California Surveyors Forums

Looking for opinions. I am doing a survey in Ventura near the beach. The original subdivision layout included streets on the front and back of the lots. The streets were dedicated as easements and accepted by the City. The rear street was subsequently vacated and each lot got their corresponding piece back. As we know, each lot owns the fee title under the adjacent street to the centerline in tract maps. Mapping convention terminates B&D of the lot lines at the public street RW line for "cleanliness" and clarity on the map. If it were a private and future street where the City rejected the initial offer, the property lines would be mapped to the centerline of the street.

So my question is does this require a Record of Survey or a Corner Record. Left brain is arguing with the right brain. There is no additional fee title that was acquired. The lines always existed when the tract map created the lots, local mapping convention required the surveyor to not show the prod of the lot lines to the CL of the street. The Assessor maps the lots as solid to the CL of the vacated street, not solid to the old RW line and dashed to the CL as if it were a deed line.

Looking forward to your thoughts and opinions. Lot 158 is the subject lot.

Quick observation. I don't like the way the assessor set the reversionary lines out.

Maybe you should ask the Ventura County Surveyor what he thinks?

It seems to me that a ROS is required if only to address the matter Mike describes. You have the Assessor showing the lot lines extending to the middle of the street, but the general rule is (or used to be, per Brown) to run normal/radial from the ROW to the centerline. That looks a lot like a §8762(b)(3) situation.

RS

third option: Record of Survey direct to Recorder.

some drafting area may be needed to show/explain how and why things are what they are.
The plus for using a RoS is that it is more likely to be discovered by land owners and those Surveyors that are not familiar with boundary surveying.

I believe that the Assessor interpretation of boundary is irrelevant. Their map is however an indicator of intent and ownership

Just because a cadastral technician (unlicensed layman) disagrees with your boundary resolution does not make it a material discrepancy

I suggest that if there is only one possible prudent surveyor's interpretation and the conditions on the ground (monuments, occupation) support that solution then a corner record is appropriate.

If any meaningful encroachments exist over your established lines then I would want it properly documented by a record of survey

Record of Survey i.e. lines not previously shown on a record of survey, subdivision map or official map.

DWoolley

Well, the centerline was shown on the previous map, and the sidelines were shown before terminating at the old right of way. Maybe just set pipes at the old corners, set pipes on the centerline of the lot line produced (hopefully its radial).

show a dashed line from the right of way to the centerline, show the centerline. Your not surveying a line that's never been shown before caused its dashed. its those sidelines produced, that's the rub, so don't survey them.

as a general rule of thumb if I have to think to much about should it be a cr or a rs, I always go with the rs.

Under the reversion rights of Brown's Principles 10, 11 and 12, are not the location of these "prods" to the CL of the streets ascertainable from an inspection of the original subdivision map? What alternate position could there be (8762 b 4)?

At the end of the day I will consult with the County Surveyor. $18 CR or $790 ROS to show two 15' lines...

Some more interesting information. My clients deed (circa 2012) just states he owns Lot 159 per 15 MR 6. Vacation occurred in 1973. No mention of a portion of Plymouth Court.

What alternate position could there be (8762 b 4)?

The plan suggested by the Assessor is one.

I haven't done any case law research, but when my edition of Brown was published (1969), he acknowledged that the "normal to centerline" rule is based upon "the customs of surveyors and a few court cases." In my opinion, projecting the lot lines in this case makes a lot of sense, but in any case there's patent ambiguity.

If normal to centerline were applied, the resulting stubby lines don't appear on a filed map, so a ROS would be appropriate in that instance, too.

Thanks all for your input.

I'm late to the game I see. Oh well, here's my 5 cents (adjusted for inflation):

I checked, and the side lot lines are all radial. The center line of Plymouth Ct is shown. Setting reference monuments on side lines prolonged to the CL is common around here. Looks like a corner record to me.

Relevant case:
https://law.justia.com/cases/california ... 0/301.html

California Civil Code section 1112 states: "A transfer of land, bounded by a highway, passes the title of the person whose estate is transferred to the soil of the highway in front to the center thereof, unless a different intent appears from the grant."

Lot 158 is what it always was. The assessor's map correctly shows what is being taxed.