California Surveyors Forums

This is a request for your feedback on the following questions:

Note that this assumes that a Lot Line Adjustment approval document will be recorded by the jurisdiction and a Record of Survey will be drafted and submitted to the County after the Lot Line Adjustment approval document is recorded.

When writing new legal descriptions for a lot line adjustment do you:
1. Include a basis of bearings statement (like we do on a Record of Survey)?
2. Call out found and set monuments?
3. Call out record data?

It seems to now be standard that surveyors attach a map to the legal description to show the lines of the description. On this map do you:
1. Show found and set monuments?
2. Show the basis of bearings?
3. Show record data?
If your legal description is based on the California Coordinate System do you:
1. Include the published points and coordinates used to establish control?
2. Include a basis of bearings statement?

Attached is an example legal description and map that I prepared. Please review and comment.
Thank you

My personal preference is to include the basis of bearings at the end of description

i.e. The basis of bearing of this description is the same as that certain Record of Survey, recorded 2 March 2018 in Book 2018 of Maps, at Page 31, Marin County Records

If there were points set . . . the Exhibit to description should show mons. The "new line" or "corner", if staked, (and it should be), call out in the description the size/type/buried/etc. of monument. This may seem redundant as one will be filing a Record of Survey, however, calling-out the described monument (set or found) shows the parties intent . . . "to a 3/4" I.D. galvanized iron pipe with tag LS . . . buried one foot . . . "

That be my two cents

My other two cents . . . would be having all basis' of bearing bearings be on True North. That way if only one or two points are left a hundred years from now . . you still have the sun/polaris/GPS to get a precise/accurate True North and be able to follow the footsteps of the original intent.

Phil - Sonoma

I pretty much never include basis of bearings or record data in a description, same with an LLA plat. I prefer to qualify calls to title lines.

I don't think a Basis of Bearings statement is necessary.
Mr. Wattles didn't need one. Neither did Mr. Wattles.
I have included one a couple of times to comply with city requirements lately.

I include monuments set or found as they would be a controlling element.(generally)

I don't usually include but always call out found or set monuments if we did a field survey.

Jay Wright wrote:I don't think a Basis of Bearings statement is necessary.
Mr. Wattles didn't need one. Neither did Mr. Wattles.

Amen.

Have you attempted to contact the surveyor requesting the additional items and discuss the issues?
It sounds like the city does not have a surveyor on staff and they contract out.
I have been noticing that there are many contract surveyors out there that do not have the experience in map checking, and their supervisors are not reviewing the comments before they send out a letter for revisions. It's frustrating, because now I have to educate the map checker when it's their employers responsibility.

1) As mentioned previously basis of bearings is not needed, as the first call of a legal description is the basis for the description.
2) A record of survey is not required under a Lot Line Adjustment, unless you are setting new property corners.
3) I've done a lot line adjustment in different jurisdictions and they are all a little different. When one asks for something not required, ask for their document requiring the item. Some employees do not understand the concept of a lot line adjustment and try to get additional information, and formatting.

Hope this helps and good luck.

hellsangle wrote:My other two cents . . . would be having all basis' of bearing bearings be on True North. That way if only one or two points are left a hundred years from now . . you still have the sun/polaris/GPS to get a precise/accurate True North and be able to follow the footsteps of the original intent.

Phil - Sonoma

I’ve never tried this one.... or seen it in practice. How do you qualify True North?

Please provide an example if you have one, I presume you would have to designate the point of orientation (unless it’s a small area of description in the East-West direction)

2) A record of survey is not required under a Lot Line Adjustment, unless you are setting new property corners.

Setting monuments isn't necessary to trigger the requirement of a ROS. If you establish the location of a new line -- e.g. you place the new line a fixed distance from an existing feature, like a building -- you're in ROS country. Establishment is the key.

Dave,

Easy-peezy . . . and fun! . . . Get Buckner's book "Astronomic and Grid Azimuths".

An example is a survey where the subdivision map referred to their basis of bearings as being "solar observation". We locked onto some local evidence, took a solar, made ties for where the monuments should be and . . . "voila" three feet down was the monument that no one had found since the subdivision was created. It was a "surveyor-high"! (The neighbors must have thought we found the entrance to Tutankhamun's tomb with all the hoopin' & hollerin' going on.) LOL (Refinedment: laplace corrections & you've got geodetic north.)

(An easy check on your work: if you have an "natural" i.e. Gardner Lookout (many miles away) with an established lat/long by NGS and your observation lat/long you can check your bearing calc. My experience has been up to twenty seconds difference using that rough check method.)

Phil - Sonoma

Jim Frame wrote: Setting monuments isn't necessary to trigger the requirement of a ROS. If you establish the location of a new line -- e.g. you place the new line a fixed distance from an existing feature, like a building -- you're in ROS country. Establishment is the key.

Jim, are in lobbying to revise Section 66412 (d) of the SMA?
" No record of survey shall be required for a lot line adjustment unless required by Section 8762 of the Business and Professions Code". This seems a little contradicting as it is printed. Have you asked the Board recently what their perspective is?

Yes a record of survey would be nice for all LLA projects, but as it is now I read it's open to interpretation, and being able to convince the potential client the benefits of an additional $2.500 for a RS.

The Board delivered a lengthy opinion in 1996 on this very issue. However, some years later the AG felt that these published interpretations might be construed as regulations that hadn't gone through the mandated process and directed BPELSG to withdraw them.

I organized CLSA years ago to participate in the San Dieguito case and I wrote the language adopted by the appellate courts. No Record of Surveys.

In the City of San Diego, we adopted an ordinance that permits the filing of a parcel map. There are a hundred reasons why this is preferable including a consolidation of activities and the ability to set monuments. There are more reasons if anyone is interested.

Beware of Coastal Commission requirements!

If the agency that approves the Lot Line Adjustment requires you to map out the existing conditions adjacent to the proposed boundary line that is eventually approved and the property exchange is executed by a recorded deed/s, you have established the new boundary in the eyes of the property owners and on the ground. Most lay people can scale off of a map and figure out where the boundary is. That requires a Record of Survey.

On the other hand, if I propose to sell the north 10 feet of my 6 acres and the County does not require you to establish the proposed line for the LLA relative to existing ground features, you have not triggered the requirement per 8762.

Setting temporary stakes during the approval process would also trigger the requirement after the deed is executed, since the owners know where the deed described boundary is.

I have been doing Lot Line Adjustments for the last 27 years and, as far as I recall, have always filed a ROS because "establishment" had occurred pursuant to B & P Code 8762.

If providing a topographic map of a deed described boundary triggers the ROS requirement, why would it not for a LLA that requires existing features to be shown adjacent to the proposed line?

I call out controlling monuments on my legal descriptions, set or found and sometimes reference record calls as "cited as ________ per _____ document", if I have performed a retracement and am certain of the controlling evidence location.

I do not have usually have a separate Basis of Bearings Statement for a legal description, since it is established in the description.

A PG & E surveyor tried to make me add a separate B Of B statement on an easement and I told them no and asked to speak with their superior Eventually the accepted it, but what a waste of time.

Guess I'll post this 1965 easement desc here too. Unfortunately it wouldn't fly today.
I really like the spandrel description, no issues with different r/w bearings changing the length and delta.

An easement for street purposes over that portion of Lot 1 of Tract ..., as shown on a map thereof recorded in Book ................... described as follows:

Parcel 1. The Northerly 12.00 feet of the Westerly 189.00 feet of said Lot 1.

Parcel 2. The Westerly 22.00 feet of the Northerly 180.15 feet of said Lot 1.

Excepting therefrom the Northerly 12.00 feet.

Parcel 3. A spandrel shaped parcel of land bounded on the North by the South line
of Parcel 1, bounded on the West by the East line of Parcel 2, and bounded South-
easterly by the arc of a curve concave Southeasterly having a radius of 25.00 feet
and tangent to said Parcel 1 and Parcel 2.

I'm sure Mr. Pallamary knows the history better, but I always thought a ROS wasn't required for a LLA because you aren't required to do a survey for a LLA. You could just use record data. If it was me writing these legal descriptions, I would make the following changes:

1. Use the same POC for both parcels and eliminate the double calls along the northerly line of Lots 64 and 65 from two opposing directions.
2. Eliminate the reference to the record bearing on the Brunskell map, which implies that you did survey the parcels thus potentially triggering the ROS since the new lot line isn't shown on any record map.
3. Label the POC and POB's on the exhibit.