Searched for not found

[TIB]

When performing a boundary survey, Mr. Ace Surveydude will always search for any (and all) monuments of record that may affect the boundary determination. When a monument, or several monuments have been destroyed or lost etc,. and is considered "not found", must it be so noted on map or ROS? I recently submitted ROS. County Surveyor returned it with several redline notes asking if I had searched for mons from several different record maps. My first thought was "what a silly question, of course I searched for mons, it's survey 101, a standard procedure". I returned ROS and wrote "yes" next to each redline item asking if I had searched. (at least a dozen). CS sent it back, wants to put an "X" at each and every location where there is no monument, and include in legend that X= searched for not found. That's alot of little X's. Is this necessary? Can it be assumed that Mr. Surveydude looked for all the mons he was supposed to, with out having to indicate it each time?

[Warren Smith]

It's surely an "accepted local practice" thing. Virtually all the Counties I have surveyed in have a SNF (searched, nothing found) notation.
I would recommend that Surveydude go with the flow ...

[Peter Ehlert]

Nope. Not necessary and it just adds to the clutter.

When the CS prepares a map he is free to make all the little squiggles and notes he likes.
Play nice if you like, or say No and just tell him/her it is silly... your option.

[pls7809]

Maybe consider adding a general note?

"Other monuments shown on record maps that fall within the area shown on this survey were searched for and not found."

[D Ryan]

You ask what the conventional "assumption" should be in this case. Why leave anything to assumption on a map you are creating to document all that you did relatiove to your survey? Once one has to make assumptions, several scenarioes are presnted, resulting in various conclusions. Remaining silent on the status of relevant monuments that may have an effect on your survey creates uncertainty as to what you did. I totally get the question. You had an opportunity to do something like Ryan Versteeg suggests, but didn't so the County Surveyor had to offer something up. If you don't like all the little x's, suggest something different that addresses the issue at hand. I'm of the belief one should not have to make any assumptions when using a newly filed survey or newly created legal description.

Dave Ryan,
Humboldt County

[land butcher]

Not necessary
Map checker making busy work for himself to justify his job.

[MikeTurnrose]

I think it's a good practice to put that info. on a map. You could do the note like Ryan suggested. For the next surveyor who comes into the area, it's valuable information to know whether certain monuments were searched for or not. Then he/she can make an assessment whether they want to spend time searching for a monument. If they know it's been searched for before, they may not want to waste time doing it again.

[bruce hall]

is not a technical requirement that is spelled out in section 8764(a). Maybe that requirement is found in the white part of the page of section 8764(g).

Or maybe this "searched for" note is part of "any other data......" in section 8764(g).

Hypothetically let's say that I am the CS or his map checker and I say-"Well you looked for this pipe, and this one, and that one and you found nothing. Please state on the map why you didn't search for this other one."

Just a thought.

[btaylor]

I also think it is good practice to put "SNF", or show a symbol denoting such.

I just finished a job today where someone did a corner record on a parcel that showed 2"x2"s set in 1961. He did not mention anything about "SNF", so digging around I found 3 of the 4 hubs. I guess he did not, in fact, SNF. They were not too hard to find if you use that shovel thingamajigger. He is off about .4' from those.

[pls7809]

The hubs didn't ring on the yellow pipe finder thingamajigger, so he didn't dig for them with the shovel-like thingamajigger.

[btaylor]

The hubs didn't ring on the yellow pipe finder thingamajigger, so he didn't dig for them with the shovel-like thingamajigger.

I believe you are right.

On that note, I have never used a White's metal detector, which could detect non-ferrous items. I wonder if those can find something as small and thin as an old tag?

[bruce hall]

I was working for an engineer. He was looking at the box in my truck and wondered why I had so many tripods-there were 4 that you could see-"you only need two". told him I thought 4 tripods was needed to survey, at least it is really convenient.

He then asked me where my pipe finder was, and I pulled out the shovel (cause I didn't have a metal detector). He thought it was funny, and it was at the time. This was 1981 or so. Metal detectors are really convenient but they won't find wood, near as I can tell.

[rpost]

As a result of plan check comments, which I do not enjoy seeing, I now put a "searched not found" note at all important corners or I place a general note on the map. Done. Less comments. Less frustration.

[Peter Ehlert]

You ask what the conventional "assumption" should be in this case. Why leave anything to assumption on a map you are creating to document all that you did relatiove to your survey? Once one has to make assumptions, several scenarioes are presnted, resulting in various conclusions. Remaining silent on the status of relevant monuments that may have an effect on your survey creates uncertainty as to what you did. I totally get the question. You had an opportunity to do something like Ryan Versteeg suggests, but didn't so the County Surveyor had to offer something up. If you don't like all the little x's, suggest something different that addresses the issue at hand. I'm of the belief one should not have to make any assumptions when using a newly filed survey or newly created legal description.

Dave Ryan,
Humboldt County

We all make assumptions of what is done on a survey:
search for controlling monuments
search map and deed records
measure distances
measure angles
calculate traverse closure

and all of those other survey 101 things... suit yourself if you want to state the painfully obvious. It is not the job of the County Surveyor (or other clerk/bureaucrat) to require such notes, they have better things to do.

Go to war with the CS over minor details? not my style...

[steffan]

Reminds me of the time I was working for an outfit and was sent to set a monument off of a temp set by a former party chief. Upon arriving at the temp, we noticed a large, well embedded and aged mound of stone about 30 from the temp point. Matched the original notes for character. Opened up the field book from the crew who was supposed to have searched for the mound when they set the temp position. I'll never forget what was written in the field book: "searched 3 hours for corner, nothing found".

On the other hand, I recall the time I was doing some contract work for a county surveyor, helping the county get through a backlog of map checks. I came across a subdivision map where the submitting surveyor had shown only the controlling terminii points of a ~ 600 foot long boundary along with his new lot corners along that line. I called the surveyor and asked if he had searched for any of the "junior" corners on that line from the adjoining subdivision. He hadn't. Nor could he provide a reason why he shouldn't. So he went out and found some of them that didn't fall on the line by significant amounts. He was then able to provide resolution of those gaps/overlaps.

In these 2 situations, a SFNF note nor an assumption of due diligence were correct.

SFNF doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there. Corners get missed. Sometimes with or without diligent effort. Sometimes with or without the background to recognize the evidence that may be present.

I don't believe a CS is empowered to require the note, at least not on a R/S. I also don't place all that much value in it. In someways it could have a detrimental effect, in that a future surveyor may find the note on a map and be misled to believe that it equates to lost monument requiring no additional search.

[dmi]

COUNTY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA GUIDE TO THE PREPARATION OF RECORDS OF SURVEY AND CORNER RECORDS
Michael B. Emmons
Chair
Surveyor Policy Committee
March 27, 2009
4th Revision
Responsibility of the preparing surveyor
5. All information pertinent to the establishment of land boundary lines must be clearly shown or referenced on the map of the survey. It shall be the responsibility of the surveyor to examine available records in analyzing his or her survey.

BOARD ACTION

Excerpt from Case 975
In violation of Code section 8764, subdivision (g), Respondent's Record of Survey does not state how he established any of the points or lines and leaves it to future surveyors to make guesses and assumptions as to what Respondent was trying to accomplish during his survey. Respondent should have explained how and why he made the determinations of the original lines, how the senior conveyance locations were established, and how and why he made the determinations of all of the other positions for the junior property lines

Brown
Principle 2. The evidence of intent of a survey that is called for in a conveyance is to be interpreted from the map of the survey, the field notes of the survey, and the acts of the surveyor, not from the unwritten, unexpressed intent of the surveyor.

A plat should tell a complete story; it should show sufficient information to allow any subsequent surveyor to understand how the survey was made and why the survey is correct.

A plat should be complete in itself and should present sufficient evidence of monuments (record and locative) and measurements so that any other surveyor can clearly , without ambiguity, find the locative points and to follow the reasoning of the surveyor. A plat does not show the client’s land alone it shows ties necessary to prove the correctness of location. If it is necessary to measure from a mile away to correctly locate a property, that tie, as measured, is shown.

[E_Page]

There are enough surveyors who don't look for all pertinent monuments that it can never be assumed that a surveyor actually did look for any particular monument unless it is indicated on the map.

IMO, it's more than just a good idea to indicate the SNF monument locations, it's necessay to assure anyone who has call to use or refer to the map that the surveyor didn't just grab a couple of convenient mons, dispense with locating anything else that may have had an effect on boundary locations, and just laid out some bearings and distances.

If I see a map that indicates neither that a monument was found nor is labeled with SNF at a location that another record shows a monument to be, I assume that the surveyor who did not label the point either way did not look for it at all.

The map is for the purpose of communicating what you did. That includes showing what you found that supports your conclusions, what you looked for but did not find, and what you found that tends to contradict your conclusions. All that info is relevant.

[Anthony Maffia]

To a point - maps that look like a "Where's Waldo" cartoon aren't terribly helpful.

Dane, the quote from the case you cited above includes the word ANY which I think is operative.

[dmi]

Please post your citations that refute the one's I have posted. I have not found "where is Waldo? " in any serious professional discussion of boundary resolution. If any you have please enlighten me.

[btaylor]

I normally do not put SFWNF (Searched for Waldo, Not Found) on maps, but maybe a good practice to do so.

[Jim Frame]

I'm a SFNF skeptic. I admit that it's partly the way I was trained, but the way I figure it, if the map is by a surveyor with whose work I'm familiar, I know whether or not the open circle means that there's nothing there or that he didn't look. If it's by a surveyor with whose work I'm not familiar, I don't know if SFNF means there's nothing there, or that he doesn't know how to look. So for me, SFNF is either redundant or meaningless.

[Peter Ehlert]

I agree Jim.

Maybe just a general statement saying the survey complies with the PLS Act would suffice.

[land butcher]

I agree with Jim
Peter, isn't that already covered in the Surveyor's Statement.

One issue I have with searched found nothing or found nail no tag and it has no bearing on my survey is the CS then coming back and requesting a mon be set.

If it's a monument that is senior to my survey and would have bearing, yeah, if it's junior and I have senior or perpetuated senior what is the point.

[land butcher]

I agree with Jim
Peter, isn't that already covered in the Surveyor's Statement.

One issue I have with searched found nothing or found nail no tag and it has no bearing on my survey is the CS then coming back and requesting a mon be set.

If it's a monument that is senior to my survey and would have bearing, yeah, if it's junior and I have senior or perpetuated senior what is the point.

[goodgps]

The topic and comments are all very interesting. a "SFN" note certainly may notify a footstep following surveyor, that nothing was found. NOW this being said, I have found many a monument at places where maps indicate "SFN" The very same principle goes for "no tag" or "no reference"
Therefore I still dig like a fool and also dig down around monuments to see tags on the side (wired)
These laws, opinions and statutes are great for one's personal constitution, but some good fun digging in the dirt is sometimes rewarding and enlightening.

YES ! SFN is truely helpful though

(^_^)