Here we go again

[goodgps]

I've recently done a survey and am trying to file a map in a particular county.

Another "recent" survey of property adjacent to and north of my site has been filed. This survey used a "particular" reference and called out (record and measured) for its boundary control.

During the research process, Our firm discovered that an amended map had been filed against this "particular" map due to errors in the boundary dimensions shown on the "particular" reference.

As a process of our boundary survey, We agree with the amended map almost to the hundreth and decide to use (record and measured) with the amended map. We show disagreeing with the "recent" survey and his "particular" reference, and instead site the amended map.

During the county review process, the County surveyor is questioning Why we are disagreeing with the "recent" map, stating that the most recent measurements are the best and perhaps the "amended" map was actually incorrect. I have invited him to first send a county crew to verify the sectional boundary [refused] Then I asked him why he didn't question the "recent" survey as to why the amended map wasn't used as a reference on that map.
The County surveyor stated that it is not his responsibility to do the surveyors research but rather just review the map for technical correctness.

? But isn't My map technically correct ?

Does the county surveyor have a responsibility to bring neglected research forward , or is he truely a reactionary.


signed;

DeForrest S. Thicke

[goodgps]

Help !

I was hoping some of youz PW guys could enlighten me on this. I certainly am not looking for damage, I actually agree with the CS about "not his responsibility" to do OUR private sector research.
The SMA isn't as clear on how the Public Agency must approach the map review process for parcel maps and subdivisions as the LS act is for records of survey.

It seems like the CS is partisan to the local guy. I'm the out of owner in this case.

Is this a case where I request that a disagreement note be placed on the map then get on with the filing ? There are escrows pending and this map needs to be filed.

[bruce hall]

could show your measured distances and bearings that you are holding, and then show the record of both the amended map, the recent survey, and any other map that you happed to have in your files. That way there aren't any secrets.

Your map probably is technically correct and the CS probably wants to make sure you like what you have before filing.

[goodgps]

I'll try that .

We were very close to the amended record, however, I can show the slight differences. I figured we had a little error in our GPS survey anyway.

Thanks !!

[dmi]

I have always been told that the boundary survey shown on a parcel or final is on a par with the boundary as shown on a record of survey. The county surveyor while not charged with re-doing your survey in the field and is NOT barred from making any comments that they want to make with respect to the technical correctness. We don't need a license to determine that the record has the correct spelling of the client name, north arrow,and proper text height and sheet borders. The licensed review is to review the items on the map that have to do with the services that only a licensed surveyor can provide. I am including pre 82 engineers in this descirption of licensed surveyors, just so no one feels slighted.

As to the County surveyors request for you to explain why you get a different answer than the previous survey and/or amended survey - I have not idea why anyone would have a problem asnwering that and why they would not want to put that data on their map.

If the amended map is wrong should the county surveyor do something about it so that there record gets corrected?

[goodgps]

thanks

However, it is the amended map that is correct and it is the amended map which I agree with.

Surveyor "B" is using Surveyor "A"s unAmended map as {ref & meas}

I HAVE shown the unAmended map info as a reference, However, I'm agreeing with Surveyor "A"s Amended map.

Its the CO surveyor who wants me to dismiss the Amended info and go with Surveyor "A"s unAmended map just because Surveyor "B" recently agreed with that.

I seriously doubt that Surveyor "B" even did a boundary survey. . . but that's not my call.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. :(

[dmi]

I do not think that the county surveyor can tell you which map to agree with.
You are stating a fact as you see it .Your measurements correspond well with the ammended map and not the un-amended map. Aside from the fact that is it confusing and possibly contradictory, there is no you could not show the unamended map data along with your record and measure for the ammended map.


Is there something you are leaving out?

[bruce hall]

sound good, Good.

[goodgps]

No, I have indeed shown the "un-amended" info

Did the C.S. have any responsibility to bring forth the "Amended" map to Surveyor "B" ? maybe then this confusion wouldn't happen.

[bruce hall]

surveyor B and the CS did not know of the amended map. Without knowing more, that's what I would say. Because if they did, they would probably feel obligated to mention it on the map or during the checking process of surveyor B's RS. It wouldn't be the first time a recorded reference map was missed by the surveyor doing the survey.

[subman]

Good question Good!

Since I assumed the responsibility for signing the County Engineer/Surveyor statement on the final/parcel maps in my County and the Cities that contract with us, I have been waiting for a response from my County Counsel to help me better understand where my duties/liabilities end and the PLS that conducted the field survey and is signing the Surveyors statement begin. The statement "I hereby certify that I have examined this map, that it conforms substantially to the tentative map and all approved alterations thereof; that all provisions of state law, and local subdivision ordinances applicable at the time of approval of the tentative map have been complied with; and that I am satisfied that this map is technically correct (emphasis on technically correct)" can be interpreted differently.

One surveyor may appreciate being asked detailed questions about the method and judgment used in establishing the boundary, where another surveyor will say because that's where I say it belongs and says my role is just to make sure the traverses close in 1:10,000. I am fortunate that the final map business seems to be pretty healthy still in my County, particularly condo maps. I have had the opportunity to review a lot of different surveyors work (probably signed 45 maps in the last two months).

I find it interesting that Proration, the method of last choice, appears to be the most used method of establishment. Particularly on all these condo projects that are re-subdivisions of underlying subdivisions where an existing single family home has existed for 60 years and is being torn down to make way for 4 condo units. All of these homes have existing fences. Don't these fence improvements (if as old as the home) possibly have value in defining lines of occupation and the boundary? A Deputy County Surveyor interested in opinions... Thanks

[Ben Lund]

I have some thoughts on “proration as a last resort.”

The typical example of when proration should not be used as a last resort is a lot and block situation where the block is monumented with a Map but the lots are not. In my opinion, the first surveyor would do well to establish the lots by prorating between the found original monuments. The original monuments as well as the Map represent the intent of the parties (unless proven otherwise).

I’m not trying to advocate some sort of mathmagical solution, it’s a matter of equity. What is fair for the interior lot owners? Are they subject to the fences their neighbors built over a period of time just because the individual lots were not monumented?

[Ian Wilson]

TheThe Doctrine of Equity espouses “fairness”. It should be noted that lower courts generally operate on this doctrine in civil cases. The laws concerning land ownership and boundary do not operate on equity. These laws are based on English Common Law which has its roots in feudal England. The differences between the classes, and particularly land owners and tenants, preclude “equity” per se. One need only look to the Doctrines of Adverse Possession to see that “equity” plays only a small supporting role in the body of law devoted to land ownership.

As surveyors, we are to follow in the footsteps of those who went before us. The one thing of which we can be certain when we employ prorationing is that we are NOT following in the footsteps of our predecessors but are breaking new ground. The hope is that the prorationing comes to the same or similar points. However, it does not deal with equity and fairness.

As surveyors, we search for evidence. We are looking for clues as to where our predecessors went. We look for whatever it was that they set to clue us in to the logic of their methods. If we can find enough evidence to support the locations of both ends of two intersecting lines, we can place a monument to memorialize that intersection, even when that point does not satisfy some mathematical criteria for prorationing.

In the case you mention, Ben, in which the exterior of the block was monumented but none of the interior points were, prorationing IS the last resort because there is no other evidence to find! Keep in mind, though, that I have found the remains of many a wooden hub set at these purportedly un-monumented interior points.

Prorationing is the last resort of a boundary surveyor and the first resort of a mathematician.

[bruce hall]

survey the world and find that if I use the fences for the property lines/lot lines, I come up with lots that are 48 feet wide, 50.5 feet wide, 50.5 feet wide and 49 feet wide. Record is 50 feet wide. My land is the interior two lots. I hold the centerline of the fences and get my land to be 101 feet wide and the two lots at each end being 2 feet short and 1 foot short. The other fences up and down this block create lot widths that eventually make up the record distances in the block.

Did the folks build the centerline of the fences on the lot line or did they build it all on their side, or did they just take a guess pulling a distance down from a power pole that everyone knows is at the property corner? Or did they split the water meters in the front? If you want to hold the fences in a "normal" subdivision for the lot lines, good luck and may the "Force be with You". You will be messing with assesors maps, taxes, and who knows what else.

[subman]

Bruce, just tossing the fence out there as an example to stimulate discussion. I was not trying to imply that should blindly be the basis of establishing the boundary. Only to raise the question of should it be considered as evidence and a decision made before discarding it and moving on to proration.

In a number of cases, there are other recorded condo subdivisions in the same subdivided block that set 2" ips at the corners. The boundary of the current final map being checked is established by proration from the block corner to the boundary of the new final map with the 2" ips for the recorded condo map being between the block corner and the new condo corner being established along the street sideline. The field survey done for the final map being checked does not show those 2" ip monuments being found, only finding and accepting the four centerline monuments for the entire block.

Back to Goods question, is it my responsibility to tell the PLS he may have overlooked existing record monuments that could effect his judgement in establishing his boundary. It is clear from the Assessors map that there are other recorded condo maps in the block. Maybe he should be prorating based on the record distance between lots (based on the underlying map that created the block)from the closest 2" ip and his boundary corner.

As a reference, this situation appears to be similar to portions of Problem #2b from the 2005 State Exam where proration is done from the block corner and the midblock found 1" IP, and not from the 1" ips at both block corners.

As previously stated, just trying to figure out where the limits are on my stamp and signature without ticking off too many surveyors in the meantime. ;-)

Thanks for the comments from those that have responded.

[bruce hall]

are responsible for telling me that there are other maps in the block. I would hope that if there are other surveys, and you know about them, that you would say that I should show these underlying maps on my survey. But utimately I believe it is my HOOK, not the CS's. I have missed maps before(not many) and luckily for me, the CS told me about them. Only once did his revelation to me change my decision as to the boundary, but once is enough, and I was grateful to him. That was in San Bernardino County.

As to whether the previous surveys in the block should be referenced on the map, I think that they should be, and the pipes located. After all those surveys are reestablishing lot lines and lot corners, and there should be x amount of land between those previous pipes and the new ones. But that seems too simple. I know that when I do a survey in a block I will usually look for all the fronts, not necessarily the backs(too many fences and bushes, and the pipes have a better chance of getting knocked out or moved due to fencing) and if I have a record map in the block, most definitely will I look for the pipes. I just know that Carlos at the County is gonna ask for that stuff. This way I don't have to talk to him(just kidding Carlos). Maybe I would prorate from the new pipes to the block corners, maybe not, but at least I should show what's out there.

And again, if you find something that you think may affect the boundary, tell the surveyor. What makes you think he likes you anyway?

[Ben Lund]

Thanks Ian for the clarity. In my example, I would add that unless you can prove the location of the original corner, you are “breaking new ground.” Bruce said it better than I could.

Thanks,
Ben

[goodgps]

Proration only between nearest found monuments to replace obliterated corners.

I get tikked when guys "prorate" from centerline monuments then call "found" monuments off this way or that. They then go on to "prorate" a corner location and hollar " touchdown"

Today, I was telling one of my guys about a map in a certain area, where the surveyor called every found monument "off" and somehow dropped a magic geometric figure onto the ground and made a map. I laugh with discust every time I drive by that place.

signed;
Ralph Buick