Practice Inquiry

[mpallamary]

I have been asked to review a survey from another county, not that that should make a difference under state laws. My client hired a surveyor and he/she specifically excluded a Record of Survey from the agreement as noted on the attached. Notwithstanding this disclaimer, he/she showed numerous dimensions from the structure to the property line and right of way line. Does anyone have any thoughts or comments? Does anyone believe you can show measurements of this sort while concurrently evading a duty to file a Record of Survey?

Thanks all.

Be safe.

[Lee Hixson]

Looks to me to be a clear evasion of RofS requirements. It's almost a mini-ALTA survey.

[mpallamary]

Thanks! Hoping to get more comments before responding!

[Peter Ehlert]

for what it's worth, I agree with Lee.

that surveyor needs some re-education.
Perhaps a "gentle" reminder is needed. Jump on it Mike, but keep it private (unless you run into resistance)

[mpallamary]

Thanks! That's why I redacted it. I am trying to avoid problems for this individual.

[Dave Lindell]

If that's not a survey requiring a Record of Survey, I've been doing it wrong for fifty years!

[steffan]

Based on the only partial disclosure of facts provided, I noted that the controlling elements for the boundary are not shown. Without that, I wouldn’t opine whether or not the preparer of the site plan needs to also prepare a ROS. We don’t have all the facts. There is the possibility that the parcel is adequately monumented and there are no discrepancies with record. In other words, a ROS is not triggered as a result of the boundary retracement. This then begs the question as to if a site plan has to depict the boundary controlling elements, or can it simply show relationships between already established boundaries and improvements?
It is not uncommon for site plans and construction plans to show property boundaries and their relationships to improvements without also showing the boundary controlling elements and relationship with record surveys and title. One must look deeper than the site plan to understand if there are discrepancies with record or alternate solutions.
As to the partial extracted contract language, it may or may not be pertinent to the findings of the actual boundary retracement. Again, it may be a moot point if the parcel was already adequately monumented. We don’t know the entire set of facts.

[Peter Ehlert]

Based on the only partial disclosure of facts provided, I noted that the controlling elements for the boundary are not shown. Without that, I wouldn’t opine whether or not the preparer of the site plan needs to also prepare a ROS. We don’t have all the facts. There is the possibility that the parcel is adequately monumented and there are no discrepancies with record. In other words, a ROS is not triggered as a result of the boundary retracement. This then begs the question as to if a site plan has to depict the boundary controlling elements, or can it simply show relationships between already established boundaries and improvements?
It is not uncommon for site plans and construction plans to show property boundaries and their relationships to improvements without also showing the boundary controlling elements and relationship with record surveys and title. One must look deeper than the site plan to understand if there are discrepancies with record or alternate solutions.
As to the partial extracted contract language, it may or may not be pertinent to the findings of the actual boundary retracement. Again, it may be a moor point if the parcel was already adequately monumented. We don’t know the entire set of facts.

+1

PS: in my little world such drawings are provided as separate sheets for planning use, and the Other Sheets provide the boundary resolution and control ties as needed/required

[mpallamary]

Good points all. There is a six-foot discrepancy in the boundary lines. The land description is a lot and a portion of an adjacent lot described by metes and bounds. There is no evidence the boundary was monumented or based on survey monuments. When the property owner started comparing various records, he/she contacted the surveyor. The surveyor issued a second drawing wherein the lines were adjusted to add the additional six feet. It is my practice, when preparing multiple sheets, as has been suggested, to cross reference the sheets to assure there are no problems. I am still researching this one. The property is in the San Francisco Bay area and I am in San Diego. I was inquiring to see if the custom and practice in situations like this varied across the state. It is my opinion they should not as the laws are statewide.

As always, I appreciate the comments!

[David Kendall]

My understanding of 8762 b 4 is that establishment of a partial lot (with record of previous mapping on whole lots) would trigger a record of survey if the line was not previously mapped by a filed survey or subdivision map. I consider the boundary tied to a building or fence and shown graphically to be a boundary establishment with or without corner monuments. I agree with the disclaimer that states the diagram shown is not a record of survey. It contains elements that are not typical for a boundary survey (spot elevations, gates, decks, planters and utility boxes) If I produced a map like this that established lines which were not previously shown on a filed map then I would probably feel a legal obligation to file a record of survey

[mpallamary]

Thanks David! I was contacted to look at it because of the six-foot discrepancy. The entire land is described by metes and bounds. There is no evidence that there is a previous survey. In addition, there is no evidence of any monuments. I shall continue probing. Many thanks!

[Peter Ehlert]

Mike: have you contacted the other surveyor yet?

[hellsangle]

Great point, Peter.

That would be the "civil" and the "professional" thing to do.

What's the purpose of the review? Have you considered Board Rule 475 (c) 10? . . . "or" . . . "or" . . . "or . . .

Crazy Phil again

[mpallamary]

I have reached out to the other surveyor. The client informed me that she has been calling for three weeks and emailed but the surveyor will not respond. I called and emails this AM.

Many thanks all!

[mpallamary]

I had a lengthy conversation with the other surveyor. He/she did not locate any monuments. He/she did a curb survey or what is known as a "curb split." I asked how confident they were showing a dozen building ties to the nearest hundredth in light of no monuments being used. He/she was not able to express an opinion. The first survey was not labeled PRELIMINARY and the second one wherein the boundary line was relocated six-feet, looked identical.

Does anyone believe establishing precise boundary lines splitting curbs warrants an explanation and a Record of Survey? I did some research and there are monuments out there but they were not used. I am certain a monument based survey will produce different results.

Thoughts anyone?

[Edward M Reading]

Send it to the Board.

[mpallamary]

Yes, thanks. I am trying to see what they are willing to do. I appreciate your suggestion!

[TTaylor]

Without all the facts, IMO the structure is now a monument to the property line and Right of Way.

[hellsangle]

Mr. T . . .

ONLY if those were AGREED boundaries would the house be a monument. Just another opinion, in my mind.

Even If this were a Record of Survey, it still does not make the house a monument. A monument of one surveyor's opinion, yes.

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

[mpallamary]

Again, thank you all so very much. It is always enlightening to get the perspective of one's peers.

I had a conversation with another surveyor last week over the use of topographic calls to establish a quarter corner. There were five surveyors who thought it was unsafe and improper to use topo calls because of the history of fraudulent surveys. My topo call was an incredibly steep and incised creek that showed up in 1923 aerials and cleary had not moved. The other surveyors stated the correct method was to prorate the corner back in. Bud Uzes assisted me by providing a lot of cases. $1.5M the court agreed and the topo call prevailed. My point is, once a precise measurement is logged in, such as one to a building location, I believe it becomes a monuments. If the property owner is given a map with half a dozen dimensions to the same line, all to the hundredth, he/she believes the surveyor. Will see what develops.

[David Kendall]

A monument of one surveyor's opinion, yes.

I suppose all of them are....

Next question is what is the value of one surveyor's opinion?

My answer lies in the presentation of the supporting evidence

[Ca.PLS8200]

Without all the facts, IMO the structure is now a monument to the property line and Right of Way.

Agreed. A monument set at the property corner, an offset monument set online, or an offset monument set offline would all trigger an RS.

Some surveyors use rebar, some use iron pipes, some use buildings. Regardless of the monument used, if it can be used to identify and/or locate the boundary, it's a trigger.

(The next question would be, did the surveyor tag the building?)

[mpallamary]

Thanks!

Good comments!

[LS_8750]

Lemme guess, East Bay?

[mpallamary]

Hmm! Hmm! Hmm!

So, I spoke with the surveyor and he/she has agreed to prepare a Record of Survey for me to review and to submit to the county, all at his/her expense. He/she is going to formally rescind the previous surveys, and reissue them as PRELIMINARY and after the ROS is recorded, revise the topo survey/site plan to reflect a final boundary based upon a recorded survey map.

Thank you all for your comments and thoughts. This is a wonderful use of the forum!