RS vs. CR What are the differences?

[Ian Wilson]

For purposes of fostering discussion and learning, I’m asking the following questions. Please answer them and discuss the reasoning for your answers.

1) What is the purpose of a Record of Survey?
2) What is the purpose of a Corner Record?
3) Other than the size of the document and the fact that the CR is not recorded, but filed with the County Surveyor, what is the difference between the RS and the CR?

Please indicate the specific sections of the PLS and/or Board Rules that lead you to your conclusions.

Thanks in advance.

[Jim Frame]

1) What is the purpose of a Record of Survey?

The maintenance of the cadastre by perpetuating evidence of boundary location. [§8762]

2) What is the purpose of a Corner Record?

The maintenance of the cadastre by perpetuating evidence of boundary location. [§8765d]

3) Other than the size of the document and the fact that the CR is not recorded, but filed with the County Surveyor, what is the difference between the RS and the CR?

A Corner Record is limited to disclosing the nature of monuments found or set, and -- to a limited extent -- certain measurements that differ from the record. A Record of Survey can address much more complex matters pertaining to boundary location. [§8762, 8765]

[CBarrett]

It's too early in the morning to follow government code and I'm still fighting covid brain fog, but this is an great question

So shooting from the hip for the moment:
To me major difference between a CR and an RS is that an RS includes boundary re-establishment or documenting of a boundary previously not mapped.

Corner Record is a document which provides additional ground evidence of some existing, previously established or re-established boundary, which didn't need an in depth review and interpretation of deeds and reconciling of field measurements to those deeds (beyond finding that they fit record). I tend to look at it as filler information, or ground conditions update.

I need more time to come up with a more methodical answer.

[Warren Smith]

Corner record = obliterated corner
Record of survey = lost corner

[Ian Wilson]

Great answers!

Well supported, James.
That's what you do with "brain fog", CB? LOL!!!! Y'all need to move up to Pacifica where there's a lot of fog.
Warren, succinct, as always.

[CBarrett]

Corner record = obliterated corner
Record of survey = lost corner

Yeah, but... there you go assuming a lot of surveyors will know the difference between lost and obliterated corner. Brave soul, you are!!! ;)

[Jim Frame]

Record of survey = lost corner

Record of Survey also pertains to corners that were never monumented, as in the case of deed cut parcels. But as shorthand, this is a good way to characterize it.

[Warren Smith]

Jim,

Much like setting corners for a protracted section.

[Mike Mueller]

CR is someone else's opinion with more/ess/different stuff in the ground.
RoS is MY opinion.

As a followup question, I would ask:

Who is the audience of the RoS?

Mikey Mueller
Sonoma County

[David Kendall]

As a followup question, I would ask:

Who is the audience of the RoS?

This is a great question. On one hand I could say a record of survey is for the benefit of the general public.

On the other hand, I would encourage any layperson to request a surveyor's assistance when trying to interpret any survey document or legal description.

Generally I resist dumbing down my survey data to try to conform to a layman's perspective. I consider it a fool's errand

I feel that the AP map is occasionally a dangerous device as it simplifies a great deal of complicated data, boils it into a digestible format and it appears to come from a reputable source. Many clients send me an assessor parcel map and say something like "Here is a copy of my prior survey"

I recently received this comment from a County Surveyor of great experience who was attempting to have me label subject and adjoiner parcels on a corner record with assessor numbers (which I refused to do for various reasons):

A corner record is a smaller, more focused record of survey so the same requirements would apply. Although for the professional the document number may be enough to locate the parcel these documents are also used by the public who are not as technically astute as you and I so the APN assists them. Any R/S filed has the APN shown on it in conformance with 8762.5 prohibiting any lot lines not shown on the Assessor rolls from being show on the map. The same logic applies here.

I have no response to this but to me it's a head-shaker.....

While this may be a rambling post, I am enjoying this conversation and the responses.

[hellsangle]

When this old duffer was cutting his teeth in this profession - we were told when something "profound" was discovered during a survey: file a Record of Survey in order to put the surveying community on notice of your find.

A recent boundary survey found a monument in a sewer manhole, (er . . . person-hole to be PC).

Per the LS Act . . . I could file a Corner Record. Recalling my mentors suggestion - this is "profound" to the survey community! The Corner Record is not subject to recording. Remember what happened to the BLM records that were burned during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake? Corner Records are subject to the same.

As to who is the "audience": it is for the surveying profession, not John Q. Public who thinks an Assessor's Map is a survey of their property! (I'm embarrassed to say, (er write), some surveyors employ Assessor's Map for their boundary surveys. One such case the AP map didn't show a 1.75' course from an angle-point in the right-of-way . . . then goes on to call a house encroaching about two feet!)

Based upon the attached photos, should I have filed a Corner Record?

Crazy Phil - yep, Surveyor to Recorder

[Ian Wilson]

Great comments! Thank you all.

Jim: Well put.

Warren: your comment mirrored my learning. See below.

Mikey, great question. In the 1933 LS Act, carried the admonition that the RS should show all the necessary information for the retracement of the survey. I’ve always considered that it was a map for future surveyors to rely on for their work.

David Kendall: APNs change. It is very difficult in most jurisdictions to find information about a “retired” APN. Recorded documents can be found, understood and retraced, even when the parcel has been subdivided or the lines have been altered with an LLA. I’d much rather see the deed reference. The APN is superfluous.

Crazy Phil: Great observation about the CR being filed at the County Surveyor’s office. Although ours are on line and stored “in the cloud”.

When I started out, I was taught that Records of Survey express opinions as to how the boundaries of the parcels were resolved; Corner Records expressed facts about what was found. One of my mentors explained that RSs were extrapolations from found evidence which CRs were interpolations from found evidence.

I see a lot of mathematical solutions being forced on RSs & CRs with little to support the documents. There’s an interesting thread about math vs monuments on LinkedIn.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/u ... 711017474)

Thanks for all the responses! Please keep adding to the discussion.

[Mike Mueller]

I see a lot of mathematical solutions being forced on RSs & CRs with little to support the documents. There’s an interesting thread about math vs monuments on LinkedIn.

I have never understood the argument between those two. Math is just another language, one particularly suited to showing how we applied theory to found evidence. It often seems that the "mathy" surveys are of two main types:
First type is the classic engineer survey from the 70's/80's that relies on one map and does a two point tango from the Basis of Bearings to show all the found monuments "off". Clearly a horrible survey. This is not a "math" solution, it is just a bad solution that represents a simple approach, and the math is doing its job and showing that clearly.

The other type is one that incorporates calculations from different maps for different positions, shows cross ties to allow for easy "apple to apple" comparisons of relationships, and demonstrates the various consequences of holding each monument etc. While it will appear "mathy" I would posit that it is just perhaps too complicated for some surveyors to understand... math is never the reason, it is a tool for analysis and comparison and a language to show what you did.

In both of those examples, "math" did its job, it let everyone reading the map understand what the author did or not do.

Mikey Mueller PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Mike Mueller]

Based upon the attached photos, should I have filed a Corner Record?

LOL I sure hope whoever jumped in there to read that tag got a 6 pack! (After they washed their hand lol)

Mikey Mueller
Sonoma County

[David Kendall]

The APN is superfluous

My comment to the County Surveyor was that AP data is not survey data. While I find AP data helpful and appropriate for indexing purposes and I am happy to list it in the title block but I am not willing to show it graphically on every lot shown as he requested. Same applies to zoning data, property addresses, etc

When I started out, I was taught that Records of Survey express opinions as to how the boundaries of the parcels were resolved; Corner Records expressed facts about what was found. One of my mentors explained that RSs were extrapolations from found evidence which CRs were interpolations from found evidence.

I thought this was a good time to compile a list to expand on Ian’s summary above which I endorse as well:

Corner record

A I find no conflict with adjoining surveys or subdivisions

B I set corners or lines of a previously monumented subdivision

C I set aliquot or subdivisional PLSS corners set simply in accordance with BLM manual methodology (explained on record) based on found evidence indicated in prior filed or Government survey records

D I set corners or lines of a previously monumented record of survey where I agree with the methodology

E I set witness monuments to B, C or D


Record of survey

F Anytime A does not occur in the course of a survey

G I performed a survey where the solution is based on historic occupation of private property lines or right of way improvements

H I set corners or lines of a subdivision with no original monuments existing or with no evidence of prior survey establishment

I I retrace paper subdivisions (ie record data parcel map)

J Subdivision by deed with no prior record of survey

K Anytime I find two reasonable (materially different) solutions for the same corner or line

L I retrace a prior survey established by an unfiled map

M I find a material discrepancy which I describe as a difference (resulting in a boundary situation which is meaningful to someone interested in the survey besides me) in the location of points or lines previously shown on a filed map

[LS_8750]

Is 0.07' in 967 feet a material discrepancy in a 1951 subdivision, street mon to street mon?

Seeking input to develop a narrative that would justify this deviation.

[Dave Lindell]

1:5,000 would allow 0.19', 1:10,000 would be OK with 0.09'

[CBarrett]

Is 0.07' in 967 feet a material discrepancy in a 1951 subdivision, street mon to street mon?

Seeking input to develop a narrative that would justify this deviation.

Most likely not, but, what are the land values like in the area?

0.07 in 1950's in a subdivision is pretty tight. Consider the error ellipses that were likely with the original surveyor.

[Ian Wilson]

And...are you calling a previous monument out? Why? Just math?

COGO is a tool; not a boundary law principle.

[Peter Ehlert]

And...are you calling a previous monument out? Why? Just math?

COGO is a tool; not a boundary law principle.

+1

[CBarrett]

And...are you calling a previous monument out? Why? Just math?

COGO is a tool; not a boundary law principle.

I would venture a guess he is filing a corner record, using CL mons, and the mapchecker is telling him that since there is 0.07' difference between measured and record, it is a material discrepancy and an RS is required.

I would counter that with the LS Act that says deciding when an RS is required, especially when it comes to judging material discrepancy is on the surveyor of record, and not up to a county mapchecker. Especially in such gray area cases.

[Mike Mueller]

Not material. Not even remotely.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

P.S. I assume you are working to educate a checker? Let us know if it works :)

[hellsangle]

Unfortunately . . . the map reviewers go by the letter of the law. (Which in most cases is ridiculous)

8762 . . . (2) A material discrepancy with the information contained in any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey previously recorded or filed in the office of the county recorder or the county surveying department, or any map or survey record maintained by the Bureau of Land Management of the United States. For purposes of this subdivision, a “material discrepancy” is limited to a material discrepancy in the position of points or lines, or in dimensions.

Would BPELSG crucify you for minor dimension change if you reported your measured dimension on a Corner Record? (I would suspect most surveyors show "record dimension" so as not to trigger a Record of Survey.)

It seems to me that the "spirit of the law" would be to show what you measured. Such as a measurement where the found boundary corners are perpendicular to the contours . . . over time the dimension to the lower monument creeps a few hundreths because the ground is moving! Per the "letter of the law" one would have to file a Record of Survey every time?!

Now to throw in a hyperbole for the creeping ground example . . . The Record of Survey review fee is $ 4,000! Who in their right mind would show a few hundreths change every time the line is measured?

[Ian Wilson]

Material discrepancy is in the hands of the surveyor who submitted the map; NOT the County Surveyor. What may well be significant in downtown Big City may be INsignificant in rural areas. Is 1:1,000 significant? 1:100? Not my call as CS.

We can't refuse to record any document sent to us.

All we CAN do is put a comment on the map detailing the perceived deficiencies. No more, no less (the latter as your previous County Surveyor found out, Phil). That includes potential comments about the methods (or lack thereof) shown on the documents.

We are not the Survey Police. We ARE editors of the map in the same sense that a writer submits a manuscript to their editor of review, clean-up, suggestions, etc.

[D Ryan]

Re: material discrepancy; I recall a poll sent out to all County Surveyors through CEAC (County Engineer's Association of Ca.) probably 15 or 20 years ago (seems this is one of those subjects/questions that comes up again and again and again and...). Everyone got to weigh in on material discrepancy and to their credit, most seemed to get it. Of course some just want a strict number to go by so they don't have to exercise any judgement or contemplate nuance. And like Ian said, it's not their call anyways, but it helps to be on the same page with your colleagues. These are things a surveyor and County Surveyor should be able to have an intelligent conversation about and not be talking at one another over hundredths or tenths.

The "discrepancy" must result in a material difference, i.e., impact the situation. In Black's law dictionary, there's reference to "material" having "influence or effect", having "importance".