ALTA Survey-Any Accountability?

[T. S. Higgins]

Evan's post brought up something that I've seen in my past as one of those unlicensed map checkers; too often you get a draftsman with a rudimentary knowledge of what they're doing who tries to snap a line on a DXF and decides there's a problem. I've even heard it said by checkers that Surveyor "A" doesn't know what they're doing because his lines don't match record, aren't prorated, etc.

I think there's a mindset that those of us still working toward licensure need to take in which we realize that just when dealing with a licensed individual, we need to give them the benefit of the doubt and clarify our beliefs with the licensed individual who we're working under.

One very effective method we employed when I was map checking for the City of Turlock was that I would red line a copy of a map, and bring it to Rich Fultz (City Surveyor of Turlock). He'd sit down with me, I'd go over what I'd found and the documents and calculations I had to back up that opinion. Rich would contact the surveyor who had prepared the map, and if they thought it was necessary we'd set up a meeting in which we would both be in attendance and go over what was found.

This was during a time when our volume of maps was fairly manageable, so I know that it's not possible to include the CS over every map issue that arises, but when the initial contact is made, there is a measure of respect in having a peer contact you rather than map checker #46.

So the main drive from that story is that in addition to what Evan is saying as far as it being important to have a relationship with your CS, I think it's equally important that those of us who are not yet licensed, and those overseeing unlicensed individuals, make sure that the checking is being done from the perspective of clarification and suggestion, rather than "You're wrong, fix it!".

[E_Page]

Good point, Tristan. Likewise, when a private surveyor is contacted by or receives comments from an unlicensed map checker, the licensee should not immediately take a dismissive attitude of "I'm licensed, you're not, therefore you have no right to question my methods or my map".

I wrote about the unlicensed map checker who is a virtual encyclopedia of survey history. If he has something to tell me, it's worth listening to. Sometimes he has good info for me to consider, or use to reconsider my opinion. Sometimes what he has to say doesn't change my opinion at all. Either way I listen, and I explain what I did and why I did it. Of the few times he has had a question, the result was that I provided information on my map to better clarify what I did or why I did it. It has made for a better document in each case.

If the unlicensed map checker is mistaken in their opinion, it is a good opportunity for the LS to attempt to educate the map checker, which will help them do a better job in the future.

I have no doubt that there are unlicensed map checkers who have an outsized estimation of their knowledge and authority (As an aside, I knew darn near everything there was to know about surveying about 7 years before I was licensed. Then I started studying in earnest and have gotten progressively dumber about surveying, seemingly knowing less every time I learn something new. Funny how that works.). That sort of person is virtually uneducable except by the one or two people they hold in very high regard. On the other hand, I know that there are many licensed surveyors who deeply resent having their opinions questioned by a licensed person and will not even consider in the slightest that an unlicensed person may have a legitimate question regarding those opinions.

It comes down to affording others respect. But on the whole, I agree with Tristan, the licensee should be afforded the benefit of the doubt in most cases.


Getting back to the original topic, your RS should reflect the same boundary as on your ALTA, and it should be the correct boundary per your professional judgment, not contrary to it in subordination to someone else's professional judgment.

[land butcher]

I should note here that I was not signing the map, and I do not know how far up the ladder the RCE complained. From what I remember of his demeanor during our conversation about this I assume he went to the top.
Many of the map checkers at this county were licensed.
And the County had to approve our grading plans and the map and plans had to agree. I guess it boiled down to changing the map to get the plans approved.
When out numbered and out gunned surrender or retreat.


I did have a city checker try and rewrite a legal desc of mine. Didn't happen. She did manage to retain some of her garbage in the Cities spiel before the desc but I allowed that since it was outside my jurisdiction and just showed her feeble attempt at trying to show she knew what she was doing.

[Anthony Maffia]

I think the other surveyor will soon hang himself/herself.

Suppose the sale had gone through, and the buyer obtained ALTA title insurance based on that survey. The omission of the drive-thru would cause a claim against the insurance, and the insurer would then hang the surveyor from a tree.

An ALTA Survey / Policy places a substantial liability on the surveyor. Blunders like this couldn't go unnoticed forever.

[Stephen Johnson]

Exactly my point. Thanks, Stephen. I can't imagine a CS (none that I've met anyway) who are so unskilled and unknowledgeable in their profession so as to attempt to require proration over verifiable evidence of the original lines.

Occasionally, an unlicensed map checker will bring up what they think is an issue.




" If the issue you are having is with an unlicensed map checker, and you haven't gone over his head top the CS or at least to another licensed person in the CS office before altering your results, then perhaps you should just give your license to the map checker."

If you don't have such a relationship with your CS, choose not to communicate or discuss an issue, and you don't have confidence in your analytical abilities or ability to communicate, I can see why you would roll over and capitulate without any attempt at reason and thereby toss out professional integrity. If that describes you, you should be working under someone else's license.

You can roll on the floor and laugh your tail off if you like, LB. I have more respect for the profession and for my license than to be able to take that attitude. I also have to much respect for each to issue a boundary opinion under my license that I believe to be incorrect.

" If the issue you are having is with an unlicensed map checker, and you haven't gone over his head top the CS or at least to another licensed person in the CS office before altering your results, then perhaps you should just give your license to the map checker."


Not bloody likely from this surveyor.

I had a run in with a checker in San Bernadino County who thought he could survey in the late 80's. At that time I was only registered in Texas. I didn't get CA until March 1990. He didn't like what I told him he could do with his opinion. Then I told the CS about his checker.

[E_Page]

Stephen,

The only part of that post directed toward you was the thanks for making the point you did. The rest was directed more to anyone who has or would suggest that a PLS change their boundary to a solution they believe incorrect because the CS, or a map checker is "requiring" him to do so.

[land butcher]

SJ read post #31

[bruce hall]

thing is going. I have been following this kinda closely with nothing really to add, but for the life of me, I can't make heads or tails out of some of the stuff I see posted. And it is probably better that I can't.

Back to the original topic, the RS should reflect the same boundary as the ALTA. Just like Evan said in post #30. If mine doesn't, I guess I screwed up the first time, and there will probably be H$ll to pay.

[bryanmundia]

I, like Anthony, think that these companies will eventually hang themselves by putting out poorly executed work product. I just feel that if we know about such problems, isn't it our duty to protect the public from such?

I don't understand why if an ALTA survey is properly executed that it is so hard to file a Record of Survey. Not to mention it is against the law if the survey falls under the requirements of 8762. I look at in the way of if you saw a drunk driver going down the road, do you call the police to report him or do you let him go do the road knowing that he will eventually get caught? I myself would make the call. I think this is the way to protect the public.

There is one caviat to this story though. That is for those who have been brought up or trained that way. If you always see your parents breaking the law, I think it becomes alot easier for you as a kid to do the same. Not because you want to but because it is the only way you know how to do things.

These ALTA farms will eventually get what is coming to them, that I do know for sure. But am I the only one who doesn't get much sleep at night knowing that they are still out there doing such poor work? Also, what kind of name does that make for us as a profession?

Have I ever mapped an ALTA and not filed a Record of Survey when it is required? Yes. Did I know any better at the time? No. Would I do it again now that I know what is the requirement? Absolutely Not.

In closing I have just one thought. If only we were as wise then as we are now, what changes we would make in this world.

[rpost]

I often wonder what is stopping surveyors from filing Record of Surveys. I think the answer lies in three areas: ignorance, laziness or monetary concerns. I personally only stress about the third. It is my opinion that the vast majority of my clients would, knowing all of the facts, opt out of the Record of Survey if I was not insistent on it. Multimillion dollar companies and average Joe homeowners alike scoff at the $500 plan check fee, so do I.

I think it's time to rethink the mandatory filing of a map that costs so much to record. Worst yet, if I get stiffed, I'm on the hook for the Record of Survey and all of the fees in this economy? Salt in an open wound! (Of course Orange County is excluded from this rant)

[land butcher]

Personally I think it's mostly #3 - client not willing to pay the costs.
I quit doing lot surveys just for that reason, there was always another surveyor who felt setting nails in the street and alley on PL prod did not trigger a RS and his fee was naturally lower.

There are cases where developers bought properties for $250K and sold it with a new home on it for $1 million and could not find a few thousand in their budget for a RS.

And how many homeowners can be convinced that paying a surveyor as much or more than the new block wall costs justifies the money when the wall crew can just put it where the old fence was. And wall crews don't always use the property corners anyway.


Until someone finds a way to force every surveyor to toe the line it ain't gonna happen. And the JPPC's and State Board are not much help either.