California Surveyors Forums

Evan, as you recall, this is from the City of San Diego Mapping Manual:

I note the contributors were:

Adolfo Aguilar, PLS, Dave Ambler, PLS, Tony Arcillas, PLS, Mike Butcher, PLS, Lonie Cyr, PLS, Sean Englert, PLS, Daniel Hall, PLS, Don Harris, PE, Lee Hennes, PLS, retired, Anne Hoppe, PLS, Greg Hopkins, PLS, Gary Hus, PLS, Casey Lynch, PLS, Patrick McMichael, PLS, John Montes de Oca, PLS, DK Nasland, PLS, Tony Nothdurft, PLS, Evan Page, PLS, Michael J. Pallamary, PLS, Ron Roth, PLS, Larry Stevens, PLS, Jeffrey Strohminger, PE, Jim Taylor, PLS, Ian Wilson, PLS, and Dave Woolley, PLS.

*****************************************************************

"Historic lead and tack monuments, as best evidence of original block corners and lines, long acquiesced to by the City and private owners, should be considered as offsets to block corners and should be used to establish public right-of-way lines.

Historic lead and tacks were set by the City and typically shown on historic tie point sheets which are available at City Records. However, they must be evaluated with other survey evidence to ensure each monument’s validity and the degree of control to be assigned to it.

Public right-of-way lines are fixed by original evidence and may be more or less than the record distance shown on a map and may not be parallel.
In subdivisions where centerlines of streets were not mapped or monumented in the original survey but block corners were originally surveyed, then the original block corner monuments, or the best evidence perpetuating their original locations prevail, and the street right-of-way lines may be more or less than record distance and may not be parallel. San Diego is somewhat unique in the regard as other cities may weight controlling monuments differently. Private owners occupying land have the right to rely on original surveys and city tie point sheets. These maps are mostly the older maps in the downtown areas, such as Horton’s Addition, Middletown, etc. However, when street centerlines are mapped and original monuments were set on centerline, then those lines normally prevail, the streets get their full measure, and the sidelines are parallel. In this case, all original monuments to the street sidelines and lot lines control partition lines between lots and will not usually prevail over the centerline monuments and the public’s full measure of right-of-way.

Consistent with the statement above, the centerline monuments set in the downtown area during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s by City field crews are not original monuments, and typically therefore do not prevail over the position of original block corners. The methods for setting centerline monuments were not consistent and always do not present a good solution, nor will they always represent the centerline intersections. These monuments may be of value in helping to reestablish the original block corner locations from record ties, and in some cases may be the best or only evidence available. One should prove the centerline monuments location in relation to the original survey before accepting the centerline monument as a good position for the street centerline for block boundary establishment and subdivision mapping purposes in the downtown area.

**********************************************************************************************************

https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/ ... manual.pdf

There is a long history of City Engineers points being in conflict with private property rights. 1893. It's in Browns book also. What prompted this discussing is I got licensed in 4 others states in 2019 and all of them have "Minimum Boundary Standards". Some require a monument to be set at missing corners, regardless, and others require a monument be set if you establish a line. Since that's the case, it get interesting if you are using the monument for line, but not it's terminus. They usually have rules for closing corners, but where streets are involved I wanted to know how to handle that. The consensus out of state is that monuments hold. I know from my experience that surveying in CA seems to be a little more complicated, especially if your processing a Final Map. I have found older surveys in Santa Barbara where they held the monuments, but the trend now seems to be to hold the record width no matter what. I've even seen surveyors hold the two right of way monuments for a road (it was an easement) for the terminus of the line, but the record width was held and not the actual distance of 60.2' since the record distance was 60'. That meant BOTH monuments where off by a tenth! Just trying to wrap my head around the current trend.

Evan,

I think that we are saying the same thing.

In the circumstance of finding original monuments (or properly rehabilitated perpetuated positions) - hold em.

It's in the absence of that tangible evidence, recourse is to reestablish the stated right of way as delineated. This is in apposite to retracing the web of lots within a block. Those are proportionate to their relationship as simultaneous creations, whereas the dividing strips fill the interstitial space.

Of course, improvements and intermediate monuments are points to hold in the re-weaving of the fabric created from reliance on original monuments.

Good stuff!

Excellent post Mike. I'd say that the city surveyor you mention wasn't just bucking local custom & practice, but also bucking basic principles of locating existing boundaries, and doing so armed with nothing more than survey lore that has risen to the level of a "Rule of Surveying."

Note that anytime I use the term "Rule of Surveying", it is in the context of some practice or methodology that is often generally correct where there are no other circumstances or evidence to guide one to the correct answer, but that the last 3 or 4 generations of surveyors have taken as an inviolable rule to be applied in all cases where one particular circumstance is present.

In most cases, surveyors are the only ones who are aware that these general principles have morphed into absolute, rigid rules. At the trial level, a court might apply such a rule simply because an expert witness says that it's the standard practice among surveyors, but at the appellate level, if the application of the general principle that the surveyor incorrectly elevated to an unbreakable rule is in conflict with the facts of the case and the application of principles with solid legal basis, that unbreakable "Rule of Surveying" gets smashed and tossed into the judicial round file. Sometimes the surveyors involved will learn from the experience but many times they will instead bemoan that the court doesn't understand the principles and got it wrong. Getting it wrong at the trial level due to misunderstanding the applicable principles is not rare, but at the appellate level, it is rare.

Gromatici wrote:Well that's interesting since I find that I've submitted RS's and the CS didn't like that I create and angle point in the r/w of a few seconds, when I held the monument over the record straight line of the original subdivision. I was able to persuade him to accept my solution only after I pointed out that a subsequent Parcel Map had an angle point in it, that I was accepting as part of my Record of Survey. For a long time I've understood accepting the monuments, and in other states especially, this is the case. However, I find that many don't like how the monuments don't fit perfectly (we're talking 0.04' or sub a tenth) and they want them called off. For a RS, it's simply a note, but when you're trying to push a Final Map or Parcel Map through, it's a whole different story. Seems like some Counties don't like that right of way being messed with!

I think what you’re up against are basic customs in mapping. In general, in a normal city block, it is customary that you show one straight right of way line. This of course creates a predicament as you don’t want to be calling monuments off but you also don’t want to be lying about your measurements. My guess is that probably 95% of maps are using one of these techniques, either lying or calling points off, but all with a straight right of way line. There is nothing technically wrong with having a bunch of slight angle points, but it’s just not customary from my experience.

Here's a paper to consider.

When retracing sections of RW, I will analyze holding each monument to the hundredth as I've measured it vs. A best fit line. I also analyze whether particular monuments appear to be disturbed. If apparently disturbed monuments are the outliers on a best fit, I remove them from that analysis. If the rest fall within my error ellipses ( essentially on or very near the cap), I'll use the best fit line and not call points off.

If holding block corners as I find them results in intermediate undisturbed monuments being on or very near the cap, so much the better. I'll explain what I did in a narrative.

As a practical matter for the landowner, if one of those intermediate points is 0.04' off the best fit line by my measurements and calcs, it's right on perfect for the landowner's purposes.

If the best fit doesn't work and all monuments appear to be original, then show all the minor angle points.

Some surveyors won't like my approach, but it works for everyone except the most mathematicallu anal surveyors. That is, it's an approaoch that works for all affected, all who matter.

When using a best fit line, it's important that you explain it in a narrative.

The City of San Diego is covered by tie points and they are generally the product of very good work, back as a WPA project. Most competent surveyors will reject the center line intersection monuments. The city will tell you they are control for improvements and not property or right of way lines. It is not uncommon to find a street to vary in width by as much as half a foot.

The mapped block corners control.

Thanks for sharing Evan. I’m curious, in a typical city block, what is tolerance of error for points being off this best fit line? Are we talking about .05’? I’m not asking this in any kind of challenging way, and agree that these fractional amounts are probably insignificant to land owners in most cases, but the OP has brought up a significant point that I suspect many of us may grapple with to a certain extent.

In most situations, my tolerance would fall around 0.05' to 0.07' to the best fit line. That accounts for the reasonable relative positional uncertainties in measurements and that typically, a cap for lot corners is goint to be 0.1' diameter or so.

Gromatici wrote:I'd love to see a sample! See how that would work down where I practice.

Gromatici- I just came across this map. It is an example of how you could depict the exact positions of all points as you've measured them, without calling them off or doing any lying about it while also not showing angle points in the right of way line.