction but I have been considering one lately on a 2007 Parcel Map from our office that contains a discrepancy in measurements with a recent field survey for a subdivision on an adjoining parcel. It seems like a hassle on a subdivision map, mostly due to the notification of all affected parties aspect and all of the fun that entails. I'm leaning towards not doing it in our case. In any case, can one surveyor file a certificate of correction on another surveyor's map?
-
subman
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:22 pm
- Location: Ventura County
Re: Record Of Survey needed?
SMA 66469(d) addresses that in part: i.e. a second surveyor setting monuments for the surveyor of record under various conditions.
-
dedkad
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:55 pm
Re: Record Of Survey needed?
David, I don't think there is any notification of affected parties required. You just list the names of the fee owners of record as of the time the original map was recorded. And I believe that would be just the fee owner of your map, not the adjoining parcel.David Kendall wrote:I've never drafted a certificate of correction but I have been considering one lately on a 2007 Parcel Map from our office that contains a discrepancy in measurements with a recent field survey for a subdivision on an adjoining parcel. It seems like a hassle on a subdivision map, mostly due to the notification of all affected parties aspect and all of the fun that entails. I'm leaning towards not doing it in our case. In any case, can one surveyor file a certificate of correction on another surveyor's map?
-
David Kendall
- Posts: 687
- Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
- Location: Ferndale
Re: Record Of Survey needed?
Really? Maybe I just dreamed that part then. I assumed that if I was going to alter record dimensions on somebody's lot then I'd be obliged to let them know. It may just involve the two previous landowners in this case but I could imagine a scenario where people could have significant damages in a case similar to this (small urban lots getting smaller, lines shifting 3') and you say we just file a COC and be on our way? Doesn't sound right but I'll take your word for it.dedkad wrote:David, I don't think there is any notification of affected parties required. You just list the names of the fee owners of record as of the time the original map was recorded. And I believe that would be just the fee owner of your map, not the adjoining parcel.
If I bought a parcel 62' x 108' as shown on a map and 9 years later some joker showed up and said "sorry, it's only 61' now!" and then didn't even bother to explain the situation to me, I could imagine myself being somewhat dissatisfied. How would I find out? Maybe the realtor or title company tells me when I go to sell?
-
dedkad
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:55 pm
Re: Record Of Survey needed?
The gist of a Certificate of Correction is that it isn't supposed to alter any right, title or interest, so if you are affecting a small urban lot by 3', then it might very well be more than just an error or omission. That sort of change has potential zoning impacts that might be better suited for a COC via 66472.1. A COC or map amendment under that section requires a public hearing, thereby triggering the notification you previously referred to.David Kendall wrote:Really? Maybe I just dreamed that part then. I assumed that if I was going to alter record dimensions on somebody's lot then I'd be obliged to let them know. It may just involve the two previous landowners in this case but I could imagine a scenario where people could have significant damages in a case similar to this (small urban lots getting smaller, lines shifting 3') and you say we just file a COC and be on our way? Doesn't sound right but I'll take your word for it.dedkad wrote:David, I don't think there is any notification of affected parties required. You just list the names of the fee owners of record as of the time the original map was recorded. And I believe that would be just the fee owner of your map, not the adjoining parcel.
If I bought a parcel 62' x 108' as shown on a map and 9 years later some joker showed up and said "sorry, it's only 61' now!" and then didn't even bother to explain the situation to me, I could imagine myself being somewhat dissatisfied. How would I find out? Maybe the realtor or title company tells me when I go to sell?
-
David Kendall
- Posts: 687
- Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
- Location: Ferndale
Re: Record Of Survey needed?
I see. Thank you for the clarification. I'm afraid it is more than an omission. It is certainly an error. It appears someone missed the boat nine years ago on the location of the POB. Now in order to file this parcel map next door we have to correct the mistake. I bet you are right that there will likely be a zoning consideration on a lot that small. A public hearing... Huh! It's a can of worms...dedkad wrote:The gist of a Certificate of Correction is that it isn't supposed to alter any right, title or interest, so if you are affecting a small urban lot by 3', then it might very well be more than just an error or omission. That sort of change has potential zoning impacts that might be better suited for a COC via 66472.1. A COC or map amendment under that section requires a public hearing, thereby triggering the notification you previously referred to.
Anyway, I wasn't aware that there was more than one type of certificate of correction. I better study that a bit!
-
-Dave Ryan-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 10:45 am
Re: Record Of Survey needed?
David- the certificate of correction question is actually not very cut and dried. It probably warrants its own thread, but since we’re here, I’ll offer some “brief” input based on my experience.
From your first post: “I've never drafted a certificate of correction but I have been considering one lately on a 2007 Parcel Map from our office that contains a discrepancy in measurements with a recent field survey for a subdivision on an adjoining parcel.”
I’d recommend reading 8770.5 of the PLS Act and 66469-66472 of the Map Act first. You’ll see that there are fairly limited scenarios that qualify for a certificate of correction.
You add later in your post: “I assumed that if I was going to alter record dimensions on somebody's lot then I'd be obliged to let them know. It may just involve the two previous landowners in this case but I could imagine a scenario where people could have significant damages in a case similar to this (small urban lots getting smaller, lines shifting 3') “
It sounds like your office did a parcel map 9 years ago and now you’ve done a field survey and discovered an incorrect boundary resolution? If I’m interpreting your explanation correctly, you are absolutely right, this could stir things up. It depends what type of discrepancy was involved. If parcels were sold in reliance on the 2007 map, and you now discover you’d like to withdraw that boundary resolution, replacing it with a new one, a lot line adjustment or something similar may be required so the current owners can take part in any “correction” via exchange of deeds, etc. That’s assuming they would agree to this.
Amended maps or certificates of correction were never intended to address variations in boundary resolution that may arise later. Hence the wording, “does not alter any right, title, or interest in the real property reflected on the recorded map”
And good luck getting agreement with a room full of surveyors on what this next sentence means (from the Map Act): “As used in this section, "error" does not include changes in courses or distances from which an error is not ascertainable from the data shown on the final or parcel map.”
My take on that is you need to be able to make a clear cut case that a distance was mis-drafted, proven by other dimensions on the map that only add up correctly if you change that one dimension, by a simple transposition, for instance. Or maybe a variation of the same dimension appears in two different places on the map and one of them is clearly wrong (again by other proof on the map).
And if my first assumptions are correct, some type of map will be required before all is said and done.
You added an interesting question: “In any case, can one surveyor file a certificate of correction on another surveyor's map?”
I’ll reply thinking it’s now a moot point, but for future reference: I’ve never found this exact question addressed in the applicable correction codes cited earlier, but have encountered the need to consider it. If that surveyor is alive, see if you can work together on a certificate of correction (assuming they readily agree there is an error that falls under the allowable correction criteria). First, make sure they have not already corrected it and you missed the record. If someone finds a clearcut case of this type of error on a map of mine after I’ve departed this mortal coil, I hope they can cleanly correct it. I don't believe that would be unlawful to do so. And I wouldn't object.
Dave Ryan,
Arcata, Ca.
From your first post: “I've never drafted a certificate of correction but I have been considering one lately on a 2007 Parcel Map from our office that contains a discrepancy in measurements with a recent field survey for a subdivision on an adjoining parcel.”
I’d recommend reading 8770.5 of the PLS Act and 66469-66472 of the Map Act first. You’ll see that there are fairly limited scenarios that qualify for a certificate of correction.
You add later in your post: “I assumed that if I was going to alter record dimensions on somebody's lot then I'd be obliged to let them know. It may just involve the two previous landowners in this case but I could imagine a scenario where people could have significant damages in a case similar to this (small urban lots getting smaller, lines shifting 3') “
It sounds like your office did a parcel map 9 years ago and now you’ve done a field survey and discovered an incorrect boundary resolution? If I’m interpreting your explanation correctly, you are absolutely right, this could stir things up. It depends what type of discrepancy was involved. If parcels were sold in reliance on the 2007 map, and you now discover you’d like to withdraw that boundary resolution, replacing it with a new one, a lot line adjustment or something similar may be required so the current owners can take part in any “correction” via exchange of deeds, etc. That’s assuming they would agree to this.
Amended maps or certificates of correction were never intended to address variations in boundary resolution that may arise later. Hence the wording, “does not alter any right, title, or interest in the real property reflected on the recorded map”
And good luck getting agreement with a room full of surveyors on what this next sentence means (from the Map Act): “As used in this section, "error" does not include changes in courses or distances from which an error is not ascertainable from the data shown on the final or parcel map.”
My take on that is you need to be able to make a clear cut case that a distance was mis-drafted, proven by other dimensions on the map that only add up correctly if you change that one dimension, by a simple transposition, for instance. Or maybe a variation of the same dimension appears in two different places on the map and one of them is clearly wrong (again by other proof on the map).
And if my first assumptions are correct, some type of map will be required before all is said and done.
You added an interesting question: “In any case, can one surveyor file a certificate of correction on another surveyor's map?”
I’ll reply thinking it’s now a moot point, but for future reference: I’ve never found this exact question addressed in the applicable correction codes cited earlier, but have encountered the need to consider it. If that surveyor is alive, see if you can work together on a certificate of correction (assuming they readily agree there is an error that falls under the allowable correction criteria). First, make sure they have not already corrected it and you missed the record. If someone finds a clearcut case of this type of error on a map of mine after I’ve departed this mortal coil, I hope they can cleanly correct it. I don't believe that would be unlawful to do so. And I wouldn't object.
Dave Ryan,
Arcata, Ca.
-
pls7809
- Posts: 1035
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:48 pm
- Location: Chino, CA
Re: Record Of Survey needed?
Dave,
Great post. I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head.
Ryan.
Great post. I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head.
Ryan.
-
David Kendall
- Posts: 687
- Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
- Location: Ferndale
Re: Record Of Survey needed?
Thanks for the lowdown Dave, all of your assumptions are correct. The subdivision was in the City of Rio Dell, BTW. It still sounds like a can of worms but it all makes a bit more sense to me now, I suppose...-Dave Ryan- wrote: And if my first assumptions are correct, some type of map will be required before all is said and done.
My bright idea to was to show all of the discrepancies on the new PM since it is fundamentally identical to the old one. I reckon after that there will not be much more mapping necessary but it wouldn't surprise me if a public hearing or some sort of planning discussion took place. I guess all we can do now is shine some light on the situation and watch it to see what grows