Size of Lettering and Adjacent Owners

[btaylor]

Regarding your last comment, I never understood the need for adjacent owners on the lot/block type when as you say the lot numbers should suffice.

On letter size, I just make everything L100. I know L80 is fine, but L100 is nice and readable so I do not have a problem with it. What I tend to do on some is make fence descriptions within the subject property L80 since it is informational and not really as important (so to speak) for retracing the map.

[pls7809]

I always thought the font size was a County Recorder's requirement. Maybe if you check with the Recorder, they will tell you what they will accept. L100 always seems a little big to me for a minimum size and down in So Cal, all the counties will accept the 1/10" (L80) size text, from my experience.

Adjoining owners' names are not usually required down here either. I did have that requested on a survey I did in Ventura County, along a Caltrans Highway. They wanted the deed reference and owner's name. I agreed with the deed reference, but thought the record owner's name was a little too much, but I did it to get the map done. I didn't think it was worth a battle. The description is what matters not the name.

The subdivsion lots should only requre the map reference and lot number for sure. That one I would fight them on. I had only a couple of small parcel maps along the route I surveyed. Most of the route was through old rancho, or public land areas with deeded adjoiners.

[Stan_K]

Not to be contrary, but aren't Leroy sizes expressed in thousandths of an inch? Leroy 100 is 0.100 inches high (1/10"). Leroy 120 is 0.120 inches high (1/8"). Leroy 80 is 0.080 inches (about 5/64").

[pls7809]

To be honest, I have no idea. I was just going from what the others were saying. To me 0.08" should be the minimum allowed, whatever Leroy size that is.

[JMS8070]

When I was working down in San Diego County I remember there being a requirement for L100 or larger. I know LA County will accept L80 and larger. San Bernardino County requires "not less than 8pt." Riverside County's Recommended Standards state the "minimum letter size shall be 0.08 inches." I do not see anything in the Orange County standards.

My rule-of-thumb is L100 or larger if it is getting recorded; it just seems clearer when everything is finalized.

I've never been asked to add an owner's name to adjacent calls, seems unnecessary. I don't believe 100 years from now my 50'x130' plot of land will be known as "Ye Olde Smith Place."

[dmi]

Generally, I would not quibbleover adjoiners, usually all that info is readily available. You are correct there are not guide lines in the PLS act. I think folks rely on map act guide lines and those indicate "legibly drawn". Some county recorders are sticklers. so this ,may be the source of the comments.1/8" is standard but many will accept 1/10".

[PLS7393]

One County requested that all lettering be 1/8" in size (L100 Leroy). Most other counties accept 1/10" (L80). I did not see anything in the LS Act about size.

Additionally, some Counties want us to place the NAME of the current owner of record of adjacent parcels on the Record of Survey in addition to the document number of the deed reference. I feel that the owner's name is not important and is always changing. What is important is the deed reference which contains the legal description of the adjacent parcel.

Additionally, when the adjacent parcel is a lot in a subdivision, the recorded map reference should be shown and not the owner's name or deed references because the map controls the boundary.
Any comments?

Section 8763. states: "The record of survey shall be a map, legibly drawn, printed or reproduced by a process gauranteeing a permanent record . . . "

As Dane stated, the "legibly drawn" is the key words here. Clarity is another way to evaluate if the map is legibly drawn. With computer drawn mapping, yes lettering is legibly drawn smaller than 1/8", but what happens to the legibly drawn aspect when you reduce the referenced map to 11"x18" for your office calce, copies, submittals with map reviews, etc.

The 1/8" minimal lettering size was established back when drafting was done by hand, and it was a good size to work with, so when maps were microfilmed, you could still read the the map at a reduced size.

Additionally, some Counties want us to place the NAME of the current owner of record of adjacent parcels on the Record of Survey in addition to the document number of the deed reference. I feel that the owner's name is not important and is always changing. What is important is the deed reference which contains the legal description of the adjacent parcel.

Additionally, when the adjacent parcel is a lot in a subdivision, the recorded map reference should be shown and not the owner's name or deed references because the map controls the boundary.
Any comments?

There are a number of valid options to document an adjoiner (my opinion). What is the purpose of an adjoiner? Lets think about your survey and how that might have an effect on the adjoiner, so yes I feel identifying the adjoiner (at the time of your survey) is important, even on a corner record. Corner records do not state adjoiners are needed, but I think we all will agree that they can be helpful, especially in locating the property.

1) LANDS OF . . . with (Document Number)
Allows for confimation of the land owner at the time of your survey

2) LOT/PARCEL of subdivision map, with Recording Info. (if multiple blocks of tract map)

3) APN
Allows for someone to get the needed info on the adjoiner and location.

These are all acceptable in my book.

[bruce hall]

"As Dane stated, the "legibly drawn" is the key words here. Clarity is another way to evaluate if the map is legibly drawn. With computer drawn mapping, yes lettering is legibly drawn smaller than 1/8", but what happens to the legibly drawn aspect when you reduce the referenced map to 11"x18" for your office calce, copies, submittals with map reviews, etc."

Well I say, What if I reduce this 26 x 18 sheet to a 8 1/2 by 11 or even smaller? Do I then adjust the size of the font on the original map to make sure that all reductions are legible?

Why not! This map that I am drawing should be legible at any reduction, not just the 26x18 that it was drafted at (with my tongue firmly planted somewhere).

[Gary O]

In the past we asked for 1/8" minimum lettering because the maps were microfilmed and then prints were made from those negatives. Tiny lettering became blurred on copies, making it illegible. Now they're scanned and prints are made from that file so small lettering hasn't been the problem it was in the past. I'm not sure what advantage there is to tiny lettering....less ink? I'm kidding of course but it does make it easier on the eyes of everyone using your map.

As far as adjoiners names, we see the advantages of having that info on the maps on a regular basis when helping the public figure out if their lot has been surveyed, where their property lines are or a plethora of other requests. Most of them have no idea where their lot is in relation to a surveyed parcel but when their name or 'that's the person I bought the lot from' shows up anywhere on the map it saves everybody a bunch of time.

Thanks to all of you who use minimum 1/8" lettering and put adjoiners on your maps.

[PLS7393]

The document number included with the "Lands of Wilson" should correspond and clarify the correct owners name at the time of your mapping project. It is that simple, and you should have already looked at the adjoiners deed in analyzing your boundary resolution.

[bruce hall]

my CS down here in the OC that "a modern record of survey contains the Assessor's parcel number of the property surveyed."

He might get the idea that not only should the APN of the surveyed property be shown, but also all of the adjoiners. He might even get the idea that it would great to show the APN of the lots across the street as well.

Granted it would probably make it easier for someone to find the RS on a AP Map, maybe even "facile". BUT, it is one more thing that I can be held responsible for. I don't mind the heat, but why should I turn another burner on when I am only frying some eggs.

[bruce hall]

and I hope he never does.

[Propst]

Per page 13 of the 2009 edition of the RS Guide referenced above:

"2. Lettering: Lettering shall be of an open, rounded style, either vertical or slanted, and of such size that it can be reproduced via microfilming, scanning or equivalent processes and still be easily read. Experience has indicated that the minimum size of lettering which will meet these requirements is 0.080â€￾, with a pen size that will keep the letters open. A sufficient space shall be left between any letters and lines to insure that the lettering will not bleed into the lines when reproducing a map copy from microfilm."

As was pointed out above, Leroy Lettering is measured in thousandths of an inch, so L100 = 0.100-inch; Leroy 80 = 0.080-inch or ~ 1/12-inch; and Leroy 120 = .120-inch or ~ 1/8-inch. Do we really want L120 on line annotation? I've never seen that size used to annotate line data before, although we do use it for Note headers and such.

As a younger man with better eyesight I felt that L80 was perfect, but as I age I see the advantages of L100. Nevertheless, with corrective lenses L80 is readable at full size on a clean print.

The Orange County Recorder's requirement was (and I believe still is) that if the text is all UPPERCASE then L80 (0.08-inch) is sufficient, but if the text is Mixed Case, or "Sentence Case" as MS word calls it, then the Minimum text size allowable is L100 (0.1-inch).

It is worth reiterating that these minimum sizes are given to ensure that the document "can be reproduced via microfilming, scanning or equivalent processes and still be easily read." Its NOT about ensuring that reduced copies are legible. With the modern availability of scanned PDF and TIFF files we can merely bring the map up on screen and read the data there, or print out the area of concern.

[pls7809]

I meant 0.08" in my post above. Not 1/8".

[Lee Hixson]

I have no problem with any surveyor placing the names of the adjoiners on his map. However, I have a problem when a County requires what is in excess of the PLS Act.

I want any information placed on my map to be correct and I don't want to be responsible for an incorrect owner's name being copied by others. An incorrect name on a deed can be a real problem. Surveyors determine the extent of a property description. A title company determines the names of owners. Also, it takes extra work to state the names of multiple owners of adjacent parcels. On some surveys you could have 10, 20 or more. This only adds to the cost of the job. A modern record of survey contains the Assessor's parcel number of the property surveyed. That makes it real easy to locate the parcel shown on the map.

So I would be careful when adding adjoiners names. Is it True Building Company LLC or is it the Jones Family Trust et al, etc. etc.

Wow! You make it sound so problematic, so onerous. I think it is really much easier than you let on. It's a given that you can't properly survey a parcel without bringing each abutting parcel into the resolution equation. Of necessity, this means you will have copies of the current vesting deeds for them, so how hard is it to note the owner's name and the document reference?

Yes, if one of them is a lot out of a tract or parcel map, it would be sufficient to simply show that and leave the name off (but completely acceptable to include it). And if for ANY reason you have a deed that you are not 100% sure of (does it, or doesn't it contain all of the proper names of all the owners?), so what? It's the deed with the description that you are bringing into the resolution, isn't it? It's the one you are relying on. So just go ahead and list the names(s) as they appear on it, and the document reference, and you're done! Isn't it just a bit much to back away from doing it because you don't have the blessing of a title company? And if there are 14 names? State the first one, followed by Et al.

You've quoted (referenced) the document that you are relying on. And I don't have any problem with a CS requesting such a notation. It's stating the basic facts about the adjoining parcels...the ones you just got through resolving. It's the single most important function accomplished by your map. Why shortchange it?

[Jim Frame]

"A modern record of survey contains the Assessor's parcel number of the property surveyed."

AP numbers are ephemeral -- they can change and become practically useless whenever the Assessor decides that a given AP map page is getting too crowded. In my opinion, APNs are best omitted from a Record of Survey in favor of more durable information like Official Record references.

.

[btaylor]

Yeah to me as long as you have the legal designation of what you are surveying - be it lot/block, or "lands of Taylor per Doc." all the other stuff about APNs or adjoiner names are superfluous. If you are retracing the ROS in 30 years the other information is not that relevant.

edit -of course if you are talking junior/senior rights, certain calls in a deeded area then of course those references are important. I am talking on a more general sense of course.