California Surveyors Forums

Well, perhaps their thinking is that each parcel of private land is established by deed or map, and therefor can be retraced. But then again, if the property controlling monument (govt corner) is lost ? then what.

We all are very aware that corners and positions can become "lost" due to ambiguous deeds, errors, acts of nature, . . . all kinds of stuff.

Just think of the (center section) point.

Truely, this point is an intersection of opposing original quarters. (original positions)
This particular non-governemnt corner, seems to become lost often and in itself is a corner of great controversy amongst Surveyors. [as to establishment]

Indeed, it would not be wise to hang ones hat on some article, or even one text book for that matter. But they do make interesting reading.

I hope I didnt get too far off point.

Thats a Whole lot of Info Jerry !!!
Thanks !!!!

Still . . . a lost corner is a lost corner, and that requires some real down home thinkin, research and dumb luck, to get it close to its original position.

I recommend talkin to all of the parties involved and also previous owners of the land if possible.

35 years ago, we had a "lost" corner that was marked by a redwood post.
The old neighbor lady brought out an older man in a wheel chair. after a while, the old man said he remembered the corner "right about" where "I" happened to be standing.

We dug a hole and found it !!!

There's a many way to find a "lost" corner other than text books.

I think that's what Lucas is trying to point out: Too many surveyors rush to use mathematical solutions to problems because that's the easy way out. Coordinates x&y say it's here..... nope, let's call it lost and reset it at Double Proportionate measure. I'm an advocate of using ANY evidence to restore it. Is there a Record of Survey with a couple of ties to it? Is there long accepted lines of occupation? I've seen a lot of old timers used fences to restore corners and even call of found pipes! Maybe they knew something! Why rush in to use the "Manual" especially when the survey is between private parties? Of course if the line of title is a "PLSS" line, then we're retracing that line so do we strictly adhere to the "rules" or as professionals do we use the entirety of the knowledge we have to determine the boundary?

If it is obliterated, we should be able to pull from the many common laws and survey methods before we have to resort to a rule in a book designed for federal employees. Fences are monuments. Lines run and accepted over generations, even if the improper methods were used originally are the section line now. I don't the courts like to "disrupt" neighborhoods because the line was stubbed in and not set using DP.

The center of section is the perfect example. Is it here? (1910) or is it here (1950) or is it here? (2010). It is really always the intersection of opposite and corresponding 1/4 corners? What is it now if in 1910 they set it and now in 2010 you find it's off by 3'. However, there have been numerous subdivisions all accepting it as a Center Section? Does all that acceptance mean nothing because you have GPS and can measure more accurately?

Sec. 8773 is just referring to lost corners and what must be filed when restoring them, and it not codifying into law the whole Manual or circumventing the resources a private property surveyor can use to restore that corner. This might be different that what resources a federal employee might use such as Record of Surveys showing ties to that corner.

I hear what you're saying. There are two ends of the spectrum. I think for the exam, the basics need and are being tested, but in the real world it's always a little more complex. I think it's good to hear both ends to keep my edge sharp. The example you gave was a good one since the surveyor was basically coming up with something purely practical and not based on the methods accepted by the majority in the Surveying Profession, and enforced by the Board.

I've got a good one for you. I'll send it your way. It will take some splanin' to do.

Come to find Lucas article has nothing to do with the center of section, except that it needed to be established. It was more about accepting long standing monuments set by an "improper" method vs. using Double Proportion. The original monument was set and then destroyed (I guess, since the article doesn't state it) and the sesequent surveyor did not use the proper method to establish the corner common to four sections. He set it by doing a single proportion since that's the way the line was run. Anyway, fast-forward and now it's an issue of where the section corner common to four sections is. Should we "fix" the improperly established section corner or accept it?

Does anyone have a PDF of the court case Lucas was referring too in his latest article? I used to be able to download these from Lexis Nexis and FindLaw.com but something has changed. Anyway here is the cite:

State of California v. Thompson, 1971 Cal.App. LEXIS 1731 (Cal.App.1971


http://www.pobonline.com/Articles/Colum ... 0000722576

The incorrect method was used to set a "lost corner". Years later one surveyor accepted the monument as set (using single proportion when Double Proportion "should" have been used). The Thompson surveyor threw out the long standing monuments and used DP to reset the corner.

Interesting case, since I've seen this in SB county. I want to see when the survey was done since the one we have here has been around since the 1940's.

I have not read the article, nor the case, but it sounds interesting. If the monument which was originally not set "correctly" a long time ago was accepted and relied upon and I could re-establish its location fairly well, I would have a hard time ignoring that and going with some double proportion and upsetting the long standing occupations/improvements.

I know some differ with this because I dealt with something very similar in a recent and very litigious issue among neighbors in another county. Surveyors can make a massive mess by insisting on "proper" methodology in old neighborhoods when that means putting property lines through 80 year old homes and occupation (which was my situation).