A Tale of Two Parcel Maps

[subman]

Both maps are for condominium purposes and are adjacent to one another. The City in which they are located allows construction to proceed concurrently with the condominium map process. Buildings are complete and new perimeter/retaining walls are in place. The field surveys were done within one day of one another per the surveyors statements. Both surveys cover the entire block and their measured distances between accepted center line monuments are very close to one another, however, the underlying 1920 era record tract map results in the block running short. One map has already recorded and the surveyor chose proration as the method to establish both the e'ly and w'ly boundary lines of his map and he has set corner monuments.

The second map has not yet recorded. The second surveyor chose to establish the e'ly line of his map by record distance from the block corner and the w'ly boundary (supposed common boundary line) by proration. The second surveyor also finds the monuments set by the first surveyor for the recorded map and shows them on his map. However, where he established the "common boundary line" by proration creates a 0.40' overlap.

I have met with the second surveyor and explained that I am not prepared to put my LS signature and stamp on the map as the County Engineer/Surveyor in its current form until I get advice from my County Counsel regarding liability. I suggested that he look again at his methods of establishment and consider accepting the corner monuments he found set by the adjacent recorded parcel map and establish his w'ly boundary based on those record monuments. I was careful not to come across as telling him how to do his survey, but explained my concern for both my personal liability and the County's liability if a dispute resulted between current or future property owners over how he chose to establish his boundaries.

I am currently waiting on advice from my County Counsel. I also forwarded both maps to the Title Company and asked if they would be prepared to issue a Final Guarantee on the parcel map knowing the above facts.

In the meantime, I would appreciate any thoughts and comments from both County Surveyors and private practice Surveyors. Obviously, there are details that can't be explained in an email post, but I have tried to summarize the matter as succinctly as possible. Thanks in advance...

[Ian Wilson]

Dennis:

Absent additional information and a copy of both plats, my take is that the first surveyor established the precedent (as well as followed a normally accepted standard of practice) by prorating the boundary. The second surveyor ignored precedent and standard of practice. Barring some untold but compelling reason to do otherwise, guess which side the judge would likely rule for if this went to court.

I would be willing to hazard that the additional 0.4’ was necessary for some reason or other; area, building size, etc.

Good on you for making sure that you aren’t part of memorializing a mess!

[goodgps]

Agreed,

Unless the second surveyor found undisputable evidence that his solution is correct, he has not followed presedent.

You, as the public agency review etc. etc. have the duty to question the method. The second surveyor does have the right to request recordation, whereas you place a note on the map disclosing your concerns. You also may wish to check with fire to see if there is an absolute minimum separation regarding fire safety issues. If construction has completed, the contractor may be required to remove a portion of the building is it doesn't meet setback.

I have actually been a relictant witness, watching public enforcement actually saw portions of buildings that violated safety setbacks.

Remind counsel that there are other issues besides different opinions/methode of two surveyors.

Whats the beef between these two guys any way ? just curious.

[subman]

Good,

Keep that chain saw in the shed. Both buildings meet minimum zoning setbacks. No fire wood to be had on this one.

There was previously a business relationship between two of the parties and they went their separate ways. Now one represents the one owner, the other the adjacent owner. Don't know much more than that, but we can probably assume the rest. As big as Los Angeles County is, I have multiple legal issues going all the time. I have a full time County Counsel assigned to my land development activities. We pretty much talk on a daily basis and he gets all the background. Thanks for your perspective.

[goodgps]

Cheeze,

YA take the fun out of it all Sub. vrooom vrooom

I reckon you do have a few dozen people in LA County. I'm supposing Counsel wil recommend putting a note on S-2's map if y'all can't come to an understanding. If everything meets setback etc. I don't see much mayhem being created, until it becomes tax time, or loan time or some future ALTA on these properties. I may be wrong, but isn't LAco property valued by the square foot ? I've had clients fighting over 10 square feet in San Francisco, on Market street. Those kind of surveys really tighten the glutes.

Stay Loose, get good advice and I'll keep the chainsaw handy.

your friend.

D "Good"man

[goodgps]

Dave,

For retracements we do the best we can with the evidence we find. I tell my people to be "sleuth-like" spy vs. spy dig up the dirt (both real and figurative)

It sounds like you dug the dirt. I will go with you as having the biggest feather (and a trophy 2x2) I think that you realize how hard the other guys worked to arrive at their solutions and can appreciate them. All of us "blind surveyors" will find a redwood once in a while, the guy who digs the bigger hole may just find more.
If you read notes of olde tyme surveyors, you'll find statements of "searched for [monument] did not find" "reset in original position"
Now we go out and find two monuments about 2-3 feet apart each of them denoted as the "original position"

With modern instruments, we can quickly measure lines of occupation, to help us "snoop out" which position was most likely used and accepted.

When you find the retracement book, somebody will find the contrary.

"good"

[subman]

County Counsel (CC) chimed in. They agreed that I was justified under my duties of the County/City Surveyor in not signing the parcel map. CC's analysis was based on the specific facts of this map along with review of two relevant court cases: Brumley v. Hall, 110 Cal.App.2d 638, 243 P.2d 27 (Cal.App. 3 Dist.1952) and Sullivan v. Balestrieri 142 Cal.App.2d 332, 298 P.2d 688, (Cal.App.1956), as well as several related principles from Browns pertaining to simultaneous conveyances in protracted subdivisions.

I want to be clear that my intent is not to claim that the County/City Surveyor has discretion to dictate what method of boundary establishment a surveyor uses on a final/parcel map. However, I believe it is within the purview of the County Surveyor in determining technical accuracy, to withhold their signature if the boundary establishment method is not consistent with generally accepted survey principles and practices.

In the end, I met again with the surveyor, this time in the presence of the owner. Once I presented my position, the owner agreed to follow my advice and asked his surveyor to modify the map. The surveyor agreed. I gave them my word that we would expedite the remaining steps and get his map recorded by the end of the year to avoid any further property tax complications. I believe he was more likely motivated by the need to close escrow on two of the units given this economic climate vs. fighting over 0.4 ft x 175 ft.

As we come up on the end of the year, this past five months (since receiving my license) has been quite a learning experience for me. To put things in perspective for other parts of the state, in Los Angeles County (since August 1st), we have recorded 119 Parcel Maps and 119 Tract Maps. All 238 maps have gone through my office, but that covers all 88 cities and the unincorporated County. I sign as the County/City Surveyor for the unincorporated County and 44 of the 88 cities. The other 44 cities, we just handle the tax clearance, final title guarantee and recording. Last year we recorded approximately 700 maps.

Lets all hope for a speedy recovery. Merry Christmas all...

[goodgps]

[Ian Wilson]

Read through Wheeler v San Bernardino.

Although this case was originally about the statute of limitation for bring a claim against the county, it has struck fear in the hearts of many county counsels. This case is the very reason that maps, from Dedication Plats to Records of Survey through Final Maps are scrutinized to the extent they are.

[Ric7308]

Dennis,

I was waiting and hoping to hear how this one resolved.

All discussion regarding the methodology employed by the two surveyors aside (I don't believe there is enough information present for any of us on this forum to issue an appropriate opinion), it is a welcome sight to see someone in your position research the issues, seek appropriate opinion, meet with the parties involved and encourage prompt and reasonable resolution.

I am especially encouraged that the other parties agreed and proceeded with finalizing the map. It could have been ugly and nothing gained for all.

Ric

[PLS7393]

Dennis,

I was waiting and hoping to hear how this one resolved.

Ric

Ric,
I read in post #8, the resolution.

As I review maps for a county in the bay area, I agree with you Dennis, and good call. I see too many maps where the surveyor does not close the block and only sets points at record distances. It isn't my license preparing the map, or to tell a surveyor how to do his job, but I will question and make suggestions if there are potential issues I find from previous filed maps.

As for checking for technicalities, the PLSA, SMA, Board Rules, and Local Ordinances lay out the technicalities the governing body is to review.

I always request a call if the surveyor has any questions pertaining my comments, and very few call.

[Ric7308]

Darth,

Very good question. I will try and read up on those cases also and I am interested in the response from County Council.

Ric