California Surveyors Forums

It looks like I may have found a gap. We are still investigating but it looks pretty likely.

This isn't the typical east 50'/west 50' of a 100' wide lot. It is a different situation.

There are two distinct parcels out of two different Titles. The boundary of the two titles is a 1/16th line and therein lies the rub.

The first parcel described in 1938 calls pipes at the corners. The pipes control the boundaries. Two of the pipes do not quite make it all of the way to the 1/16th line but then that wasn't really a problem in 1938. The description starts at a section corner then goes west to a point then south to a pipe and the POB then it goes around the parcel. There is no call for the 1/16th line. So far we have only been able to find one of the pipes (not the POB-it is the opposite corner southeast of the POB). There is an adobe wall around the property that sort of roughly fits the metes and bounds. Back in the 1930s State Forest Rangers (roughly equivelant to today's Battalion Chief) were expected to be a jack of all trades; clean the bathroom, take out the trash, direct fire crews, issue fire permits, write legal descriptions, survey properties, do title work, etc., so some of their work is a bit fuzzy.

The second parcel described in 1949 starts at the 1/16 corner (with a supplemental tie to the Section corner to the east) then goes south along the 1/16th line then around the rest of the parcel never crossing the 1/16th line.

So it appears that we have a 5' to 10' gap between our parcels. The gap is not a third parcel, it is part of the parcel our first parcel was cut out of. Our second parcel came from a completely seperate ownership chain.

It is an interesting problem.

Dave, Does the 1938 deed have any survey records that go with it to show how the positions for the irons were established? Is there any evidence of an attempt to properly break down the section in that survey?

I'm aware that there are IBLA decisions that equated nominal aliquot distances called in deeds with a call to the aliquot line, but don't know if there are any such decisions where a parcel was surveyed by starting at a section corner or 1/4 corner and simply measuring off nominal distances without the surveyor having made an attempt to properly locate the aliquot lines. You've probably already investigated that, but if not, it's probably worth looking into.



Woodcutter, a 30' strip is a common size to accommodate a private roadway. Looking at the title and past uses of the properties to the East & West, would keeping a strip for roadway (or maybe utility) purposes have made sense at the time the deeds for APN 1 and 2 were executed? Is it possible that there is a buried utility or private waterline going through the strip?

Evan-
Those are good questions. I am looking through what old Field Books we have. I haven't found anything yet. The County Surveyor set some corners in 1940 which appear to be the result of a survey; I asked them for what they may have but haven't heard back yet. The CS has corner ties but no R/S that I know of.

-Dave

I found a gap in the Town of Sonoma which I am pretty sure was intended to be a driveway. It was the adjoiner's problem, ultimately it didn't affect our boundary location. I think what happened was a front parcel got deeded off leaving a gap on the right side (from the street) about 15' wide. Then later the rear parcel was sold off without including the 15' strip. I'm pretty sure it was a clumsy attempt to create an easement. Both parcels are owned by one entity and are pretty much filled with a building. The gap area is a patio (commercial business). The current owner of the two parcels is occupying everything. I think it is a case for AP to clear up.

keep in mind by statue, surveys by the CS do have weight, even without a RS.

The reason I want the CS's notes or other data is to find out what his distance along the section line was. The corner tie for the north quarter section corner says it was set at the mid-point on line (it's a little off, of course, but still it is the quarter section corner). The 1938 Deed recites a distance along the Section line very close to the current distance for the nominal quarter mile.

I want to know if the distance was calculated from CS data. If it equals the CS's distance for the mile divided by four then that would be good evidence that the Deed intended to go to the 1/16th corner although that isn't stated explicitly in the description.

The corner tie is dated 1940 but it isn't unlikely that it was an ongoing project and the CS's data was available in 1938.

Hopefully that makes sense.