California Surveyors Forums

Thanks Evan, Well put. I need some time to explain this in more detail. I think you hit the nail on the head! Well said!

We can decide to create a written standard for boundary sirveying and publish standard through CLSA. Is there evidence that supports the notion that surveyors in states with codified standards are more highly regarded than in states where there is no codified standard? I mentioned the Torrens system before and that was met with a deafening silence.

So let's raise the bar and have published standards. We can do this without a record of survey impart constructive notice. We can have our surveys impart constructive notice, but to do so, the owners will have to sign the map.

Do we need more legislation to protect the public or are the tools we need in place now?

I see the core issues of the OP as

1. Raising the standards of the profession. Well then let's outline a path to accomplish that goal.

2. Create a mechanism so that boundary surveys impart constructive notice. This is a balancing act between the rights of property owners and the professional opinion of surveyors. Codifying standards for surveyors does not supercede constitutional property rights.

Thanks Dave. That's pretty much what I was trying to get at. At least the part that that the significant number of surveyors are not surveying according to established legal principles.

Also the point that creating and publishing the standards alone would not accomplish the goal.

There are two ways to accomplish. 1) implement a land court system to oversee the proper application of boundary law principles by either blessing and accepting a survey for registering the survey, or rejecting it on specific grounds, forcing the survey to be redone to conform to the appropriate standards and the appropriate application of legal principles.

or 2) education of the proper legal principles.

Of the 2, I prefer #2. It may not be as immediately effective, but I prefer that surveyors become educated (preferably by their own choice) than that the government implement another branch with authority of a court and a mandate that all surveys of a certain type be reviewed by the court. If the judges are well versed in the laws of boundaries, I'm not averse to a review per se. But this process would add thousands in expense to each such survey. Tens of thousands given the scale at which some agencies determine fees. I'm not sure that's the best way to serve the public.

One of the things I am working on for a future story in The American Surveyor Magazine is a national advocacy action for the profession by drawing from other states and countries. I am advocating a redefnition of the profession as we need to change where we are headed. I will continue probing so I can flesh out these ideas. You guys are on the same track, I need to articulate it better. If anyone is interested in the procedural outline I am advocating, please consider reading the Land Court survey standards and dismiss the function of the Land Court. Look at the procedures per se.

These regulations are superior to ALTA standards and a lot of surveyors do not read them.

Thread Killer David Woolley lol

Don't announce the demise of the thread prematurely, Dane. I just don't have time to add to the discussion right now.


Evan (Pollyanna) Page, PLS

TLPEP never think of it when our superhero has just arrived on the scene lol

SINCE WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING MASS. LAND COURT