California Surveyors Forums

I'm almost embarassed to ask this question but after scouring the internet and several survey references I'm no closer to the proof of the answer than when I started.

One of my students came to me saying that the two LS's in his office said the the front corners of the lots in a block hold for the R/W line even though that would introduce a number of angle points. I don't disagree that the monuments hold for the direction of the lot side lines but the establishment of the R/W line has always been "hold the width and find a best fitting straight line among the found monuments"

He didn't say how far off the monuments were but if they're within a tenth I'd say we're dealing with original monuments. Moisture, adjoining construction and a variety of conditions could move them that far......

The obvious intent was that the block line and R/W line be straight..... Where can I reference this concept or am I the dummy? (GASP!!)

Gary O'Connor,
Sonoma County Surveyor, Retired

According to Brown, only original undisturbed monuments set with the plat would define the R/W. I always thought the street width held too and that is what I was told at a LS review course I attended, but Brown lists a bunch of other principles that would apply for determining the street width before just holding the width shown on the plat. I'm interested to hear what others say. I often find that most stuff I attribute to just being engineering folklore are actually based in fact. It just takes some time to stumble across that fact, whether it be State law or a court case.

Gary,

You might find some useful information in this thread: http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.or ... f=6&t=5893

-Eric

The way I treat, or use such monument evidence depends upon several factors. But I'll narrow it down for purposes of this discussion. as I understand the scenario, it is regarding monuments set all as part of a simultaneous conveyance - interior streets of a subdivision.

First, recognize the difference of how you look at the monument position in a mapping/calculation context from how a landowner looks at it from a fence building or possession context. When looking at those positions and their relationships to other monuments while performing calculations and creating maps, we consider and report results to the hundredth and the second according to our measurements & calcs. The most precise consideration given by the homeowner is going to be an eyeballed estimation of whether the neighbor's swingset is over the line, or a stringline placed with moderate care to build a fence that will end up +/- a few inches of the line per the monuments in place.

Some surveyors may use a best fit solution for each reported and monumented line. Some may use found positions on both sides of the street to develop a best fit centerline that they then offset the record width. Others report every minor zig and zag in all circumstances.

Within that last group, there are often those who will argue that unless you report your findings that way, you are not demonstrating integrity in your work, that you are not holding the found originals, and that you are changing the lines. Those that give the street it's record width believe that the government always gets it's full width on RWs, although I don't know just where that comes from either.

In the vast majority of cases within a subdivision, whether we establish the lines and curves of the RW by a best fit, or show a dozen line or arc segments for each line or arc on the filed subdivision map will make absolutely no practical difference to the landowner. If all of the original monuments of along a particular line are within a few hundredths, or even a couple of tenths of a best fit line, and you report the best fit line as "the line", showing each iron to be a couple (or a few) hundredths this side or that of "the line", what does that actually mean?

It means that you found a set of monuments that the original surveyor had intended to set along a single line at the distances specified on his map and that you found those monuments, after considering all of the random things that can prevent a surveyor from setting a monument perfectly at the exact position indicated on a map, that those monuments were set with reasonable care and are as close to being collinear as can be reasonably expected.

Also consider the method by which you located them. Did you occupy and sight down the line? Did you locate them radially from nearby random control? Or, did you RTK them? What is your positional certainty and your relative positional errors to other nearby points? If you analyze that and factor it in, you may be surprised to find that your best fit line passes within your error ellipses for most of the points.

How often do you see a crew make note if there is a root or a rock near a located mon that may have affected the set location of the mon? How often do they make such a note when setting a point like that? Most won't. Unless the rodman on the retracement crew is exceptionally diligent and observant, he may not even notice such a root or rock. When setting a point, if it drifts off, several whacks with the sledge on the side of the iron to get it back is common procedure, and on a particularly stubborn point, if several minutes of effort don't get it fully centered, the chief will likely say "If it's on the cap, call it good and move on!"

We know this happens all the time, especially in the foothills and mountains (lot more rock than in the valleys), but have you ever seen a filed subdivision map that notes all of the minor offsets of a few hundredths this way or that from the "true" intended point? After having referred to or viewed several tens of thousands of maps over the past 35 years, I've never seen it.

So is the original surveyor in such cases reporting lines that he or his crew set to "best fit" on the intended line? Maybe the original surveyors, if they really had integrity, would re-observe each mon after setting it with a full set of redundant observations and report the actual "as-set" location relative to the actual corner it was intended to mark. (Where is that sarcasm font when you need it?)

In my view, if a retracing surveyor develops a best fit centerline based on the fronts of both sides, and the RWs based on that best fit line results in a RW where all the undisturbed found mons fall within a reasonably expected error magnitude (considering the errors of the original surveyor and your errors), then that's acceptable. If the lines as monumented on each side converge or diverge, it's not, but reporting each of those lines as continuous best fit lines with the undisturbed originals within a reasonable error allowance to them, and a slightly varying RW width would be acceptable.

Also in my view, reporting every zig and zag, no matter how minor is also acceptable in every case, and may be the only acceptable method in some cases.

In my own practice, if the found monuments will support a consistent width best fit RW, I will do that. If they don't, but the mons on each side of the street reasonably support best fit lines, I'll show that. If they don't, then it gets complicated and I start by taking a closer look at the outliers to determine if they may have been disturbed, intentionally set as offsets, etc., and the subsequent analysis can go in many different directions depending upon circumstances.

Great commentary, Evan!

I have pondered the "government gets its full share" doctrine as well. It may be because local agencies hold right-of-way in trust on behalf of the general public for access and utilities purposes. It takes a special process to vacate that interest, including making findings and holding public hearings.

It is more of a public versus private interest that drives this distinction. The dedication procedure includes acceptance (usually subject to completion of the improvements) and - in the case of Counties (political subdivisions of the State) - a Declaration of a Public Highway in order to enter into maintained roadway status, and collect proportioned road taxes.

The Streets and Highways Code covers all this but, necessarily, doesn't address the Surveyor's role in determining its precise dimensions from a retracement standpoint.

Interesting subject material - I'm surprised Curt Brown didn't tackle it. I remember that Roy Minnick was of the opinion that it held sway, but don't recall the authority cited.

If one were to take the 'monuments hold' route, then if the monuments on opposite sides of the street are 49.6 feet apart on a 50 foot street the short monuments couldn't hold since the gubmint always gets it's share. A citizen can't claim adverse possession against the county/city so those monuments aren't held to mark the r/w... why should the others? How would that stretch of r/w be established? An even amount from each side? Sounds iffy.....

If we're to follow in the footsteps and the map of those footsteps is a straight line I'm struggling to see why that straight line would suddenly have a bunch of angle points in it just because when I go look at the pipes 50 years later they're not in EXACTLY the same position as they were when set. We don't REALLY know that they weren't all perfectly in line back then, do we? Isn't that what everybody intended?

Consider the difference between holding a monumented centerline versus the use of sideline monuments only. The latter would include holding long established building corners in an urban setting as monuments.

The common thread is determining a set of parallel lines to replicate the original grant or dedication. Another distinction derives from a series of contemporaneous conveyances as compared to a simultaneous creation via a subdivision map.

The overarching intent is to have controlling public corridors, between which private ownership parcels are proportioned.

First we must consider the chicken or the egg scenario, which came first. Please have a look at the attached.

Cannibalized from the thread referred to in a previous post:

CA Code of Civil Procedure Section 2077:

Section Two Thousand and Seventy-seven. The following are
the rules for construing the descriptive part of a conveyance of real
property, when the construction is doubtful and there are no other
sufficient circumstances to determine it:
One--Where there are certain definite and ascertained particulars
in the description, the addition of others which are indefinite,
unknown, or false, does not frustrate the conveyance, but it is to be
construed by the first mentioned particulars.
Two--When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or
monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines,
angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount.
Three--Between different measurements which are inconsistent with
each other, that of angles is paramount to that of surfaces, and that
of lines paramount to both.
Four--When a road, or stream of water not navigable, is the
boundary, the rights of the grantor to the middle of the road or the
thread of the stream are included in the conveyance, except where the
road or thread of the stream is held under another title.
Five--When tide water is the boundary, the rights of the grantor
to ordinary high-water mark are included in the conveyance. When a
navigable lake, where there is no tide, is the boundary, the rights
of the grantor to low-water mark are included in the conveyance.
Six--When the description refers to a map, and that reference is
inconsistent with other particulars, it controls them if it appears
that the parties acted with reference to the map; otherwise the map
is subordinate to other definite and ascertained particulars.

"Absolute correctness in the surveys will not, and cannot be attained, and that is a matter for both the government and the purchaser to assume this fact at the outset, and be governed by fixed monuments, instead of leaving everything open to change in the future, when new and more careful surveys might be practicable."
-Thomas M. Cooley, Britton v. Ferry, 14 Mich. 53, 65 (Mich. 1866)


WHAT IS WRONG WITH HOLDING A MONUMENT?

One cannot adversely possess against the government. But the government cannot take property without just compensation. Somewhere in the middle, there is the land surveyor.

Gary O wrote: Gary O'Connor,
Sonoma County Surveyor, Retired

Retired? congrats Gary!
---------
trying to stay California specific, and having no other citations at hand I reference: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... =2074-2077

does 2076 also apply to Public Agencies? I think it probably does.

They only have what was stated in the original conveyance, and it should be construed as recited in 2077 (depending on the type of conveyance).

Claiming "full width" with fancy theoretical geometry at a later date, to the detriment of the adjoiners?
That does not quite cut it for me.

That is always the rub about "full measure". It could be to the detriment of adjoiners, but also to their benefit.

The issue seems to revolve about proration. Privately owned parcels (sans original monuments) will be proportioned in a simultaneously created situation. The right-of-way easement, which encumbers parcels on the periphery of a block, remains fixed in the same fashion as a fixed-width utilities easement.

To the extent someone has monumented sidelines of the right-of-way, that is locative evidence, but usually not dispositive of the underlying fee title extents. That is why centerline tends to be a better means of retracement.

In fee strips, it becomes a different animal. That is where the elements of reliance and other evidence come into play.

Here is a little different way to look at the situation:

Right of way dedications on a map encumber the title of the property and the agency control’s the dedication as “we the people”. If the dedication is in fee the business entity of the agency also has title to the property. So in the case where it is just a dedication the adjoining lots have ownership to the centerline of the streets (generally speaking) and I would say that the agency has the full width of the street to do the public bidding. Fee ownership (including agencies) is limited to the original undisturbed monuments, while I don’t think that limits the right of way width. ??? Look at the situation for abandonments; if the dedication was not in fee the adjoining (or actual fee owner) no longer has that encumbrance on their property. If the agency also had the underlying fee then the agency is required to get fair market value for any portion of the property they wish to dispose of after abandoning the public’s right to use the right of way.

With respect to the Block monuments, original undisturbed monuments hold for the Block corners – shouldn’t we all agree on that? And the “Lot Corners” are either points on line (where ownership extends to the centerline) or defining property corners for neighboring parcels.

Ray

How exactly is "full width" defined, and what exactly are the tolerances?

If lot corners were set along the created right of way on a subdivision map, they shall control. I do not know of any provision, that would allow the monumented block corners to control over the monumented lot corners along the right of way. Brown's Boundary Control and Legal Principles, 3rd edition, points this out on page 134 "Streets are not of record with when original monuments indicate otherwise."

It is my understanding, that even the BLM manual has gotten away from closing corners on senior lines, because of the good faith reliance of monuments by the public and the rights acquired.

Larry Stevens
L.A. Stevens & Associates, Inc.
Novato, CA 94949
www.LAStevensInc.com

For what it is worth in terms of this thread:

Civil Code Section 1007: "no possession by any person, firm or corporation no matter how long continued of any land, water, water right, easement, or other property whatsoever dedicated to a public use by a public utility, or dedicated to or owned by the state or any public entity, shall ever ripen into any title, interest or right against the owner thereof."

Right... now what if the road is "80' wide" but the monumented r/w is 79' wide with long standing occupation, like 80 years? Maybe the CL is boundary between two maps, and there was a 1' overlap so map B says it dedicated 40' but only had 39' to give?