California Surveyors Forums

Situation:

A phased development from started in 1959. In November 1959 a tract map is filed with a road along one of the boundaries of the map. The road is created and monumented as part of the phase 1 map. Phase 2 comes along in 1961, done by a different surveyor, and lots are created on the other side of the road.

The problem:
The monuments found from the phase 2 map, which my lot is a part of, do not mesh together well with the monuments from the phase 1 map. The phase 2 map does not call for any monuments from the phase one map. There is a discrepancy of a few tenths. I know that the phase 1 map controls the road. I am wondering what to do with the side lines of the lot I am surveying. The phase 2 map shows the side lines being radial to the road. Should I hold these lines radial, based upon the found monuments in the road from phase 1 OR use the monuments from phase 2 which will make the side lots lines slightly off from radial.

The rub is that if I hold the phase 2 map monuments, the setbacks work out properly, but if I map the side lot lines radial to the phase 1 road, there is a 2"-3" encroachment into the setbacks.

Maps attached. I am surveying lot 158 of the phase 2 map. The monuments in Cascade as shown on the phase 2 map do not fit well with the monuments found in Continental on the phase 1 map.

I would be more inclined to hold the monuments from Phase 2 to establish your side lot lines, especially since it resolves your setback concern.

Yeah, I would go with holding the monuments set by the subdivision of Phase 2. That sounds like following in the footsteps of whoever layed out the house - probably for all those on that side of the street. No sense in being what Cooley termed the "calamity known as the visitation of the surveyor"!

Typically, the lot lines were monumented after grading for the subdivision, but seldom have I seen a subdivision map state that the lot corners were monumented. If the tract homes were constructed within a few years of the filing of the subdivision, they are witness to the lot line as originally laid out and should be considered the best available evidence. I have seen times where the street monuments that were established were not in agreement with the lot corners.

In your case, the sub monuments for the sidelines agree with the improvements. That is a slam dunk.

General rule is to account for the error where it occurred and to contain it to the area where it exists. That means hold the mons from Phase 2, show the discrepancies with the mons of Phase 1 and the agreement with improvements in Phase 2, and document your findings well by including notes or a narrative of what you found and why you held what you held.

A good narrative or set of notes on your RS should make it easy for later surveyors to agree with what you did and difficult for them to justify disagreement. Without an explanation of your reasoning, it's very likely that some knucklehead will come along and create new property line locations by holding the Phase 1 mons to control points & lines in Phase 2. With a good narrative, that guy just might understand that you located the error essentially at the RW that is the Phase line and contained it there, and by doing so, found good agreement on either side of that line and harmony with the improvements. Unless that guy is a complete knucklehead, your documentation may save him from making a mess and save the landowners a good amount of grief.

I am in agreement with Evan on this and his reasoning. Narratives on California Maps are not used much (as they are in Oregon), but, I also find them helpful for understanding "whats in your head". I find myself many times trying to find "Waldo" through the course of a work-day, and a little information goes a long way.

MJW

Larry is correct; the centerline monuments often have a systematic shift from the lot corner monuments; two to three tenths is not unheard of.

I'm not exactly sure but I think they staked the lots before the streets were paved and the curbs formed and poured. This way the house construction could get underway. The centerline monuments were set, I assume by running the actual centerlines (not radially off of a traverse). It is possible the Phase 1 centerlines were monumented after the Phase 2 lots were staked.

At any rate, as others have said, the phase 2 monuments control the phase 2 lots; this is corroborated by the fact that the houses are within their setbacks using the Phase 2 lots. If there is any overlap with Phase 1 then Phase 1 gets the overlap.

The fact that the lot lines are not perfectly radial is a minor conflict which would yield to the much stronger evidence of the Phase 2 monuments and the Phase 2 houses.

My experience is that houses in large subdivisions(ones with multi year phases) are constructed off of subdivision control well in advance of when well monuments have been surveyed and constructed and finally punched. Is it any wonder then that from time to time that there is not pure math harmony?

This seems to be a basic follow the footsteps type of thing. You are surveying a lot in a particular subdivision, you use monuments within that subdivision to control it. It is no wonder that the improvements are in agreement with the monuments from their own subdivision. If the situation were reversed this would give more cause for concern.