California Surveyors Forums

I don't think there is that much difference in survey procedures. Paul is doing his survey exactly right and the way I would do it too.

I still need a monument though on the other sketch, so I know where to set my corner post for the fence that I am building on my boundary line.

Since you say that the corner that was set by me in 1969 is not my corner anymore?


3. Hold the pipe as a POL on one title line, and show a 6" length to the senior line./I]

That does not cut it......I need monuments at the corners on my
boundaries.

Hold the pipe as a POL on one title line,.....

That monument that I set had the function of the corner of the boundary.

How do you change the function of that corner monument?

That borders on the rationale of the "bogus theory".....that is, when you find an existing corner monument that was set for the center 1/4 sec. cor. and now using the "bogus theory", one simply ignores the monument that it was to function as.

That does not work!

ya mean! Ya never heard of offsets?

That does not work!

It may not work for you, but that's how it's done.

It all works if you have some guidance from some sort of professional advice.

That's the way it is done around here, does not cut it;

Three points create two lines. As a practical matter when dealing with reality, it cannot be any other way. There are no absolutes. Even 0.00001' is still off line.

A genuine retracement survey must acknowledge and follow in the footsteps of his predecessor. Right? As Mr. keithwill said, "monuments mean something". Monuments are evidence. I think I even heard in a lecture or two that artificial monuments yield only to natural monuments. I don't recall a "senior line" ever being considered a natural monument.

There are plenty of scenarios for the "closing corner" theory to be applied in California, under some circumstances. But a bonafide survey showing how a point on line was established, and then set, nearly always signifies that I will hold it as prima facie evidence of being on line. Or a deed call to a pipe "on a senior line", that pipe is factually "on the senior line" exactly as stated in the four corners of the deed.

Senior lines bend. Period.

Senior lines bend. Period.

A different opinion which I respect.

In this situation I would bend the lines at that corner but only if I was told by a title holder in no uncertain terms, that the 1965 monument was his corner.

I would also place a note on my survey of the statement by the property owner.

It's all just one surveyors opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Some bend, some don't. It's just opinion

A call to an adjoiner usually takes precedence over a call to a monument (natural or artificial) and we have to be careful about which predecessors we are following. I was recently hired to review two conflicting surveys where in 1971, a pre-82 civil took points from hundreds of feet away and layed out his subdivision against a senior line while finding basically nothing to confirm it. Recently the state came in to survey the adjoining park lands and found 2 sets of monuments. In some cases, the subdivision points were over the old line by 40+ feet! We are still dealing w/ the damage of what was at times purely incompetent work performed by those not specifically licensed as surveyors.

Thanks Mr. Stoner,

There are several sections of the Manual that make this understood and it actually is following in the footsteps of the previous surveyor, maybe the original, maybe not!

Landowners should be able to determine where their boundaries are and can accept the corner monuments where they are. They do not need surveyors who argue over finger nail distances, just because they can measure that accurately.

There are many landowners who have monuments that show their ownership and most of those monuments were set with the accuracy of my abilities in the 60s and the accuracy of my predecessors.

If one really wants to consider only the accuracy of today's machines, then ya better start all over again and move all monuments to where they should have been established.

That is really the rationale of the "Bogus Theory". Ignore existing monumentation and set the interior section lines in accordance with where they should have been, solely on the protracted lines.

Senior lines bend, Period!

LS 4722,

Reread the Manual and you will easily see that there are instances where junior corners do not bend the senior lines and there are instances where junior corners do bend senior lines.

If the Manual is in your State's regulations or Statutes, it would be well advised to heed it's guidelines........rather then "thats the way it is done around here!

Anyway, that is my opinion!

Keith (and Clark):
The 1973 version in my hand is titled "Manual of Surveying Instructions" on the cover, the title page it says "Manual of Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands of the United States". I think that defines it's use pretty well.
When land title passes to private ownership (both sides of the line) the "the manual" is no longer in effect. Yes, the manual is still very important for retracement, but it is no longer the sole controlling document for the creation and retracement of private property... just one of many references.

Existing Line: Existing lines can not move by any action of a surveyor. We do the best we can to Find those lines, mark them, and work with them. The Attempt to set a monument for a new intersecting line does Not define the existing line. If the surveyor fails in his attempt to set his monument on the Existing line (by many feet, or even by a fraction of an inch) it does not change it. Our records tell what we intended to mark and our methods, but not more.

Monuments are Not "Corners" by default. We have butchered the language and created our own confusion. The new Corner the surveyor created is at the exact intersection between the Existing Line and the New Line, where the surveyor Attempts to put a monument. So when measurement or retracement fails and the Monument is not at the Corner, the Monument is used as a Closing Corner to define direction of the New Line.

Ownership vs Survey lines: This is where you/we are getting confused. Ownership Can change to fit the monuments that were set in a zig zag but that is not the creation of the surveyor, it is an action of law. Yes, surveyors can and do make that legal determination (Surveyor's Opinion), and it is never something the you can "look up in the manual" because there is no manual for private land ownership... for that we go to local practice, case law, experience, etc.

perhaps some day surveyors will quit using the words Corner and Monument interchangeably... then maybe some of the confusion will vaporize in the minds of surveyors, the public view, and the courts.

My mistake.......should have said junior corner monuments!

Existing Line: Existing lines can not move by any action of a surveyor. We do the best we can to Find those lines, mark them, and work with them. The Attempt to set a monument for a new intersecting line does Not define the existing line. If the surveyor fails in his attempt to set his monument on the Existing line (by many feet, or even by a fraction of an inch) it does not change it. Our records tell what we intended to mark and our methods, but not more.

I think I will take exception to this rationale!

Existing lines are as shown on paper and as determined on the ground by those that can establish their boundary lines.

Take for instance, a section line of the PLSS and how it is shown on the original survey plat and then look at it's location on the ground by a surveyor or land owner and it has moved??

No it has not moved, it was simply put on the ground by somebody.

I have personally established many section lines on the ground and they were not as shown on the original survey plat.

I have also personally established many subdivisional corners that have been protracted on the original plat and to the best of my ability, have placed those lines on the ground and will represent the boundaries of Federal Land. The adjacent private land owners can use those corner monuments as their boundary lines also and build fences, build houses and plow the fields in the satisfaction that they are on their land, as determined by the corner monuments.

If in fact the land owner did not agree with my corner positions, they had every right to appeal my survey all the way up the line as far as they wanted to go and if they could show that I was in error....then the corner positions changed to where they convinced a higher authority that they should be.

The process is different with a private survey and if the land owner does not agree, they can appeal it to the local court of jurisdiction and provide their arguments. The private survey will hold until a possible overturn by a higher authority.....the local court. And of course that can be appealed too.

Monuments mean things.....

The Manual is very clear on Junior corner monuments and if they were set on the retracement of a senior line, they will control the senior line.

PERIOD!

If there is a different valid source of survey methods.....other then the "bogus theory".....lets see it.

I would urge anyone considering taking comments seriously that have been made on line to use caution. All commentators are not equal and some comments made by unlicensed individuals could be confusing and cause a lot of problems for licensed surveyors, if those surveyors relied upon unsound advice.

gosh, I wonder who they are?

gosh, I wonder who they are?

Raising my hand......not licensed in California!

Maybe a licensed California Surveyor would know and could tell us if the Manual is in the California statutes and/or regulations?

Then we can continue talking about the Manual.

Dane,

You seem to know what you are talking about, tell us what the California rules and regulations and/or statutes have to say about the BLM Manual?

A word of caution here too:

Your California License should alert you to the Manual of Surveying Instructions....right?

Bruce Hall,

Want to help us out here and tell us what your California rules and regs and statutes have to say about the Manual.

Keith,

You can find the reference in the Professional Land Surveyors' Act located at:
http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/laws/index.shtml. Feel free to familiarize yourself with it.

The act states that applicants shall be thoroughly familiar with the procedures and rules for surveying public lands as set forth in the Manual of Instructions AND the principles of real property related to boundaries and conveyancing.

I believe the gentlemen that have responded to you have stated that they are in agreement that the manual guides the surveying of public lands, but once those lands enter into private ownership, the manual has less authority when retracing private surveys.

but once those lands enter into private ownership, the manual has less authority when retracing private surveys.

I'd word that more strongly by saying that the Manual has no authority concerning private surveys in California. It's a guide to understanding past actions and the intent of the parties to a conveyance, but by itself wields no power.

California is not like other states that have incorporated the Manual of Instructions into their state law as Oregon has done for example. In that state, surveyors are, directed by state law, to use the current Manual for any retracement where the land was originally subdivided under federal rules.

There is some case law in CA that supports the use of the Manual and there is case law contrary to the Manual. My favorite case is Wood v Mandrilla. This case defines the meaning of half as half by area and this is a different definition than is found in the Manual of Instruction. The Manual contains nuance to the meaning of half in relation to aliquot parts and sections that contain non aliquot parts ,known as lots.

There is a precedent setting case posted on the Board's website. This case involves the discipline of a surveyor who insisted on using the method described in the Manual to break down a section and disregarded an unrecorded survey that had been relied upon by private property owners.

Dane, are you referring to this decision: http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/precedent ... list.shtml as this is the only precedent decision posted by the Board and I don't see reference to public lands. Not that I disagree with your statements