Proportioning between FD ORIGINAL

[Ben Lund]

From my readings, it is my understanding the you can only proportion between FOUND ORIGINAL monuments. Is there a situation where you NOT do this?
Thanks!
Ben

[Ben Lund]

My particular situation is a block breakdown where the only original monuments are centerline street monuments. However, there are other survey's that have been done on other lots inside the block. Two of these lots abut the parcel in question. I don’t have a problem holding the lines established by previous surveyors, the question is, can I hold their set monuments and prorate (to establish the other lot lines) or do I need to prorate between found original monuments?

[E_Page]

You can proportion between the nearest accepted monuments. Did these other surveyors perform their work reasonably given the tools, conditions, and standards of the time?

Since you are accepting their monuments for what they are purported to be marking, use them as you would the originals.

[Ben Lund]

Thanks Evan, I had a feeling what you explained would be considered the standard of care. I guess I would still have to check their monuments with the originals to make sure their work was reasonably performed "given the tools, conditions, and standards of the time."

[E_Page]

That's right. Ben. But don't make the common mistake of using proportionate measure your only tool when evaluating those monuments. Those previous surveyors may have been privy to evidence that is no longer available to you today, and even if the monuments do not fit the expected positions according to a proportioned one (factoring in such things as reasonably expected measurement accuracies, etc), those monuments may be perpetuating the true corners as they originally existed.

You may need to look at additional extrinsic evidence if these mons don't fit closely to where the math says they should be.

[goodgps]

It looks like Evan really has this covered well.
Sometimes the last lot in a blick has no dimension on the original plat, yet the monument is available. It may be prudent to use record up to the point of the undimensioned lot.

As far as standard of care . . . It may also be considered that a consistent style of care was used throughout the entire block. Random errors cannot be presumed as they are simply random and unpredictable. If say you measure
half a foot long in a block of lots, the style and care can be presumed consistent for that line simply because it would be unknown where or if a half foot error occured in one lot, or a quarter foot in two lots etc.

Whereas an author may indicate proration as being a "last resort" method, the contraindication would be "proration is better that presumtion"

"Good"

[Ben Lund]

Evan, that makes a lot of sense and now I want to play devils advocate a little.

Good, I like what you said, "proration is better than presumption."

“…those monuments may be perpetuating the true corners as they originally existed.” I guess this statement is true of any monument (whether it’s a fence or 2” IP stamped LS XXXX). In my case, the original subdivision was done in 1924. The retracing surveys were done in the 80’s. The retracing surveys show a proration solution.

My dilemma is, when is it prudent to accept/hold retracing surveyor’s monuments? Is it when the monuments represent the best available evidence (i.e. no original monumentation or perpetuation of original monumentation via corner record or whatever)?

In the case where found original centerline street monuments define the block, is it better to hold these or hold found monuments set by the retracing surveyor on the interior lot corners? I’m not looking for a hold and fast rule, just the norm.

[subman]

Ben,

If the original subdivision block was created simultaneously by protraction (i.e. no lot corners monumented), do the subsequent individual lot surveys reasonably agree with lot line locations where the block excess/deficiency is distributed to each lot in the block by proration?

[PLS7393]

I would use the street monuments to verify the location of the found corners, then you can evaluate their found position. I hope there is a document on file showing the setting of the above said corners, or are the found corners of "Unknown Origin"? If they are of unknown origin, then they potentially do not have much weight, until they get on record of an accepted position.

That's my take, take it for what it's worth. (I know some of you are saying that isn't even .02)

[dmi]

Ben, No one can answer your question,really. This is because each fact set is a little different. The general rules apply to general situations. Is you situation a general situation ? Perhaps, it is a case that is an exception to the general rule but occurs often enought to fall into the category of exceptions to the general rules.

Let's say you have a block,where for some reason,after the block was laid out and monuments set, subsequent surveys came along and started at one end of the block and they laid out the block record. You come along later and discover the block is not record, but previous surveyors ignored the fact that the block is in fact considerably shorter than record. If you now come along and apply the PROPER and as some folks call it "mathmagical" solution to the block, you are going to cause a big mess. But, it really depends on the FACTS. Generally, original called for monuments hold over uncalled for opinion monuments with respect to record title location. Brown tells us that uncalled for monuments do not control, but they may well control some unwritten rights location.

I read somewhere that if the reason for the rule ceases to exist, then the rule is not applicable.

[E_Page]

In this case, the surveyors in the 80s used proration, telling you by what standard they felt appropriate at that time, and presumably (we almost have to approach each portion of any boundary survey with a presumption or hypothesis which we then need to prove or disprove) that they found no other evidence contradicting proration as the appropriate methodology.

They are also showing you by which method and controlling elements to use in evaluating their monuments. By inspecting their maps, does all of the info given make sense? Did they use appropriate controlling monuments? (Yes? Good.) Does their math work? (Yes? Good.) Do they show any conflicts with improvements? (No? Good. or Yes? Hmmm, this bears closer scrutiny.)

Assuming that the RSs raise no questions, and your fieldwork indicates that the monuments hold the positions they purport to on their respective maps (making reasonable allowance for expected accuracies) then use them as you would a found original.

If your fieldwork finds that there may be some doubt that the monuments set in the 80s occupy the same location as an original monument would have, whether or not it fits the correct proportioned position, you have more evaluation to do.

If you find improvements built shortly after the subdivision was surveyed, those improvements may be far better evidence of the originally established lot lines than distant monuments. Such improvements might be a fence or wall along the line, a building wall or sidewalk paralleling the line, or some other similar and permanent improvement that predates other surveys and appears that it was built with some knowledge or belief of location of the lot line.

If your proportioned positions show no significant conflict with existing, and especially old indications of occupation, set your points, file your map, and move on knowing you've done your job well.

If your points conflict with such indications of occupation, pause before setting those points and then prove to yourself that what you've come up with is more likely to be occupying the location of the lot corner as it originally existed. If you don't feel that you've proven that point, don't set your points. Keep investigating.


Keep this in mind as Rule No. 1 when re-establishing boundary lines: Your job is to find, and remonument if necessary, the corner location WHERE IT ORIGINALLY EXISTED, even if that position was technically wrong according to the map of that survey, and not to set your monuments where they should have been set according to that map, unless those positions happen to be the same point.


Boundary surveying is a process of investigation, and quite often, the application of law to what we've found. Although math is one of the tools we use, it is not necessarily the primary tool, and is often not the best solution to the boundary question.



Edit: The last 3 posts came in as I was typing. To add to, but not to contradict their posts, there are areas where little or no original monumentation remains. In its place, you may find monumentation which has been accepted by common report over the years. There may be no way to definitively prove that those points are perpetuations of the originals, but they are all you have. Lacking better evidence, you may accept monuments of common report.

Brown, Robillard, Wilson, and Wattles, the texts we are all familiar with, are full of general rules, or rebuttable presumptions. But that closing statement in Dane's post is a very important one to keep in mind. If the reason for the rule has ceased to exist...

If the original mons are all gone, then discard that rule for this survey.

[E_Page]

Just thought of something else that Dennis' post reminded me of.

Several years ago when I was an office tech for another LS, we were working on a survey of 3 lots in a subdivision. The map indicated that the lots were all of the same width starting with the most southerly, leaving the most northerly undimensioned.

The general rule would lead us to the conclusion that any excess or deficiency went into the most northerly lot. So we figured it that way, and our points all fell 3' to 4' south of the occupied and long established lines.

OK, what next? From the overall dimension of the subdivision, we figured what the dimension should have been had it been written on the map and then applied a proportioned solution. Almost the same solution as the first. Dang! What now?

This subdivision had been created around 1920 by a well known surveyor in that area during that period, and the boss knew who had inherited all those records. After obtaining (purchasing actually) the pertinent info from that surveyor, we found that although the map had been drawn as if the excess had been placed in the north lot, the original surveyor had actually started laying the lots out at from the North, working his way South.

When we applied the excess to the southerly lot of the subdivision, our points fell almost right on the lines of occupation.

That was one that hinged entirely on investigation. Using math, our arrival on the seen would have been seen as a great public calamity. In finding the correct solution, in contradiction to the general rule and its prescribed mathmagical solution, everyone was happy to have their existing lines confirmed where they were.

[7702]

But imagine all the lot line adjustments you could have done! :)

[LA Stevens]

The original records or records from subseqent surveys that are unrecorded can be invaluable in retracing the footsteps of the original surveyor. I have records of some surveyors, that may have not been the best at evaluating evidence, but sometimes they found original stakes or old occupation which can rectify your boundary retracement effort. Don't overlook unrecorded archives, they may provide the best available evidence to determine your boundary.

Another time I was looking at an unrecorded plat from the 1940's, which stated "Fd Orig Hub, Set IP" at all of the corners of 3 lots of a 100+ year old sub. We went out and located the IP's (rebars in this case which meant Iron Pin for that surveyor). None of the bearings and distances fit very well with record, +- a foot. Scratching my head out in the field I decided to dig down along the rebar. I didn't find any distinguishable redwood hub remnants. Pieces of redwood because we were in a redwood forest, but no hub pieces. I expanded my search to a 1 1/2 foot radius and ended up finding all of the original hubs. They all fit within a tenth or two. The Pins were set as guard posts I guess.

Keep an open mind.

[btaylor]

I agree with the others. I would only add that the main rule to follow is where the original surveyor staked those lot corners (Obvious rule of course which does not need to be said, but this simple concept is something to always have in the back of your mind). So with that in mind, following strict rules like "only prorate as a last resort" or "only prorate betwen original monuments" is not really the best way to look at your situation. Many monuments set later are other's best idea of those original locations. Or on the other hand some later monument can simply be some easy record calculation coming from one direction only to save a buck. Apply this thought process when resolving your lot.

Sometimes I prorate between monuments that are not original, and sometimes I simply go record from something that is not original - it depends on what I feel the evidence is telling me. Also if the ground in some places looks still undisturbed and old fence lines mysteriously stop some nice distance from the sidewalk, do some digging. Often you will find redwood remains down a few tenths, which may or may not be original, but you can probably assume they are very good representations of the measuring ability from a long time ago.

[goodgps]

I agree, Ben, you do have a dilema, that can only be resolved by careful analysis. AND, there may be a further dilema when. . . the original stake is found but a retracement surveyors position has been used and accepted (ie capital improvements built and aligned from). As to which found monuments to use. . . . the two nearest is the best rule, however, if the measurement doesn't fit record / occupation(close to record) then it may be very wise to go out a bit further to assure that an original looking monument didnt receive a substituted position. This method is how a random error, or malicious act can be discovered.

If a Plat du jour indicates lot corners and centerline monuments as having been set, then ALL monuments share a weighted value for retracement.
Original centerline monuments and subsequent positions derived from them, would hold over ANY other monument recorded or not EXCEPT in that case where said monument was placed to perpetuate a found original "undisturbed"
monument.

No simple answer as stated by all the others . . . but we're trying to put a little light on it !! :~)

good

[Ben Lund]

Thanks all! I appreciate the advice and I think I'm starting to understand how to apply the concepts I've been reading.