California Surveyors Forums

Note that I am sending this verbatim to the Building Official and City Surveyor of the City of San Jose. And this is not the first time I have written to them on this subject.

Two items to observe. San Jose has about a million people with tons of high-priced residential lots. A really nice place to live I might add. The city still allows architects, designers, engineers and any other non-surveyors to submit site plans showing boundaries for development. This applies to new construction, ADU's, Additions and commercial property. Then before the property owner's contractor can pour concrete the city requires a land surveyor to do a boundary survey and verify the setbacks of the forms. This results in land surveying costs from $2,000 to $7000. Some lots are fairly straightforward to determine the boundary. Others are in subdivisions from the late 1800's. Some are parcels that require a Record of Survey because the configuration of the lot has never been shown on a previously recorded map. The RS fee in Santa Clara County is $1059. The property owner is usually unaware of this "hidden" cost that has not been included in their estimate of building costs.

This is to say nothing about projects where steel, plumbing and forms are in place and then need to be moved because the contractor used a fictitious boundary on a site plan created by a non-surveyor and the forms encroach into the setback.

So the first item above involves allowing non-surveyors to perform land surveys. And yes I have sent some complaints to the board. The public is being injured by this.

The second item is where the city is requiring the surveyor to perform design functions. Here is the city comment:

"Submit a boundary and topographic survey prepared by a licensed land surveyor showing the footprint and the elevation points of the new ADU and the new garage. Note: The survey information pertaining to the basis of bearings and the benchmark used must be included in the boundary and topographic survey too."

I have no problem showing existing spot elevations on a site. But it's not a surveyor's place to prepare site plans showing proposed buildings and finish grades.

Ken Wilson

I could give 100 likes to this post, apparently nobody in the City knows how to resolve the issue, or even cares.

RE: Second Item:

I don't think that the City of San Jose is intending for anyone to practice outside of the scope of their professional authority. Instead, the City is requesting that the design team produce a site plan that incorporates components from different disciplines. For a project, it is not uncommon for there to be a design team consisting of multiple professionals; such as land surveyors (for topo and boundary), architects (for building locations and building plans), civil engineers (for grading plans, drainage facilities, utilities), geotechnical engineers (soils and geology), structural engineer (for building structural design), mechanical engineers (for heating/venting), fire protection engineers (for fire sprinklers), and traffic engineers (for traffic signals). That's a lot of folks contributing to a project. Obviously, not all projects will require such a diverse team.

In this case the City is specifying that they want an accurate site plan by requiring the topo and boundary to be performed by a land surveyor. By having an accurate site plan (especially when the proposed development will be right at the setback lines), it ensures that the site will be able to accommodate the proposed project. That is a good idea as it reduces the likelihood of surprises down the road. What I suspect is happening is that the owner does not have an architect; and that the owner is requesting the land surveyor provide a site plan that meets the City's specifications. Unless the owner provides a land surveyor with the site plan, the request should be denied.

I would not have a problem signing and stamping a site plan with another design professional's proposed design superimposed on it along with notes on my map disclosing the source of the design. I'm not taking responsibility for others' designs. This is no different than an architect including a land surveyor's topo and boundary into their work and then the architect signing and stamping the site plan.

Placing another profession's design work could be a copyright infringement . . .

Reading this is somewhat valid, and similar to what the City Surveyor had informed me the City was working on.
The City of SJ is revising/changing the ordinance to require a Boundary & Topographic Survey to be submitted with all design plans.
This will be a required sheet to be submitted with the plans. City of Cupertino did this 10 years ago to avoid city staff having to deal with adjoiners questioning the work. This also validates setback distances for additions and such, which the architects are suppose to already have (survey from a surveyor), but many architects are taking their own field measurements from fences.

What I am illustrating is that there is something missing when the building department allows site plans to be created without an "accurate boundary line survey" (CBC 107.2.6) by anybody with a pocket tape and a CAD program but then when it comes to an AO flood zone, they want the surveyor to create a Site Plan showing the new structure with finish grades that are in conformance with their understanding of the Base Flood Elevation.

Surveyors are not designers (with the exception of designing new property and other lines for subdivisions, lot line adjustments and easements).

On a good note, I understand that the City may be revamping their ordinance with regard to land surveying. So maybe there is hope after all.

Have you reviewed the site plans submitted by the land surveyors? Are you able to distinguish their work from that of architects, designers, and engineers?

I am examining a complaint involving a site plan prepared in San Anselmo—right in Bullseye territory. The complaint states:

“Respondent thereafter conducted a field survey and prepared a topographical map… Respondent submitted the topographic map to his client, drawing his client’s attention to encroachments over one of the property lines. Respondent thus communicated an opinion about the location of the property’s boundary lines to his client, and Respondent referred to the topographical map as an illustration thereof.”

“The boundary lines allow the architect to ensure proposed structures will meet setback and other requirements. Boundary lines are also necessary to allow public agencies to confirm compliance with such requirements.”

“But Respondent’s topographical map did not disclose how Respondent had established the boundary lines. No basis for establishing the boundaries was identified, and the boundary lines shown lacked any dimensioning (bearing and/or distances).”

It is remarkable that we still have practitioners attempting this old parlor trick: implying boundary determination while omitting dimensions, as if that omission insulates them from responsibility. It continues:

“Perhaps realizing the deficiency, Respondent purported to disclaim this aspect of his work product. In a note to the map, Respondent wrote: ‘The property lines shown hereon are for reference only. This is not a boundary survey map and should not be used as such.’”

The Board (BPELSG) is correctly pursuing revocation. This is current; the complaint was signed May 14, 2025.

If anyone is serious about correcting this industry problem, a simple public records request to the local planning department asking for a copy of the submitted site plans will reveal how widespread the problem. I suspect it will be fish in a barrel. Many of those fish will be licensed PLSs, with a mix of architects, designers, and engineers. Being a land surveyor does not authorize reliance on “record boundaries,” even on a barn in the middle of 600 acres. Crownholm-style work is not acceptable merely because the mapping person holds a license.

I have recently been involved in substantial, costly litigation where surveyors depicted “record boundaries,” boundaries of a line that have not been previously shown on any map, often with no monuments or only two monuments, and relied on the same nonsense disclaimers—“property lines are for reference only; this is not a boundary survey.” This latest case is simply one more example in a growing line of land surveyor heads on pikes. Attorneys, depending on which side they are on, are now realizing that their cases are either pure gold or their land surveyor torpedoed them with a disclaimer note and a failure to establish and file a proper boundary survey. The damages will be in the millions; the only open question is the first digit.

Again, send in the public records request, submit the results to BPELSG and your stringer will be full of PLS fish, by the barrel full.

DWoolley

“‘The property lines shown hereon are for reference only. This is not a boundary survey map and should not be used as such.’”

I've seen that language before, almost verbatim. You don't need no stinkin surveyor in the Bullseye.....