California Surveyors Forums

Olin,

Thanks for your comments. What I was referring to by "flavor" of maps is actually driven by local surveyors' styles. Less the individuality than the standards in place over decades. When retracing, one doesn't just follow in the footsteps, but follows the drafting style of presentation.

Michael,

The County Surveyor forum is a space for discussing the various ways we handle local issues in light of statute and appropriate development codes. It goes a long way toward sharing processes and establishing some means of uniformity. By being exclusive, it opens free expression. I can assure you that the private sector is not being bashed, and that the topics deal with comparative solutions.

What would be great is if we had some consistency across the state. We are all supposed to be governed by the same rules and laws. I am presently processing surveys in three sections of the state and each county has its own procedures and there are some gross inconsistencies in how these maps are prepared and reviewed. I cannot blame the CS but I do feel CLSA and others can develop some more consistency so that we are doing things the same way at least.

Warren as always, thanks! We need to have a State Surveyor General again so we can elect you to that post!

Olin:
As you stated so well, “All maps tell a story. It’s our story to be told”. I could not agree more. Just be sure the story is a good one. The problem is too many of the stories go “Once upon a time they lived happily ever after”.

jscarpa wrote: ....The problem is too many of the stories go “Once upon a time they lived happily ever after”.

That is awesome Jon! I may have to "borrow" it.

.

Olin,

That is great commentary - and what I see as the proper role of the CS review. It pretty much sums up what is at play.

Here is the CEAC (County Engineers Association of California) Guide to the Preparation of Records of Survey and Corner Records. It was revised with input from LCSO (League of California Surveying Organizations). And, yes, I am a member of both organizations, as well as CLSA (for 30 years).

I concur with, and applaud, the Texas Board for including this in their General Rules of Procedures and Practices. In fact, I think it should have been in their state statutes. How can you do a proper (i.e., protect the public) boundary analysis without doing this?

§663.16. Boundary Construction.

(a) When delineating a property or boundary line as an integral portion of a survey, the land surveyor shall respect junior/senior property rights, footsteps of the original land surveyor, the record, the intent as evidenced by the record, the proper application of the rules of dignity or the priority of calls, and applicable statutory and case law of Texas.

(b) Appropriate deeds and/or other documents including those for adjoining parcels shall be relied upon for the location of the boundaries of the subject parcel(s).

(c) A land surveyor assuming the responsibility of performing a land survey also assumes the responsibility for such research of adequate thoroughness to support the determination of the location of intended boundaries of the land parcel surveyed. The land surveyor may rely on record data related to the determination of boundaries furnished for the registrants' use by a qualified provider, provided the registrant reasonably believes such data to be sufficient and notes, references, or credits the documentation by which it is furnished.

(d) All boundaries shall be connected to identifiable physical monuments related to corners of record dignity. In the absence of such monumentation the land surveyor's opinion of the boundary location shall be supported by other appropriate physical evidence which shall be explained in a land surveyor's report.

Nice points Lee! It should also be noted that the Texas Board somehow manages to enforce this General Rule without the aid of any County Surveyors' map review. I'm certain that some people don't follow the rules but at least they are on the books. I wonder if the metes and bounds system or the continuing education requirements factor in to this equation?

Texas is clear about the requirement of a survey report for every retracement. While surveys (and surveyors) go to that length when appropriate in California, it isn't mandatory yet.
It really is in the realm of consumer protection. Since there are always adjoiners' interests in play, a prudent surveyor will properly depict his or her methodology and analysis.
To the extent a CS review can recommend the expansion of notation after an initial review, there currently exists no statutory authority other than the CS Note. Oftentimes, that takes the form of an adverserial stance.
Upon enactment of minimum standards like those of Texas, map review can achieve that level of "thou shalt". It is sad to me that it would require that amount of micromanaging.
I do see the current requirements as requiring clarity. It is hard to imagine someone insisting on filing an unclear RS and complying with the CS Note that would entail. Mail a copy to the landowner.

Warren, I think the state manual is a great document. I know many of the folks who prepared the original document. Here, in San Diego County, our County Surveyor developed his own manual, sometimes at odds with the fine work reflected in the state manual. I suggested that the county should either adopt the state manual or, at a minimum, encourage private sector input. My request fell on deaf ears. As you may also know, after working very closely with the two previous county surveyors down here, we implemented a procedure for filing private surveys. Our CS does not value private survey records arguing, essentially, if they do not appear on a recorded document, they do not exist and as such, are valueless.

http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/d ... urvred.pdf

if they do not appear on a recorded document, they do not exist and as such, are valueless.

Tell that to the landowners who constructed improvements using that "valueless survey".

.

Olin,

PLSA section 8764 (d) does state that the record of survey shall show the relationship to those portions of adjacent tracts, streets, or senior conveyances which have common lines with the survey.

Stands to reason, in order to properly retrace the location of the boundary. As to abuse during review, a lot depends on the rapport which exists with the CS.

A record of survey can impart constructive notice if it is referenced in a Grant Deed. This is commonly encountered when tracking a chain of title.

A record of survey can impart constructive notice if it is referenced in a Grant Deed.

I disagree on a technicality: the deed imparts constructive notice, and brings the ROS along with it by reference. The ROS on its own is still just a map that happens to live in the Recorder's office.

Jim,

True, but it certainly elevates the normal "hidden" status of an RS as extrinsic evidence.

.

You seem to be saying either that Jr/Sr rights is not a legitimate concern of surveyors or the courts, or that dealing with it is going beyond the normal standard of practice expected by the courts (or the Board).

Lee Hixson said:

"You seem to be saying either that Jr/Sr rights is not a legitimate concern of surveyors or the courts, or that dealing with it is going beyond the normal standard of practice expected by the courts (or the Board)."

Or what a conscientious County Surveyor should be reviewing.

.

Respectfully, but it's not about liability for the survey. A CS is mandated to protect the public and by allowing a survey to record that may be incorrect, in the CS's opinion is not protecting the public. Therefore they review, as they should per 8766(a)(1), with regards to the required items listed in 8764, which includes the relationship with senior conveyances.

If a disagreement occurs then a CS note should be placed on the map. I saw one last week that had a CS note and two rebuttal notes from the surveyor. The CS shall/must record the survey. A note is also added to protect the public.

"...show the general spatial relationship..."

What does that mean?

Olin Edmundson wrote:Not at all Lee, quite the opposite. This is the primary focus of a surveyor. I am saying that the law as it currently reads doesn't include the CS checking these items as part of the review process. I see it having a potential to slow down the system, increase costs all around and prevent folks who really need a survey from getting one. From my understanding, the surveyor carries all responsibility and liability for the survey, the County none. If you know of cases where the County has been held liable for recording a map w/ incorrect boundary lines shown, please provide.

Olin: that is a Very important distinction. The very moment the County Surveyor goes beyond the absolute bare minimum mandated by law the Cost must be born by the Public. If the County Board Of Supervisors does not choose to fund that additional work, end of story.

I have worked in other states where there was Zero checking... the map went into the County Surveyor's file cabinet at no cost and no review (Oregon late 70's) or directly to the County Recorder (Az. 2007). The result of that was "some" maps were grossly deficient, or just plain illegible. We don't want that!

The mandated review needs to be more finitely defined... too many are using it as a blank check.
I fail to see how more than 1(one) single hour is needed to review a RoS of 3 or less pages if an adequate "map check package" is submitted. Many pages, many courses, crap submittal... OK: charge them more (with written justification).

Here is an example of the checking comments for which we regularly pay the county $100+ per hour. Fortunately, in this instance the fees are not recouped at actual cost, there is still simply a $16 nominal filing fee so it is not terribly upsetting.
I would appreciate any constructive criticism on how to handle this situation. Should I:
A) Go move the pipe (set in concrete) a couple of tenths one way or the other so it matches record bearing perfectly?
B) Adjust my reported bearings to make them match in spite of what I actually measured?
C) Send the form to our local private entity who maintains an unrecorded survey index that all of the local surveyors and county offices use (which is essentially the same as recording around here as far as survey research is concerned) and request my $16 back?
D) none of the above

Please note that this "first" round of the checking process took 4 1/2 months to complete. They are requesting that we submit another checkprint for another round of checking (which they don't allow electronically and someone will have to drive a half hour each way to their office to submit).

I went through four rounds of checking recently on a subdivision map with the exact same types of (mostly) meaningless comments and the developer was desperate to record so I imagine that he simply paid the fees or maybe they are still counting them up and haven't billed it yet.

This all goes to support the comment I made last year about making a few simple mistakes just so the checkers can get some assurance that they have accomplished something. I don't practice that, it was just a smart ass comment, but it does seem sensible and in the interest of the public (our clients) at times...

We have three Record of Survey maps going in for the first round of checking next Monday. Keeping our fingers crossed!!

David,

If I am reading your CR right, it seems that matching the record bearing from the adjacent found corner would move the position of the set pipe by all of 0.04'. Of the several alternative methods to reestablish the missing corner (such as prolonging the 1400' long line between other found monuments) would miss that position by substantially more.

The concept of resetting from the closest found point is a time-honored one.

It seems to me that your set pipe is good. I'm unfamiliar with the topography around this site, but some of the other measured dimensions indicate an interesting trend. Does this look like it raises the specter of "material discrepancy"? Doesn't look like it on the face of it. I would mail in the signed and sealed CR and move on. (A half hour drive around here doesn't seem like much - unless it's unnecessary).