California Surveyors Forums

Starting a new RS / Site Plan survey of a postage stamp lot. Researched the county web site and an RS is on file. I pull it up and it really looks nice. The only problem is that the only useful thing on this nice looking map are the two monument calls on my BOB street centerline.

Doesn't anyone walk the block looking for evidence anymore? I think that most of the young surveyors were mentored by prorate only surveyors. It's kind of sad that our young licensees really do not know how to do a land survey and re establish lots and rights of way.

Sure, they know how to survey (measure) between this city c/l monument to that city c/l monument, place in half streets and prorate measured/record in, that's easy.

attached

Money and time. They are out there low bid they or their boss says shoot the block and prorate in the lot, get in and get out.
That's one thing working on a % of property sale/value, like RE agents,would reduce as then the consumer would think about quality vs fee.

I love this phrase from CE's "give me a price for a field topo and paper boundary"

If it's all about money and time, then these prorate (not walk the block LS's) need to get two new jobs.

A Banker who moonlights as a watchmaker

It's "wrong," I have to "fix" it!

These guy's head would explode if they worked where I worked. 2' is pretty much flat and I have a double proportioned section corner "off" 7'.

I'm working on a map right now that's likely going to turn into a proration survey. I've got one more day out there looking for redwood to see if I strike it lucky, but with all the ripping for farming in the area I'm not optimistic. Did the map you're talking about just prorate without having any "SNF" positions at the record or prorated dimensions?

I wonder if they have a shovel on that truck.

Every lot/line on that map was prorated. Proration has it's place, dead last, but sometimes dead last is the only thing you can do.

I just finished a job about a week ago where my lot absorbed all the excess in the block. It was not much, just a tenth. The reason being is that my south line was just 38 feet south of a very well perpetuated C/L BC, circa 1935. Some guy came in from the monuments on the south and went north record. That left a tenth gap to my position. Since both property owners, my client and the one on the south had recognized/accepted the other guys monuments ( a cut cross and a lead with no tag, no CR naturally) which were on an elevated patio about mid lot from the street, I just moved my position to match his acknowledged monuments.

When you run into these situations where the landowners recognized and accepted the historic monuments do you get an oath from both of them to document their knowledge? How do you suggest that this information is perpetuated so that others following behind can be aware of it?

Is it your opinion that if you find non-original, undocumented monuments that have been recognized and accepted by the owners you would hold that position for the boundary? Is there a limit to the amount they can be from your calculated positions? Would you do anything different if neither owner recognized or accepted the undocumented monuments?

I appreciate your professional dialogue.

LS 4722 wrote:Every lot/line on that map was prorated. Proration has it's place, dead last, but sometimes dead last is the only thing you can do.

I just finished a job about a week ago where my lot absorbed all the excess in the block. It was not much, just a tenth. The reason being is that my south line was just 38 feet south of a very well perpetuated C/L BC, circa 1935. Some guy came in from the monuments on the south and went north record. That left a tenth gap to my position. Since both property owners, my client and the one on the south had recognized/accepted the other guys monuments ( a cut cross and a lead with no tag, no CR naturally) which were on an elevated patio about mid lot from the street, I just moved my position to match his acknowledged monuments.

That is why you are a Surveyor and not a deed staker or button pusher.

Evidence is evidence. Pedigree is left to the discretion of the professional.

Darth Vader wrote:When you run into these situations where the landowners recognized and accepted the historic monuments do you get an oath from both of them to document their knowledge?

No

How do you suggest that this information is perpetuated so that others following behind can be aware of it?

File a record with comments CR or RS

Is it your opinion that if you find non-original, undocumented monuments that have been recognized and accepted by the owners you would hold that position for the boundary?

Of course. In your example question what better way is there to avoid a tenant-tenant conflict than to accept the common line between them by accepting the physical evidence that marks that line.

Is there a limit to the amount they can be from your calculated positions?

No.

Would you do anything different if neither owner recognized or accepted the undocumented monuments?

That did not happen so I cannot answer. All of this is on a case by case situation and each case has to be viewed as a judge would view it if a judicial decision was the only way a conflict could be settled.

The PDF attachment shows these two accepted monuments and the relationship of improvements to the common line on the south.

The big problem lies along the north line.

The red lettering/line is what I will show on the CR I will file.

The magenta lettering/lines are the two tenant accepted monuments, possibly done by two different surveyors at two different times.

This survey I just finished. The deed line runs through the center of two garages. The walls of the garages are hard joined to two, mirror images structures, on the left and right.

The history of this particular situation is that one owner, many years ago, owned the entire 51' x 142' lot. That owner built a single family house at the corner. Later on, the person built a duplex with a common 2 car garage on the east remainder of the lot, all hard joined. Still later, this person decided to divide, by deed, the duplex parcel into two single parcels.

The attached RS PDF shows the results.

The other PDF I just uploaded that shows the wall on the north, being the common line of possession and occupation by the northern and southern tenant also has a history of one ownership.

The three lots, north, middle and south, were owned by the Crenshaw Family (Crenshaw Boulevard - Los Angeles). Apparently the family was not concerned about how walls were placed between the three parcels. Over time, each parcel sold.

Both situations are pretty common when one party owns multiple parcels, or a large parcel, and builds on it. Back in the day zoning and building codes were not enforced like they are now, so buyer beware.

LS 3125, whose tag number is shown, is deceased. I knew Al for many years then all of a sudden he was gone.

Legal desc; the south 50 ft of the north 250 ft of the west 300 ft of the south 700ft of lot 99 of McDs farm per map 1923 Lot 99 is ~ 3500ft x 2500ft. Fictional.
I find record mons on my north line and record mons approx 200 and 300 ft south that estab my east and west lines.
These record mons are 10-25 years old. The corners of lot 99 are CL ints that have been reset numerous times over the years but are current to the nearby mons I found.
WHY would a licensed agency map checker require me to resurvey lot 99? It's been surveyed to death and these nearby mons are from surveys that resurveyed lot 99.
The 2 record maps that set the 4 nearby corners have minor differences in the whole lot size resulting in less than 1:5000 differences in the nearby corner locations. Maps require 1:20000 accuracy.
Resurveying lot 99;
1. Could result in minor differences in the location of my lot requiring me to call the nearby mons off and/or reset my own, resulting in pin cushion corners, thereby creating issues with occupation.
2. Accept the nearby corners ignoring the difference of where my msmts of lot 99 locate the lot.
3. Simply hold the nearby mons and not resurvey lot 99 thereby eliminating possible occupation issues and pin cushion corners.
Who says the existing corners of lot 99 are correct to the original farm of 300 lots. Does McDs farm need to be resurveyed? Reminds me of a letter a surveyor wrote to, IIRC, an attorney taking a survey back to the creation of earth.
This seems similar to the current procedures of the BLM as described by Chad and Linda Erickson. Find the township corners and ignore all the interior monumentation and occupation. Or, in this case find the lot corners and ignore all the interior monuments.

I've seen that. Most of Northeastern Sacramento County (now urban) was divided up into 10 acre ranchette lots circa 1900±.

Now you find three non-original county spike and washers and one untagged rebar at the four C/L P.I.s of the block (the original mon.s were posts set on the R/W, now long gone on most major streets) and, of course, break down and call all the non-original rebars and pipes and what not inside the block "off", of course, I was taught to do that by my first boss.

It seems silly to me.

Another option is that if I accept the nearby mons then there is the resurvey method of "adjusting my chain to the original surveyors chain". Then all the measurements to the lot 99 corners become mea and record.

My own lot is lot xx of tract xxxxx but was originally part of the Irvine Ranch lots so in following his/her train of thought the Irvine lot should have to be resurveyed to survey my lot, in fact the Irvine ranch should have to be resurveyed.

Land Butcher-
If you aren't starting from the one identifiable original monument of Irvine Ranch then you aren't doing it right.

Okay, I'll stop saying inflammatory things today.

LOL