California Surveyors Forums

Is the monument an interior corner or an exterior corner? What county you in?

I would say if the pipe appears to be the original and undisturbed you should hold it for line and show the discrepancy on a Record of Survey (alternate position of a line 8762(c) of the Land Surveyors' Act).

If the two owners are willing they can either quite claim to monument or map.


But that's just me

From your description, I don't read that this particular iron has an effect on the exterior boundary of the PM, just the location of the northerly corner common to Parcels A and B.

That being the case, it's not a matter of the PM surveyor having blown the overall boundary (a retracement), but of having created a map which does not accurately reflect the original survey of the dividing line between Parcels A and B. The map is intended to reflect the survey. Unless you can definitively show that this iron was set after the map recorded and was intended to occupy the location indicated on the map, it would be the map considered to be in error in not accurately reflecting the survey.

In general, and with the given set of facts, found mon holds over map. Definite material discrepancy, mandatory RS.

IMHO, of course.

But before just proceeding, I would, as Vance suggests, contact the owner, giving them the facts. Your client and the adjoiner might be agreeable to holding the mapped line, in which sace, you would set a new mon at the position indicated on the map. But still, you have found material evidence not shown (correctly) on the record map, or a material discrepancy, depending upon how you view it. Still a mandatory RS. I don't really see any reasoning to get around the RS requirement in this case. It is tagged, you've positively identified it, so it's not just a piece of junk iron.

You are going to need to prove that the pipe was set in error. That can be a big mountain to clime. The courts have ruled time and time again that a original undistributed monument holds as the true intent of the subdivider. The map just acts like a finger pointer to find these monuments.

See if you can find who has the records of this surveyor. Maybe you can get lucky and find where the error might have occurred.

Good luck

Steve,
This is a great “real world” example you’ve given us. I agree with the majority that an ROS filing is mandatory. Personally, I would probably hold the map dimensions for establishing the property corner and call the found monument off.

The why revolves around the Parcel Map process which includes everything involved in the requirements established by the agencies and subdivision map act. In other words, the PM was checked for compliance with local ordinances and the SMA and conditionally approved. The PM (paper) and all other required plans and documents constitute what is supposed to happen in the form of required improvements and monumentation per the PM. Who checks/approves the location of the final monumentation? The assessor is charging taxes based on the mapped area.

This is a great example (IMHO) of a situation where the FD ORIGINAL does NOT hold over the dimensions shown on the map. Certainly holding the FD ORIGINAL creates a parcel that was never approved by the agency.

As for the question, “Where is the property line”, certainly the surveying community will have differing opinions on this one as to what to hold. A judge might rule in either direction in this case, but I would guess the judge would hold the mapped dimensions. Thanks for the post!

Why shouldn't this person not been able to survey, as suggested by the County Surveyor and information that you have gathered?

Like always you are going to need to defend your decision, not just to yourself but to the owners, judges, ect..,

Also as a side note, does anyone know of any cases in California where the map dimensions held over found monuments?

Remember, filing a RS does not constitute a constructive notice, the Parcel Map filed is. RS filed is just an opinion of that LS. It will not change the boundary line in this case.

Found monuments called for in the recorded Parcel Map controls.

Evidence that, by reasonable analysis, might result in materially alternate position of lines or points........blah, blah.

This is RS territory. BWTFDIK

And another thing. It might be best to find out from the owners where they think the line is, or at least approximately the location of where they think it is. They may not know, but maybe they do. Do this prior to giving them the facts, so that their opinion as to where the line is located is not influenced by the facts that you have discovered.

And another, another thing. Is the monument in its' original position? Did somebody move it? Kinda hard to say, but I know of instances where monuments were moved for whatever reason, usually not good.

bruce hall, agree.
But that will not change the boundary location. It can only be decided by court. Do you agree?

have the final say in where their common line is. That is if they can come to an agrement. If they can't wellllllllll.

They very well may rely on the surveyor's facts and or suggestions, maybe not. It may cost them money to "change" the common line, if that in fact is what they are doing. But more than likely keeping this matter away from the courts will save the landowners time, money, and most importantly grief. (Try putting a price tag on grief, space being rented in my head with no compensation, and all the other stuff that goes with it.)

When was the shed constructed? If it existed prior to the Parcel Map, did the owners really want this line going through the corner of the shed? If it was built afterwords, then why was it built were it was built?

Is it a piece of xxxx or is it something on a concrete footing, with power, lights, ac. Something that one could grow "orchids" in?

Attorneys can provide the general public, us included, great advice. Buuuttttt, if the law was so simple, cut and dried, we certainly wouldn't need them.

turned the angle, did he turn it in the wrong quadrant? If he did, then the pipe would fit that angle.

Be care, the existing shed location. The unwritten right may also ripen into fee.

Steve,

From a Colorado surveyor's viewpoint, you appear to be asking if it is okay to have an error tolerance for rejecting an original, undisturbed monument. You note a 7.5 foot discrepancy with the record and wonder if that is "too much" to accept the monument. The usual statement is, "If the error was only less than x.xx feet, I would have accepted it without question." Surveyors often find themselves in the position of wanting to "fix" an error found during a survey as if cadastral cleanliness is always the proper remedy whenever a blunder is discovered.

My advice is to accept and hold the original, undisturbed (and tagged) pin and depict it on your map. If the two owners (thankfully, there are only two) wish to hold the original map instead of the found pin, then assist them in crafting a boundary line agreement to "cure" the problem.

I won't go into the specifics of Colorado case law, but a recent decision by our Surpreme Court addresses the "blunder rule" and not surprisingly, monuments once again were declared superior to course and distance.

Cheers,
Gene Kooper, CO PLS

What about the issue of the sub-standard parcel? The intent was to create a parcel that complies with current minimum zoning standards. As monumented, it does not.

If the current owner of the sub-standard parcel choses to permit for proposed improvements and discovers that he cannot because of an acreage issue, what happens then.

I probably missed this, but Steve, do you know if the subdivider is still alive? He can shed light on the intent, and perhaps clear that issue up regarding the shed.

Maybe a dumb question Steve, does Placer County require all lot corners to be monumented? In my County, only the exterior boundary is monumented on the recorded parcel map. From your description, this sounds like an interior lot line between parcel A and parcel B that tees into the exterior boundary (and is not an angle point). Does the PM show a monument set at the NE corner of parcel A or are you just finding one there. Maybe posting a pdf of the parcel map might help get a better visual image.

Yes good idea about the tentative too. I think if you can find that subdivider that can really clear up this issue.

If the line has not been relied on, and both parties acknowledge the monument is not the true corner, what are the opinions of filing/recording a Certificate of Correction or Amending Map to show the iron pipe offset from the true corner by the appropriate bearings and distances (see 66469(b) below). The Certificate of Correction/Amending Map imparts constructive notice.




66469. Final or Parcel Maps may be Amended by a Certificate of Correction or Amending Map
After a final map or parcel map is filed in the office of the county recorder, it may be amended by a certificate of correction
or an amending map for any of the following purposes:
(a) To correct an error in any course or distance shown thereon.
(b) To show any course or distance that was omitted therefrom.
(c) To correct an error in the description of the real property shown on the map.
(d) To indicate monuments set after the death, disability, retirement from practice, or replacement of the engineer or
surveyor charged with responsibilities for setting monuments.
(e) To show the proper location or character of any monument which has been changed in location or character
44
originally was shown at the wrong location or incorrectly as to its character.
(f) To correct any additional information filed or recorded pursuant to Section 66434.2, if the correction does not impose
any additional burden on the present fee owners of the real property and does not alter any right, title, or interest in the real
property reflected on the recorded map.
(g) To correct any other type of map error or omission as approved by the county surveyor or city engineer that does
not affect any property right, including, but not limited to, lot numbers, acreage, street names, and identification of adjacent
record maps.
As used in this section, “errorâ€￾ does not include changes in courses or distances from which an error is not ascertainable
from the data shown on the final or parcel map.

I would doubt the issue is some rock/concrete. A 7.5' offset would be odd for this.

Steve yes it is "Bryan", thanks.

I believe part of the reasoning behind holding FD ORIGINAL is that owners see the line marked on the ground and then have the opportunity to rely on such. Even if they do see the map, they don’t normally have the skills or fortitude to apply the map dimensions to the ground.

In this case, they never new about the monument and have only “paper” evidence. Do you own land? How much land do you own? How do you know how much land you own? You know how much land you own from your DEED, that references the MAP, that shows monuments should have been set per the dimensions shown, that given the dimensions shown you own a certain amount of land AREA.

Many parcels are created on PAPER only. These parcels only exist in the first place because they meet all of the requirements of the agency. The agency has only approved the subdivision as it is shown on the parcel map NOT some blunder of a subdivision line. Who’s to say the monument wasn’t moved? There is certainly some very strong evidence that either 1. The monument was set in the WRONG place OR 2. The monument was set in the correct position but later was moved. Either way the lots exist as shown on the PM.

Does Placer County require a certification letter from the LS of record that states "all monuments have been set per PM XXXX"?

Dave Woolley makes a good point about the need to research, find, and analyze ALL of the data.

One more thing to consider, but which I doubt will come into play.

Was a home constructed on the setback line for this lot line, at the time of subdivision? If so, then it too would monument the lot line.

Good thread btw; I'm taking notes.

Anthony Maffia wrote:One more thing to consider, but which I doubt will come into play.

Was a home constructed on the setback line for this lot line, at the time of subdivision? If so, then it too would monument the lot line.

Good thread btw; I'm taking notes.

It would provide evidence of where the line might be, but a monument to the line?

It could be considered supporting evidence. An assistance county surveyor once told me that, in his opinion, constructing houses on setback lines turned them into offset monuments to the line, and (again in his opinion) we should be filing a corner record for the foundation forms. I smiled.

But also, finding where lot lines were on a block with 120 year old buildings, 0 side yard setbacks - well, the buildings were supposed to be on their respective properties, right?

It's just something else to look for.