California Surveyors Forums

I have approximately 3-4 record maps I need for a job in Marin County. I have scanned copies from a title company, but they are not very good quality. I'm going to have to get better copies from either the Recorder or County Surveyors office. It's been about 6 years since I've last ordered maps from Marin. Last time you had to send a check and then they would send you paper copies. Do they still do it that way or will they send you digital copies via e-mail?
Also, do they have an index or some kind of GIS to see what maps are in a certain area? I don't see anything on line. Thanks.

You might want to talk to Larry Stevens before jumping on anything in Marin. He has a lot of records that aren't available anywhere else.

.

Mike,
Marin County can be a challenging place to survey in. As Jim points out there are secret records one has to know about that in some cases can be helpful. L Stevens is only one person who has some of these records. There are at least 4 others. Bring your check book if you plan on accessing those private files. Each person charges $150 (access fee) and up to open their records. The Marin CLSA chapter offers a comprehensive index of maps in an Excel spread sheet format for a fee. Marin County has a partial listing of maps on their AP Maps which can be accessed through the Marin Map website through the assessor office portal. You can also down load corner records through the same site. The only other way is to go to the CS office.

Send me a PM and I can give you the names of the other private record holders.

Mike Ford

Mr. Turnrose,

The records have never been secret, but you do need to be a prudent surveyor and ask local surveyors who are prudent, in any area you decide to work in. How and what to research before conducting a survey in a difficult areas, many times is the foundation to proper survey retracement. This is true in any area of California and the majority of the U.S. On my website, I list the different archives I have and the different archives that are generally accessible. I also gave a list to Sonoma CLSA of who has what and they have those and others on their website. It lists the owners of the archive and the individual LS/CE or surveyors who practice prior to the licensing laws.


Unfortunately, you will find filed maps that have little or no evidence presented for their boundary resolves. Usually, this stems from the individual believing they can find two monuments and resolve the world and calling every other monument off a calculated position. They do this without knowing the pedigree of the monument or performing any research. A prudent surveyor should be able to draw a conclusion that there may be more to the story.


I also own the maps of one of the oldest title plants in Marin. These came to me in a cargo van that was filled and I have absorbed the expense of placing them in some kind of order. I also have had to catalog other surveyor’s files to make them retrievable (it is presently ongoing). The cost to rent the office, purchase the records catalog them and begin a database that has approximately 37,000 entries, thus far, is well in to six figures. I have been very successful in finding the parent parcels and first cut surveys that created lines in these documents.

I did a survey of one line that had been surveyed prior on a Parcel Map and a 1986 ROS by the owner of the largest archive in Marin at that time. The ROS also found monuments that did not match the deed dimensions and were called off on one of my client’s boundaries. They have applied for a driveway and second unit. The County has asked my client for the rest of the boundary to be certified by an (LS). After obtaining a professional agreement to proceed with a retracement survey and ROS, I researched my archives and found a topo map from 1972 that had found the one monument called off in 1986 and others established by the same surveyor.

I also discovered within my title plant archives the old survey maps that had split the parent parcels that I also bordered on. In addition, I discovered the original deeds for all of my lines in question. In 1946, the original parcel and neighbors were created by a survey and subsequent deed conveyances (nowhere in the description gives mention to any survey or monuments being established to control the lines being created) and our south line was created in about 1957 by the monuments that were called off in the 1986 survey. The 1957 survey information could not be found by the archive owner (Phil Danskin) since it was never cataloged properly. It was only after I had discovered the names of the grantor / grantees involved was he able to go to an order book, and he magically found the original plat. (Thanks Phil for the perseverance).

I was lucky the following surveyors had made reference to the tag number, because I easily could have used a 1956 proposed plat by a different surveyor as the best available evidence and been 3 feet off in my resolve. All of the original points, except one, were redwood hubs. The 1946 hubs were in much better shape than the 1957 hubs which were just remnants. I suspect the 57 hubs were conheart and not clearheart redwood.


You can get all of the filed maps on disk and many historical documents from the County Recorder’s office. The cost is approximately $45.00. You just have to send them a check.


Send me an email with the documents you have, the AP blocks you need to have researched and I'll check the recorded maps database and take a quick look at our in progress database. The record maps database also has pending ROS's or letters of extension to filling a ROS on particular surveys. Or if you plan on doing more than the occasional survey in Marin, I suggest you contact the Marin CLSA Sec for prices of the database. This area is a land mine though, so proceed with caution. I'll be happy to provide you some additional insights on the phone. I will be in the office later today and probably tomorrow.



Best,

Thank you Larry for the commercial break for the LA Stevens Land Surveying Company. As far as the records being secret I guess one would have to define secret. If everyone has equal access to those records then you’re correct. However, if you limit access to those records by charging outrageous fees, upwards of $500 for one map and in at least one case $1,000, then as far as the public is concerned the records are secret because you are the only person who has unfettered access.

The point of my post was that there is more than one source of off record information and if you don’t know the secrets to find out who those people are you may not want venture into the “mine field” of Marin County surveying. The off record map controversy was created by an older generation of surveyors and is being continued by some in the current generation. Local knowledge is something to consider when working in unfamiliar areas. My advice to anyone considering working in Marin County is to do your homework and keep in mind the records Larry is offering will come at a price.

In my experience the majority of the off record maps are by past surveyors that didn’t bother to file maps as required. Those maps are now considered by some as the holy grail of Marin County surveying. In some cases they can be valuable. In most cases the maps aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. As far as the off record maps in Marin County are concerned, buyer beware.

In closing, if you find a reference to an unrecorded map on a ROS, be sure to make a public records act request to the CS office for a copy. §6250 requires the CS to keep copies of that information.

Good luck.

Hello Mike Turnrose!

Long time. Hope all is well. And I pray you’re not working in Ridgeway Park (subd) or Christmas Tree hill area. Nasty areas.

(And the other Mike, thank you for adding fuel to the fire.)

Well . . . As you may surmise, Marin boundaries are not always a slam-dunk. Many subdivisions delineating monuments have monuments that were never set. Over time they have been paved over and subsequently destroyed by utility improvements.

I have been working in Marin since 1971 and am still learning that there are things to learn from my professional peers. Much education can be obtained by way of “war storiesâ€￾ and “Marin Boundaryâ€￾ presentations at the local Chapter of CLSA.

One instance: Mr. Schroeder, who owns the oldest survey archives in Marin (back to 1860s) gave an EXTREMELY interesting boundary situation of a modern day subdivision whose monuments are off by five feet. (A course blunder on the subdivision map). This finding has many legal ramifications. Much banter, philosophy and law was discussed subsequent to that presentation.

I suggest you attend Chapter meeting, know your peers and get some education - especially if you are going to practice in Marin where property values are high as the improvements. Having a court defensible boundary resolution is right only for the client, but also for the surveyor. It could save he or she from a visit by BPELSG.

‘Course, I’m preachin’ to the choir.

I had a case in a Marin county city whereby the neighbor turned me into BPELSG and their surveyor did no research beyond “recorded mapsâ€￾ nor found a fifty-year-old point that perpetuated original wood hubs set by the subdividing surveyor in the 1940s. The money I spent on original field notes, plats, copies was nothing. And the BPELSG complaint was unfounded. (The latter cost me $200+/- in copy fees, about thirty hours to respond to BPELSG and eight months of insomnia.)

Practice tip #1: “Budgetâ€￾ $1,000 for unrecorded records and the same for chain of title (if needed). (Odds are this would be a conservative number.) This is cheap considering . . . by the time the challenged survey gets to deposition, the interested parties may have well over $ 40,000 in legal fees. If the surveyor performed all the necessary research and found good evidence - odds are the survey may not be contested.

Practice tip #2: Ford is correct that some surveys are re-surveys or less and may not be worth the paper they are drafted upon. However, if you don’t do the research, how can you vet the good from the bad? Some surveyor don’t even vet a recorded survey and are found to have “boughtâ€￾ defending the hung-his-hat-on recorded survey. Which may not be conclusive evidence of the true boundary - rather a poor opinion.

Practice tip #3: During the hay-days of development, large survey companies sent out their crews to set boundary corners, probably multiple boundaries during a day. Then, right or wrong, the office surveyor who was the responsible charge reviewed the field work and may have altered the field crews boundary resolution. Subsequently, the final survey plat will show the set points as “offsetâ€￾ points to the corner(s). I don’t agree with this business practice but that it is what happened. One might find one of those old hubs, hang your hat on it, and without research, find later that it was an offset point shown on a survey plat sixty years ago. Yes there are legal issues with that too. And it is not in court that you want to see that plat for the first time!

Give me a call Mike and I’d be happy help or point you in the right direction.

Best wishes,

Phil - Sonoma

Phil,
Thank you for reinforcing my point that surveying in Marin County can be an adventure and in some cases an expensive adventure. The $1000 budget for off record maps is most likely low. There are at least 3 other surveyors in Marin County in addition to those mentioned with private survey records that, if you are “prudentâ€￾ (as L Stevens points out), you would need to consult their files also. It doesn’t take long to see a pattern emerging from a small group of surveyors in Marin Co. that own or control the records of deceased or retired surveyors. If you don’t consult them and pay a Marin County surveying toll you may in violation of the PLS Act and subject to a BPLESG complaint for lack of due diligence. (BTW that’s already happened to at least one surveyor)

What hasn’t been mentioned, so far, is that you personally don’t do your research. The record holders will do your research for you on an hourly basis with a deposit and bill you later for the final cost. They decide what information you need. Two examples. I requested copies of off record maps from one person who sent me a stipulation agreement to sign prior to beginning the research that stated I could not copy, distribute or share in any format with anyone, including the County Surveyor, the information I received from him. That person required a $300 deposit and I would be billed for the additional amount upon delivery of the information. Another of the record holders wants $450 deposit ($300 archive access fee +$150/hr, 1hr min) and I would be billed any additional hourly fee plus $50 per copy for any map of other data he decided I needed for my survey. Such is the state of surveying in Marin County.

The same record holders, including Phil and Larry, vehemently oppose making the off record information public, which I find curious given their concern for the public’s interest in getting boundaries correct in Marin County. In an earlier post I referenced the §6250, the California Public Records Act. If anyone references a map or other data source not currently on file in a public record the county surveyor is required to keep copies of that information on file and available to the public. If you avail yourself of their services be aware of any agreement you sign to not make that information public. You may inadvertently open yourself to possible litigation for following the law by providing copies to the CS.

Again, Phil thank you for helping me educate other surveyors on the Marin County surveying mine field.

Mike Ford

Mike T - I have a good deal of record maps if you need some emailed to you. Drop me an email if you need any. I should be able to have them. At one time I was able to purchase the maps from the County, but it has been a few years.

As mentioned several times now, I would be very wary about areas of Marin County that are not "slam-dunk" type monumented subdivisions. I have learned the hard way out there.

My Dad grew up in Mill Valley and graduated from Tamalpais High School in about 1943.

He graduated from Cal with a BSCE around 1952 and started his career mainly in Surveying in Marin County about that time.

It seems to me he told us (probably 40 years ago) that there was a Surveyor in the Mill Valley hills they were trying to follow from the early 20s (maybe). They finally figured out that Surveyor just recorded raw slope distances on the maps/deeds and that's the reason they had so much trouble following him. This is a childhood memory so I probably have the details somewhat fuzzy (I'm filling in likely information too). I've wondered about that for the past 10 years or so.

Just for fun and my own edification I've been doing some research on the Agreed Boundary case of Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church (1959). I'm trying to put together the title/survey story of the case and have found out a few interesting things. The County Surveyor shows the block as being 299' wide along 5th Street but the current assessor plat adds up to 300' (I assume from the Deeds but I don't have all of the Deeds). The first Deed description I found for what became Ernie's lot starts on the west at a point 100' west of D street then goes 60' more or less to a point 140' east of E Street. That owner, Hock, sold 5' of the 60' wide lot to the Church but with a single tie to the east (I'm pretty sure the Church thought they were getting 5' from Hock, not 4' from Hock and 1' from themselves). Ernie acquired what appeared to be a 55' wide lot and the qualifying language about the overage/underage got dropped from subsequent Deeds. The Deeds say one thing as if it's a perfect world but what actually happened is another. The Church supposedly had a Survey of its east line at the time of the 5' acquisition (1925). Later Ernie had a Survey in 1952 that caused about a 1' overlap into the Church parcel. I think the 1952 Surveyor just read the Deed and didn't really go beyond that; just stake the Deed, ignore all the other possibilities.

That project is on hold while I work on research and writing of another article.

Thanks for all your responses and input. I really appreciate it. I was aware that there are difficult areas in that county, but now I'm more aware.

Thanks Bryan, but I believe I have all the record maps I need at this point.

Protecting the home turf. Been going on up there, and in other States, for decades.

Maybe we need a law that non record maps are not acceptable as reference, make those old surveyors record their maps instead of getting paid for the survey twice. As they die are their records listed on Ebay to get the top dollar.

If the CS requires a copy of the non reference map how does the surveyor comply without violating the agreement he signed. He can't so IMO that makes the non record maps useless. How does the owner of the non record maps comply with the CS requirement? If he does he is making his precious records public, if he doesn't then his map should not be accepted.

I guess all the other surveyors can do is pray for a fire.

Must be those guys with the concrete vaults of precious maps that don't care if the State adds taxes and fees to us.

Why is it you can never get a Dr or Atty to talk against another in his profession but surveyors are always ready to screw another surveyor.

As for that map, maybe it's a M&B desc but if not its a POS esp in the N-S direction.

And I hate "Standard Street Mon". Per what year of standards. Some cities down here have that on their old field notes but ask them what it is and most have no idea anymore because the standards changed.

land butcher wrote:Maybe we need a law that non record maps are not acceptable as reference...

I guess all the other surveyors can do is pray for a fire.

If boundaries existed primarily for surveyors to stake out, and the laws and principles pertaining to surveys and boundaries were developed for the protection of the surveyor and "fair" competition, then that position would be a reasonable one.

The thing is though, that boundary principles and the laws pertaining to surveying are for the benefit of landowners and the general public.

If certain boundaries were established by survey and the surveyor had neglected to file the map, should the landowners now be required to ignore the monuments in the ground that they had supposed marked their boundary? Should they be S.O.L. if they occupy per the monuments of the unfiled survey and then decades later, another surveyor comes along and tells them their boundaries are a couple feet from where they had built fences, walls, and structures according to the old survey?

It may be dang inconvenient for the surveyor in present day, but if there is evidence that the boundary had been previously established by survey, or if the surveyor has reason to believe that it might have been at one time established on the ground by survey, he has an obligation to make a reasonable attempt to locate and obtain a copy of that map.

Sometimes there is no map or it just isn't available. Then you assess any non-record monuments on their own merit and the weight of any reliable testimony you are able to get regarding their placement.


But a fire? Oh yeah, gee, that might level the playing field, huh? Nevermind that many of those records are useful or even critical to properly re-establish existing boundaries in their original locations, thus stabilizing landowners' property rights.

Screw the original boundaries! It's about fair competition! Those eeeevvviiilll, rich fat cat map archive owners, who merely continue to get richer by gouging their competitors and making obscene profits by selling old maps need to pay their fair share!

Is that what you mean LB?

Gosh, that sounds an awful lot like something a big-government liberal might say.

While we're at it, let's mandate price minimums to protect surveyors who propose an honest fee sufficient to do a thorough survey. Confiscate the equipment from those caught low-balling!

And let's have some versions of survey affirmative action. Let's see, who are the underprivileged classes within the survey community? I can come up with a few...

Those who couldn't go to college for a degree (we won't separate out those who simply chose not to, when counting the downtrodden, the more victims the better). We can lift them by making college graduates cover the cost of continuing education for this class of oppressed surveyor.

Those who can't afford E&O insurance. It's our right to have E&O coverage! Why should some of us have to risk exposure of our personal finances to claims while the privileged few bask in the comfort of knowing that all their mistakes will be paid for by insurance? Blunder care is a right!

How about those who can't afford GPS or a Laser scanner? The 1% with new Trimble RTK for each crew and their Faro scanners are trying to corner the markets and keep the rest of us out! We want affordable scanning now!

Then there are the people who fail the PLS exam year after year while those with connections and influence come in and pass the first time. How is that fair! I propose that the top 10% of exam point getters, the exam millionaires if you will, be taxed at a rate of at least 40%, and those points be distributed among the point-poorest among us. then at least these underprivileged and underrepesented folks would at least have a chance to get their ticket.

And then of course, we come back to those who have not won life's survey lottery and have no map archives. Why should we have to concern ourselves with protecting the public if doing so means that we have to deal with an unrecorded survey? It's not fair! These archive fat cats get all the business and lock us out! They charge us exhorbitant fees for maps. They're making millions off the backs of us poor working surveyors! I say we use eminent domain to confiscate their maps and make them pay the full review and recording fee for each map! And then I say that the counties scan all their maps and provide any surveyor who requests a free set of DVDs of all the record, and previously non-record maps.


How 'bout it Foster? Are we on the same page?

Occupy BPELS! Occupy BPELS!!!

I really need a "sarcasm" font.

It should be noted that not all states in the Union have strict plat recording laws. Some states only require that subdivision plats be filed, while any other kind of plat is filed on a voluntary basis. So in that regard California is doing very very well, we have tons of records on file. I would say the occasional private collection is a manageable exception for us, whereas surveyors in some other states have unrecorded private collections to deal with as a matter of daily business: never knowing how complete one’s research is or isn’t.

The bottom line is those unrecorded documents can have a lot of value and should not be discounted AND we should be grateful for the abundance of recorded documents we do have. Entire states operate without strict filing laws, being full of privately held records that are exchanged largely based on Professional Courtesy to promote stability and agreement in the local area. We’ve already got it pretty good regarding record maps.

Can anyone imagine those states passing a law to have non-record maps be obsolete? It would be calamity, Justice Cooley would not approve.

Regarding private collections in California, it’s not ideal to have such a high cost of research, but on the other hand one cannot afford to invest thousands of dollars in a collection and then give it away. Don’t be alarmed by the next proposal, I’m sure it’s a narrow limb: I think the County Governments should make an INVESTMENT: An INVESTMENT in the well being of their communities and future generations by purchasing the private collections and recording them, such well being is an important role of the government, eh? Of course purchasing these critical documents isn’t an option following a successful defunding effort. A county with land values such as Marin is even more justified in purchasing the documents.

EPBL 4th ed.
Page 69
4-3 Ancient Private Surveys
"In most states the records of private surveys of former generations usually are not admissible in evidence for the reason that landowners cannot be held to unavailable records.”

The unrecorded maps discussion has been ongoing for 4 years. I find it interesting and curious that those who speak the loudest and longest about protecting the public’s interest are also the ones instrumental in keeping those private records out of the public’s view. As Dave Wooly correctly pointed out some of the private record holders paid thousands of dollars for those records with the belief they were purchasing a captive market. Unfortunately they didn’t do the proper research before taking possession, as any prudent surveyor would. Shame on them.

The California Public Records Act, §6250, has been in effect for 45 years. If private unfiled survey maps and documents are referenced on a map of record (ROS, PM, FM) that information is entered into the public record under the provisions of the CPRA. If we are serious about protecting the public’s interest when retracing property boundaries the information used perform that task should be public.

Equally unfortunate is the fact that the majority of licensed land surveyors (including city and county surveyors) are unaware of the CPRA, at least until these discussions started. The State CLSA Legislative Committee had an opportunity to remedy that situation at the November 2012 meeting, but failed to act. On the recommendation of the sub-committee chairman, Evan Page, the proposed Unfiled Maps Legislation was dropped for consideration. The reasons given were self serving and demonstrated lack of understanding of the issue.

The sub-committee completely ignored the CPRA requirements the proposed legislation addressed. Instead the discussion was diverted to reimbursing the private record holders for the value of the records. The report recommended that individual counties could purchase the private records with Monument Preservation Funds. Good luck with that. Some record holders place their value at over a $100,000. (Perhaps we should find a way to link the records to the county employee retirement fund. (I really, really need a "sarcasm" font.)) The report went on to recommend an education campaign to inform the city and county surveyors of the importance of keeping copies off record information. No mention was made about the current CPRA requirement for doing just that.

Let’s solve one problem at a time. Adding the CPRA reference to the PLS Act would educate present and future surveyors of the existence of the CPRA and its affect to the practice of land surveying. Anything less and we are only paying lip service to protecting the public's interest.

Furthermore, if public funds are used to purchase private survey records… never mind that’s a topic for a different discussion. There’s not enough space on this forum thread.

Again it boils down to how our laws are written governing Land Surveying and Surveyors.
The last title report I read indicated the Title companies liability was limited to the fee paid for the report.
Limit on suing a Dr or Hosp for killing a baby - $250k.
Limit on surveyor making a mistake - NO LIMIT.

There are Private Record keepers all over the Country. I remember a article about some 200+ yo firm in Boston or that area that has thousands of maps, deeds etc and charges a arm and leg for them to do your research.

Again, you are not doing the research, someone else is, so where does the due diligence liability issue stand on that.

If the State of CA is going to hold a surveyor liable for errors as a result of not finding and considering NON record data then the State needs to make that data public or change the due diligence research law. As the law is written now the State is aiding and abetting a monopolistic business that has potential to harm the public.

I'm don't know what lot surveys go for in Marin County but down here most calls I get they are astounded at a fee over $1000. So if your research costs $1000 you are surveying for free.

I don't do lot surveys because no one wants to pay what I consider a reasonable fee for the liability involved. Personally I would like to see a percent of land value fee structure like title companies and RE agents use.

As my son delves deeper and deeper into this aspect of Land Surveying he is wondering if it is worth it. Not only unlimited liability but undefined terms like "material discrepancy".

When are Surveyors going to have laws written to give the public protection but limit liability to a reasonable amount like other PROFESSIONS.

Another question, how do you Marin cty surveyors know which one of the private records holders to pay your money to, or to be safe do you pay $1000 each to all three or four.

Are you in responsible charge of that research or is the person with the data bank accepting liability as they are not allowing you full access?


If there are X thousand surveys done in the county per year how many of these surveys would have to utilize these private databanks in order to become the standard of care?
0.01X?
0.25X?
0.49X?
0.51X?
0.75X?
Ask the board?

The standard of care is that if you have evidence of a survey that you did not find a map for in the records, or if you have some indication that there is a reasonable likelihood that there are unfiled survey records that would affect the boundary you are surveying, you have a duty to investigate the existence of such records.

How thorough an investigation you do is a matter of professional judgment depending upon the evidence you might have or the local reputation of the existence of relevant unfiled survey records.

Personally, if I were surveying a multimillion $ parcel in an upscale area and the only way I was going to be able to definitively piece together all of the evidence I'd found was to obtain $500 or $1000 worth of unfiled maps from a private surveyor's collection, I would not want to face the prospect of going to court for my client and admitting on the stand that I had not considered or not found certain field evidence that was key to a correct boundary solution for lack of an available unfiled map.

Imagine how foolish and unprofessional you would look to the parties, to the attorneys, and to the judge when testifying in this case involving properties with a combined value of more than you are likely to make in the next 15 years, and legal costs expended by the parties equal to as much or more than your annual income, that you did not obtain the maps because you thought the charge was too high and that you did not even discuss the additional cost with your client before deciding to refuse paying the fee to get copies of the maps.

And I would not want to face the court in the following suit my client will have filed against me for negligence in failing to make a reasonable attempt to obtain evidence of which I was aware or should have been aware.

The bottom line is that you, as the surveyor, may not like the cost of obtaining unfiled records. You may personally feel that the value of those records are not worth the cost to obtain them. Chances are, you have no idea how much it cost the person with the records to obtain and maintain them, so you have no way of evaluating their worth from that end of the equation.

But from your end of the equation, you should have a very good idea of their potential value. You should have a good sense of the quality of the evidence you've already found, whether it fits together or there seems like there are important pieces of the puzzle still missing.

You should also have a good idea of the value of the property and/or the project that your client is contemplating. It is that value, and not the fee you proposed or what your competitors are charging for such surveys that you should guage the potential value of the records on.

So far, I've read a bunch of self-centered talk about how if you pay $500 or $1000, or whatever, there goes your profit or even that the survey is now going to cost you money to do. Sorry guys, but your stated fee is irrelevant and focusing on it over the interests of your client and affected adjoiners is beneath us as professionals.

I stated previously that how thorough your investigation, or how much effort goes into obtaining such records is a matter of professional judgment.

You may have negotiated a fixed fee, and that fee may have $500 or less of profit figured in based on the effort foreseen when making the proposal and with an eye to the fact that if you charge more you will probably lose the job to one of those guys who typically charge half of what most everyone else charges. But then you come up on the situation where you have found evidence of unfiled surveys, and you have found the location of the maps reflecting those surveys. You've determined that with those records, the evidence would probably fall together such that you would be very confident in your boundary solutions, but without them, your determinations would be little better than guesswork at many points. You've also found that it is going to cost you $1000 to get copies of these maps.

That's twice your profit margin! What's a professional to do?

The first answer is that you don't keep this information from your client. Where you, as the surveyor are going to get in trouble and find yourself in a hole defending against a claim of negligence is when you deprive your client of critical information like this and deprive him or her of making or being involved in the decision.

Even if you contracted on a fixed fee, if the existence of critical unfiled records was not reasonably foreseeable, you are perfectly justified to place the responsibility for decision of whether or not to authorize payment to obtain those records on your client after thoroughly explaining their probable or potential technical value to your survey.

If your client understands that these records are critical to coming to a defendable boundary solution, that there is no alternative way to duplicate the information contained in those records, that there was no reason to be aware of the unfiled surveys prior to beginning the survey, and that it is not feasible for you to pay for these records from your own funds, then they know all that they need to know to decide whether or not they want to pay you to complete a survey that you have full confidence in, pay you for a survey that you will have to qualify based on the lack of the evidence being discussed, or pay you for your efforts to date and receive no completed survey at all.

An angry former client would have difficulty proving a case of negligence against you if they were the one to make the decision to not obtain the unfiled maps after having been given full knowledge of their importance to a solidly defendable result.

Evan these are good points, but this presumes one is aware these records even exist in the first place.

Do the folks who live in shacks in the poor part of town deserve less from the professional because their property is worth less?

Sounds like a nightmare. How is one to know what is unknown? Or are these maps known unknowns?

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

Following Evans views it boils down to a longer contract with more "unforeseeable options" than 99% of the public understands, even with explanation.

In the past I have presented proposals with options to cover the "unforeseeable" and the clients whether they be; engrs, archs or homeowners, could not accept that, they want a fixed fee to do XXXXXX.

Some well written land survey laws could make it easier on both the public and our profession. There is no reason that we, as Land Surveyors, should be the only ones looking up from the outlet end of the sewer pipe.

From what has been written here the only way to do a property survey in Marin County and protect yourself is to add a minimum of $1000 for each holder of non recorded records above and beyond the fee for a RS.

I can see where this situation is ripe for these holders of non recorded records to file a map after some other surveyors recently recorded survey showing alternate PL locations as a way to "teach the other professionals a lesson" for not paying $1000's for private record research.

For years lawyers have been trying to get surveyors to attest on ALTA's that even unrecorded info is shown on the ALTA and we have a nationally accepted certificate to save us from that. Why should an ALTA be different than a lot survey. If we are liable for unrecorded info in one case we should be liable in the other or not liable in both cases.

dmi wrote:Do the folks who live in shacks in the poor part of town deserve less from the professional because their property is worth less?

Of course not. You bring the info to your client regardless. But since the topic seems to have Marin Co right in the middle, high end properties would likely be involved.

Regardless of the property value and your perception of the client's ability to pay, you still inform them and include them in, or turn over the decision to them as is most appropriate in the case at hand.

People of financial means are more likely to litigate because they can better afford to do so.