Procedure vs Magnitude

[Ben Lund]

Wilson and Woolley sparked this thread idea…

“When the surveyor has doubt as to the location on the ground of street or lot lines being within the tolerances cited above (for such reasons as street and lot lines being undefinable (sic) or indefinite because of insufficient monuments or markers in the ground or where errors are found to exist in the descriptions of legal or recorded plats or maps of streets and lots), the surveyor shall clearly indicate the nature of the difficulty or discrepancy and give his professional opinion as to range and scope of differences possibly involved and the effect, under the circumstances, of same on the surveyed positions. It is expected that the exercise of professional judgment by the surveyor will minimize differences of opinions with other professional surveyors exercising equally prudent judgment in such situation.â€￾

Everytime I read that last sentence, I hesitate.
I agree that:
1. as professionals, we should be allowed to use our professional judgment
2. our profession should not be legislated to the hilt
3. you can always find an exception to the rule

On the other hand, I would rather the profession lean towards following what the book/law says as to procedure and NOT try and find and apply exceptions to the rule in order to “minimize differences.â€￾ As expert measurers, we are acutely aware of the magnitude of differences but in my opinion, procedure should trump magnitude.

The courts seem to be good at trying to minimize differences and this will sometimes frustrate the surveyor community because the courts will sometimes apply the exception to the rule to minimize damages. Thoughts?

[LS_8750]

What are we measuring? It seems to me that the differences arise from gathering and weighing evidence. The problem for surveyors is they just don't seem to gather the same (or enough) evidence, give that evidence its rightful weight, and then make a consistent determination regarding boundary location. The courts are telling us to do our job correctly and minimize litigation by "exercising equally prudent judgement".

[E_Page]

What Clark said. We have to identify the "what" before we can determine the "where". The "what" may be very clearly identified in the deed; it may appear to be clearly identified in the deed, only to become less clear as one attempts to apply it to the ground; it may be clarified by additional evidence; or it may be completely identifiable only if one resorts to evidence outside the deed to discover what the description author meant.

"Part" descriptions are particularly susceptible to a variety of interpretations, and I think that's what Ian was pointing out. Robillard et al state principles as Dave presented. The surveyor needs to be able to determine when such principles are nearly inviolatate rules, when they are presumptions based in law or in science, and when they are merely guidelines.

There is no law that states that the east line of the west half of a property must be parallel to the west line. In many cases, it is a good guideline to adhere to. Sometimes it is contrary to the evidence of an original establishment of the boundary or contrary to the general rule which should be followed in a certain system.

Aliquot parts in the PLSS are not to be broken down that way. Nor except in certain cases are they to be broken down as precisely equal areas.

The principles in the "Brown" books are nearly all at least good guidelines to look to. Some are things that a surveyor should always try to adhere to. But each is something that the surveyor referring to the book should check against the laws (statute and common) of his own state. In quite a few cases, you will find that the principles given may have no basis in applicable law, but merely reflect the opinions of the authors.

There are few, if any totally inflexible laws or principles in land surveying. The exercise of professional judgment is in recognizing when a principle may apply, and if it doesn't apply perfectly, how much flex is in that principle.

[Ben Lund]

My motivation to start this thread was based on an experience recently where a PM showed all of the found monuments matching record except for one which was called off. The off monument happened to be an interior monument set from a previous subdivision and therefore represented the actual location of the lot corner. All other found monuments were junior monuments set on senior lines meaning monuments set on lines that were created by other original monuments.

I believe the previous surveyor was trying to perform some sort of "best fit the record shape" strategy and therefore chose to minimize mathematical differences instead of following the appropriate procedure. Seems like found undisturbed original should be given the highest weight.

[Gromatici]

The scenario you just described is a typical survey performed around here. I once saw a surveyor hold two monuments (centerline tie points) and call off all the actual lot corners because they didn't fit by a couple of tenths, sometimes a little more (I'm talking about points that aren't on the right-of-way).

When I looked at it I saw that the Parcel was created by a record data only parcel map. Prior to that it was a lot in a subdivision, that was a remainder parcel of a larger tract map. It was the area in between several "phased" subdivisions and dimensions of the remainder lot itself were likely compiled from record data of the surrounding subdivision maps. In other words: The parcel was created using record data and any monuments found along it's exterior are the simultaneously created lots and the monumented subdivision lines and should be accepted.

Fortunately the county surveyor agreed with me. However, a trick I've seen some "local land surveyors" use is they accept two monuments and call everything else off so they don't have to file a Record of Survey. Then they slap a disclaimer on the map that says "different results may be found by accepting other monuments in the area" or something like that.

It's also cheaper to do it this way since you don't have to dig more than a foot for monuments, don't have to spend time deciding what monuments to accept or reject (you reject ANY that don't fit) and don't have to file anything (unless you're doing a Final or Parcel Map).

[bruce hall]

""Then they slap a disclaimer on the map that says "different results may be found by accepting other monuments in the area" or something like that.""

I just can't fathom how a surveyor could say something like that on an un filed map. A RS could say that, I suppose since there is verbage regarding alternate positions and such.

That is just some weird stuff Eric. That really isn't much of a "trick". I would think that there is probably too much weed or booze occupying the surveyors head, or the brain is still reeling from the effects therefrom. Doesn't sound like clearheaded (sober) thinking, not even close. Maybe that is an excuse, albeit a poor one.

[Ric7308]

Ben / Gromatici,

Many of the complaints that the Board reviews involving land surveying and boundaries share commonality with what you have stated in your most recent posts. I believe the coincident here is that the subjects of those complaints are either exhibiting incompetence in that they do not know any better or negligence in that they do know better, but refuse to demonstrate it for what ever reason, in much the same way that preparers of those surveys that you two have mentioned may be.

The "trick" you mentioned does not necessarily eliminate the RS filing requirement and the "disclaimer" is benign and does not eliminate them of their professional obligations.

If that "disclaimer" was valid, then why limit boundary surveying to land surveyors? Everyone could produce a map with that same statement or variation thereof.

[Ben Lund]

Good points and I appreciate the posts.

I never understood the procedure of fitting record shape to as many found monuments as possible and calling the rest off (or not showing the off monuments). I'm equally confused when county surveyors accept this procedure in the subdividing of land or in the identification of property and boundary lines.

It seems negligent when Surveyors choose what monuments they found and surveyed to show on the map based upon 8764(a), even though the requirement is specific to Records of Survey.

What percentage of the LS community would you say use the record shape procedure? I would guess the majority. That is scary. That also does not make it right or the "standard of practice".

By holding record shape, property is subdivided, encroachments are identified, setbacks are certified, and monuments are set and relied upon by the public. What weight do we give relied upon monuments of this nature? More weight than found original?

We surveyors have created this problem by being negligent in the practice of holding two monuments and plotting record shape. We have acted negligently when we chose to "minimize differences of opinions" (see original post) instead of following proper procedure. In this sense, we are trying to minimize liability and avoid conflict but we have the opposite effect at the judicial level because the courts rule (or should rule) on principles of procedure not to achieve the minimization of differences of opinion.