Parcel Map from record data

[MFORD]

SMA Section 66448. “In all cases where a PARCEL MAP is required, such map shall be based upon a field survey made in conformity with the Land Surveyors Act when required by local ordinance, or, in absence of such requirement, shall be based either upon a field survey made in conformity with the Land Surveyors Act or be compiled from recorded or field data when sufficient survey information exists on filed maps to locate and retrace the exterior boundary lines of the PARCEL MAP if the location of at least one of these boundary lines can be established from an existing monumented line.â€￾

Does this or any other section of the SMA preclude setting new monuments on the new parcel lines shown on a Parcel Map prepared from record data? If so, can a Corner Record be filed at a later date to locate the new lot corners based on the "existing monumented line" shown on the new parcel map?

Apparently a “record dataâ€￾ parcel map is allowed by a local jurisdiction. However, if new monuments are shown to be set at the interior lot corners on the record data parcel map a complete field survey of the existing lot boundary is required. (There isn’t a local ordinance that requires a Parcel Map to be based on a field survey, otherwise the record data parcel map would be disallowed.)

Any thoughts?

Mike Ford

[LS 4722]

[Ian Wilson]

"66448. In all cases where a parcel map is required, the parcel map
shall be based upon a field survey made in conformity with the Land
Surveyors Act when required by local ordinance, or, in absence of
that requirement, shall be based either upon a field survey made in
conformity with the Land Surveyors Act or be compiled from recorded
or filed data when sufficient recorded or filed survey monumentation
presently exists to enable the retracement of the exterior boundary
lines of the parcel map and the establishment of the interior parcel
or lot lines of the parcel map."

"Recidr Data Parcel Maps" require that the boundary is sufficiently established from record information and that the exterior can be retraced from record sources.

Not saying that I like the product, but, the exterior should already be established in order to comply with 66448.

[LS 4722]

The Govt Code reads differently from the 2010 SMA..Sec 66448


SMA 2010

66448. In all cases where a parcel map is required, such map shall
be based upon a field survey made in conformity with the Land
Surveyors Act when required by local ordinance, or, in absence of
such requirement, shall be based either upon a field survey made in
conformity with the Land Surveyors Act or be compiled from recorded
or filed data when sufficient survey information exists on filed maps
to locate and retrace the exterior boundary lines of the parcel map
if the location of at least one of these boundary lines can be
established from an existing monumented line.

GOVT CODE

"66448. In all cases where a parcel map is required, the parcel map
shall be based upon a field survey made in conformity with the Land
Surveyors Act when required by local ordinance, or, in absence of
that requirement, shall be based either upon a field survey made in
conformity with the Land Surveyors Act or be compiled from recorded
or filed data when sufficient recorded or filed survey monumentation
presently exists to enable the retracement of the exterior boundary
lines of the parcel map and the establishment of the interior parcel
or lot lines of the parcel map."

[MFORD]

Thanks all. It’s interesting the Gov’t. Code wording and the SMA wording is different. I didn’t think of looking under the Gov’t Code. In any case it seems that neither the SMA nor Gov’t. Code restricts new monuments from being set on PMs from recorded data, as I already knew.

I had this discussion with a CS a few years ago. Nothing I could say would change his mind (might makes right) and I ended up filing my PM from record data and then having to charge my client the additional expense to prepare and file corner records on the filed Parcel Map. Not a huge expense, but unnecessary. In this case it was the path of least resistance and expediency to go along to get along. The next time though??

[Ian Wilson]

Myford, the Subdivision Map Act IS part of the Government Code. Th SMA begins at Section 66410 and runs from there.

Th quote I pulled is from the current Code, found at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calaw ... y=&hits=20

[MFORD]

Ian,
To clarify my last post. The first resource I consulted was the published version of the SMA 2012. I didn’t realize the published 2012 Govt. Code, which I assume is the source of the published SMA, would be different.
[font='Calibri','sans-serif'] [/font]
[font='Calibri','sans-serif']SMA 2012[/font][font='Calibri','sans-serif'][/font]
http://www2.dot.ca.gov/hq/row/landsurveys/Study_material/Laws_Surveyors/Subdivision_Map_Act_and_Division_3.pdf[font='Calibri','sans-serif'][/font]

66448. In all cases where a parcel map is required, such map shall be based upon a field survey made in conformity with the Land Surveyors Act when required by local ordinance, or, in absence of such requirement, shall be based either upon a field survey made in conformity with the Land Surveyors Act or be compiled from recorded or filed data when sufficient survey information exists on filed maps to locate and retrace the exterior boundary lines of the parcel map if the location of at least one of these boundary lines can be established from an existing monumented line.

Govt. Code 2012 Section 66448
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... 6444-66450
66448. In all cases where a parcel map is required, the parcel map shall be based upon a field survey made in conformity with the Land Surveyors Act when required by local ordinance, or, in absence of that requirement, shall be based either upon a field survey made in conformity with the Land Surveyors Act or be compiled from recorded or filed data when sufficient recorded or filed survey monumentation presently exists to enable the retracement of the exterior boundary lines of the parcel map and the establishment of the interior parcel or lot lines of the parcel map.

Any idea why the difference?
Mike Ford

[cals6406]

Which is still a little weird since the change was made in 2006 and became effective Jan 1, 2007.

[MFORD]

Don't know what happenend to the previous post. If it's not understandable I intened to say I consulted the published version of the 2012 SMA. I incorrectly assumed the published version of the Government Code woudl be the same. It turns out they're not.

Any idea why?

[E_Page]

Mike Ford - I know why!

It's because your "published 2012 SMA" is not the published 2012 SMA.

I don't know what source you got it from. It's not the SMA booklet published by CLSA, which is reflective of the Government Code as it existed when they published (or would be effective by the time of release). If it is that link to the Caltrans Study Guide, as has been pointed out, that guide is dated 2008. A lot has changed in the SMA since then as it is the subject of several pieces of legislation every year.

As Ian said, the SMA IS a part of the Government Code. They are not separate bodies of law.

There is no difference between the SMA and the current govt code. There is simply a mistake in that the document you are referencing is out of date.

This is a good example of why it's important to get updated versions of the laws we work by every year.

[MFORD]

Thanks Evan for the corrections. I thought I had looked up the 2012 SMA on line. Turns out it wasn't. That's the beauty of this forum. However, I think the Parcel Map from Record Data has its place under certain circumstances. The PMRD is really no different than a Corner Record. As with every statute abuses abound.

[subman]

"Presently exists" often is abused. In LA County, we esentially require that the four intersection monuments be present to establish the block, sidelines etc. of the underlying tract map and exterior boundary of the RDPM. Rarely do all four of the CL monuments and sufficient ties (3 or 4) exist. So what happens? The surveyor does a CR to establish the CL monument from existing ties, files it and then uses it to find an existing monument on the RDPM. Did a field survey occur? Yes. Should the field survey continued around the block, picking up any additional sideline evidence? Yes. The SMA needs to become more restrictive to prevent this piecemeal survey practice from doing and end run around the need to perform a field survey PM. Just one observers opinion...

[LS 4722]

Long time ago (when I did city/county record maps on a regular basis) I would file an RS on the boundary of the proposed division and then cut the tract map referencing the filed RS.

One of the main reasons for doing it that way was to get past the city/county checkers who would drive a person crazy asking for this and that, minor things that really just added fluff to an already established boundary by field survey. The problem with the checkers is that it seemed that when 1st check was done and resubmitted, a new checker would pick up the map and start tossing his 2 cents into the pot...so, doing an RS then cutting the map per the RS was an answer

Is that still a practice being done? Boundary per RS xxx pg yyy?

[JMS8070]

I realize I'm not Mr. Hunter, but I can tell you from my experience that doesn't seem to work in LA County anymore.

We had a very large commercial parcel map that didn't go through. We were at Mylar stage out for signatures with the developer figured out that they would never get all of the different owners to clear their taxes at the same time. Since we completed the survey, we converted the PM to a record of survey and submitted the RS to the Surveyor's Office in the same building.

The map that was ready to be recorded by Land Development Division but was found to be inadequate for the Surveyor's Office. They didn't like the way the notes were worded and how different corners were established. We amended the map to their requests, went out and found a little more information and the RS was recorded. Then a portion of the project started back up so we amended the RS into a PM to reflect the smaller project area. It came back with so much red that we requested a meeting with the County. At the meeting they told us that just because there is an RS filed over the site doesn't mean that we will agree with that boundary and we might have you establish it differently because we do not agree with the methods that the Surveyor's Office uses to establish boundaries. So now we are redoing the PM once again to make the LD Division happy. As you may have guessed, we have left the budget behind by SEVERAL thousand dollars.

Just to clarify, I have not worked with Mr. Hunter or his office in Simi Valley. I have only worked with the folks at the Alhambra building.

And also, I'm not working with a record data PM...so I guess I'm guilty of hijacking a thread or two myself...

[subman]

Paul, during my time in Land Development, I rarely saw a ROS filed for the exterior boundary of a subsequent record data PM. I have seen some ROSs filed for large areas covering multiple blocks of older tract maps in the south bay area to re-establish CL control, then RDPMs would be filed relying on that ROS. Primarily, this was all associated with condo maps filed over an existing lot from an underlying tract map lot where lot corners were not monumeted on the original underlying tract map.

Marty, feel free to call me regarding your specific project concerns. I would be happy to meet to discuss. If you are not aware, I am a Deputy County Surveyor for LA County DPW and oversee Land Development Division. My phone number is (626) 458-4006 or you can email me at dhunter@dpw.lacounty.gov. Without knowing the specifics, LDD not accepting a ROS boundary establishment that complied with the PLS Act and was signed/approved by Curt O'Bryan in Survey/M&PM Division, would raise a red flag for me. This assumes that the CS did not place a note on the ROS disagreeing with the private surveyor's opinion.

[LS 4722]

I am with Dennis on this. If an RS is properly done there is just no reason that LDD should reject that as an established perimeter boundary for a Tract or Parcel Map.

If I was to do one now, which I definitely will not do (unless it's an intriguing boundary) I would make sure that I set the types of monuments that LDD requires for tracts/pms' just to make the monument checker guy not get his panties in a bundle.

The map that was ready to be recorded by Land Development Division but was found to be inadequate for the Surveyor's Office. They didn't like the way the notes were worded and how different corners were established

Bill and Curt are top notch and if they kicked back your RS they had good reasons to do so.

At the meeting they told us that just because there is an RS filed over the site doesn't mean that we will agree with that boundary and we might have you establish it differently because we do not agree with the methods that the Surveyor's Office uses to establish boundaries.

That sounds pretty damn odd. Map checkers are working in LDD for one reason...to check maps, not to dictate how the signing surveyor should establish a boundary... Are there two books that I have not read yet? One being "How to Survey if you work on the 4th Floor for Record of Survey Division" and the other being "Better ways to survey by working on the 2nd floor for LDD"

Maybe I should head to the library and do some reading...I'll probably find the LDD book in the children's section right next to "How to prorate and call original monuments off by a tenth"