California Surveyors Forums

Recently, the topic of construction staking has come up again on this board. In the recent discussion, Jim Frame posted the following (here is a link to the discussion in which he made the comment: ( http://www.californiasurveyors.org/clsa ... php?t=3047 ):

"If the property lines of a project site are unambiguously marked (e.g. as documented via Final Map, Record of Survey, Corner Record, etc.), then anyone authorized to perform construction staking may stake improvements related to those property lines. As long as no interpretation as to boundary location is required, it's not boundary surveying.

Don't lose sight of the fact that corner monuments and their associated records are meant to render property line locations accessible to everyone, not just the annointed."

There was a discussion in February 2009 that also went over construction staking and what post 1981 CE’s are able to do ( http://www.californiasurveyors.org/clsa ... php?t=2575 ).

I would like to revisit this issue, albeit a bit more constrained than the previous discussion. For the moment, let’s set aside the discussion of what a post 1981 CE is able to with regards to surveying.

Getting back to the last portion of Jim’s statement: “Don't lose sight of the fact that corner monuments and their associated records are meant to render property line locations accessible to everyone, not just the annointed.”

There appears to be a concept brought forth by many surveyors on this board that this is in fact not true, and that only an LS is able to determine the how a monument relates to a boundary. While I agree with this concept, if taken too far it becomes absurd. If I as a laymen go and hire an LS to stake my corners and the LS marks the property corners, when the LS leaves, can I go knock on my neighbor's door and show him the property corners? From what has been said many times on this board, the answer is NO WAY. Even though I had the LS set the corners 10 minutes ago I am now practicing land surveying because I tell my neighbor these are the property corners outside of the presence of the LS. I am in essence “establishing” the boundary by “accepting” what was set 10 minutes ago by the LS. I hope we would all agree that this would be absurd.

After this absurd example let’s get a bit closer to reality. Again, the same laymen purchases a foreclosure from a new subdivision that was done in 2008. Because it’s a foreclosure the original builder didn’t have enough money to build fences even the homes are just 10 feet apart. This layman has a buddy who is an LS who tells him: “I’ll email you a copy of the Final Map for the new subdivision.” When the layman gets a copy of the Final Map he sees that all of the corners were “unambiguously marked" (remember Jim Frame’s statement above) with all new iron pipes with plugs in the front and rear, the iron pipes are so new there isn’t a hint of rust on them. The layman now strings a line between the two “unambiguously marked” corners. The layman now notices that his neighbor’s kiddy pool is over the property line by a couple of feet; he goes and kindly knocks on the door of his neighbor who agrees with the line and moves the kiddy pool back onto the correct side of the line. Unbeknownst to the layman an LS has been out on the street sitting in his car watching all this unfold. A week later the layman receives a notice from the BPELS stating that he has been practicing land surveying and that he better stop or the board is going to come after him. Outrageous? Was this man “establishing” the property line? (Please don’t tell me this argument isn’t valid because layman are allowed to survey their own property, if this still bothers you change the word "layman" to "contractor", I’m trying to make a point here.)

Are these arguments absurd? Is this layman practicing land surveying?

Again, lets take this one more step, which will probably hit very close to home. The layman in the example above now wants to add onto his house. He has a friend who is a post 1981 CE. The layman has the CE come out to his house and shoot the four “unambiguously marked” corners and the house so that he knows how far he can add onto the house without encroaching in the setbacks. The CE then creates a drawing and a set of plans for a building permit. At the time of construction the CE performs “construction staking” to delineate the new foundation. The same LS who was sitting in his car earlier was also out there the day the CE was doing the construction staking. A week later the CE receives a notice from the BPELS stating that he has been practicing land surveying and that he better stop or the board is going to come after him.

Lets start with the above examples and begin our discussion, remember that the corners above all have been “unambiguously marked". Since this is a purely hypothetical discussion I wish to define "unambiguously marked" as being 100% sure that the points found are the true corners that the layman and CE believe them to be. Alright folks, let me have it...

Dylan,

You are misreading what I and other surveyors have opined and setting up an absurd scenario on a flawed premise.

In your example, a landowner hires an LS, who set's the corner mons, provides a map and goes on his merry way. The landowner then goes to his neighbor and tells him what? "I have determined our common line, and here it is!" or "I just had my property surveyed, and here's where the surveyor marked the line."

These are two very different statements. I'm sure that in practically any such instance, it is a variation of the latter statement that is said. That renders the property line location available to all.

Undoubtedly, these monuments have been unambiguously marked. They are flagged and have a lath next to each one labeled "Smith Prop. Corner". Even if there is a similar iron a few feet away marking the corner of another property, there is no confusion, because the surveyor has made clear which points mark the line in question, and made them easy to identify on the ground. So easy, a CE could do it!

In your second example, you state that the corners are unambiguously marked because they are shiny new and are described on a recent record map. To be unambiguous, they must not only be accurately described and depicted, but also be unique. In a subdivision where every interior monument is a 5/8" rebar with yellow plastic cap marked simply "LS 1234", it can hardly be said that one point is unique from another in its description. At least in many older subs the LS would stamp lot numbers on the IPs.

Now this layman may still be OK if there isn't the little jogs between one back corner of his lot and that of the adjoining lots on the back, or a BC at RW a couple of feet from his front corner. If he is a thoughtful landowner, has some rudimentary map reading skills and knows how to use a tape, he might take it upon himself to measure across his lot to determine which of the two irons a couple feet apart represents his corner. And he might be OK doing so.

But the big flaw in your premise here, when you imagine the LS out looking to catch landowners figuring where their own lines are, is that you ignore the fact that this is the landowners themselves attempting to identify their own line, and then accepting the results of their own efforts. That is hugely different than someone coming along, purporting to have special knowledge about such things, and then identifying the line for the landowner.


In your last example, you have someone (a CE) who is recognized by most laymen, if not the State, as having the special knowledge of a professional to determine property lines. The CE then does so. If that CE is sharp enough to perform the proper checks to ensure that he is on the right points, no harm, no foul. If he knows just enough to be dangerous, that is can read a map, turn an instrument on, and hit a button to record a shot, but with no real special knowledge beyond that of many laymen as to property lines of proper survey field procedure, watch out.

Again, going back to my last post in that other thread, what if he sets up on the front, sights the back, measures a distance 0.2' long, and proceeds with his project? Sometime afterward, instead of your skulky LS hiding in the bushes across the street waiting for someone to practice illegally, the neighbor hires the LS to verify his lines.

In that survey it is found that the CE, instead of setting up on the common front corner, set up on the BC 2' away. He didn't even see the front because it was 0.3' below some new sod. And instead of sighting the back for his client's lot (which he didn't see because there was a garden shed on it), found a flagged iron 10' away, mistaking it for his client's corner when in fact it was the back for the lots facing the street on the opposite side of the block. On a 150' deep lot, front and back lines roughly parallel, that distance is only going to be about 0.2' long. Having found what he was certain were unambiguously marked corners, the CE didn't even bother to locate the monuments on the side of the house where no work was planned.

So the neighbors survey now finds that the CE's client's room addition, instead of meeting the 5' setback, is now encroaching over the line by nearly 2'.


So, in your first absurd scenario, the skulky LS calls BPELS and reports two landowners for surveying w/o a license because they identified their own common line. BPELS will tell him to get lost and get a life (very diplomatically, of course).

In your 2nd scenario, which is not so absurd because most CEs believe they are qualified to do such work whether or not they really are, the skulky LS calls BPELS to report the CE. He is told that, no the CE probably shouldn't be identifying the corners if there is any room for misidentification, or if there is a possibility of other factors besides monumentation and mapping which may have a bearing on the boundary (the 1st reason prevalent in many, if not most residential subs and any place a pincushion is present, the 2nd may be present along any line which has existed for more than 5 years). But it is his license and his risk. If anything goes wrong, he will have put himself at risk by practicing outside of his area of competence and outside of the area of practice for which he is licensed. Call back if any such problem occurs.

In the scenario that I presented, the LS furnishes his client with a map (RS showing encroachment), and his client then goes to the CE's client. After being satisfied that his CE was wrong (might be after accepting the survey map, hiring his own surveyor, or after litigation), the CE's client files a complaint with BPELS, or the LS's client files such a complaint, or the LS files the complaint, whatever. BPELS then, among several other violations they are likely to find, nails the CE for practicing surveying without a license.


Aren't you glad that you are PE_PLS and know how to do this type of job right, and that you are authorized to do it all? No worries.

Evan,

Thanks for your time in drafting a thoughtful reply, I very much appreciate it. From your post I believe I can deduce that under certain circumstances, albeit probably very rare, if the lines/corners are marked unambiguously then it would be permissible for a CE to locate the lines? Are you in effect saying this? Because if you are there are quite a few listening in that may object.

By the way, at the very bottom of my original post I qualified that my markers are unambiguous and that the markers the layman and CE are using ARE in fact the markers they believe them to be. Yes, this is a big hypothetical, but the whole reason of this thread is to say that there may be times when it is proper for a CE to do construction staking using established markers. Many land surveyors on this board completely reject this argument saying that any CE who uses a property line marker to perform construction staking is violating the law because they are "establishing" a line. Considering your rebuttal Evan you stated:

"Undoubtedly, these monuments have been unambiguously marked. They are flagged and have a lath next to each one labeled "Smith Prop. Corner". Even if there is a similar iron a few feet away marking the corner of another property, there is no confusion, because the surveyor has made clear which points mark the line in question, and made them easy to identify on the ground. So easy, a CE could do it!"

Exactly my point. The gray are comes along when the lathes become faded and lost over the seasons, and two years down the road a CE comes along to do construction staking for a foundation because it took the landowner 2 years to get a permit. The CE digs down, finds the corners set two years ago by the LS, checks the corners with the street monuments and finds everything hits perfect. He then stakes out the foundation. Everything is where its supposed to be. Since the lathes are faded or gone, is the CE now "establishing" the line because over the course of 2 years it is no longer unambiguously marked?

Dylan,

I saw that qualifier, but it makes an unrealistic presupposition. How can they be certain that the irons found are the ones they believe them to be? In the scenario I put forth, the CE was certain of that fact, but was wrong.

But to answer your question, yes, there can be circumstances where the monuments are unambiguously marked, and there are no other factors having an affect on the boundary, where a CE could tie to the monumentation and proceed without a surveyor being directly involved in the present project.

But the question then becomes: How does the person not having the expertise in boundaries know when those conditions are present?

In the end, the CE, like any professional, must know the limits of one's expertise. If there is any question, call the appropriate professional. The problem that too often occurs with CEs and surveying, is that even if they know how to properly measure and to properly read a map, many not only do not understand the factors which must be interpreted according to case or common law that might affect a boundary, but have no idea how to recognize when such factors may be present. They think of it as strictly an matter of measurment and mathematics. Many times that will suffice. Occasionally it won't.

Most CE degrees have very little surveying content in them anymore. Some have none. Most forestry degree programs have as much or more, yet we don't have these discussions about whether or not a forester is authorized to mark harvest lines dependent upon boundaries (maybe we should).

IMO, in light of the fact that there is so little survey content in a CE degree, and that most CEs while having regular contact with surveyors, attain little direct experience at a responsible level, they should be required to meet the same experience requirements as anyone else to sit for the exam. Also, I think that the PE Act provides for too much survey authority within the practice of engineering. I realize that there is the Survey portion of the CE exam, but it should be more stringent - at least to the same level as the LSIT. But I'm spinning off on a trangent.

Evan,

Thanks again for your imput. As long as a CE is authorized to do "construction staking" or "engineering surveying" these problems will always be with us. Because CE's are allowed to do these things they can and often do violate the law and hide behind "construction staking" or "engineering surveying" as an excuse. Often times the only time a violation is noticed is when there is a major screw up on a boundary, like you pointed out. Again, thanks for participating in this discussion, I think the moral of all of this is only practice where you are competent, and hopefully your license allows you to do what you're practicing!!