I keep following the same LS

[LS 4722]

Two jobs in a row. The LS files corner records, but seems to always miss the mark when it comes down to monuments not matching his math.

The first job I found him on (I posted on this one job) he was calling a 1935 lead/nail 0.012' off ???? AND an original 2" IP set for a lot corner, 0.045' off. I also found on that job that using his math and analysis is not a smart thing to do.

This second job I found him on, yesterday, I noticed on his CR that he calls an original c/l monument out by 0.043'???

That's not the worst though!

The subdivision I was working in yesterday was monumented in 1967-1968.

As I always do, I walked the different streets looking for undocumented originals ,usually cut crosses in the top of curb. Each lot line I came upon had these crosses. On two different streets I found these crosses.

Now, for those who do not know, let me try and explain (One second, have to feed the horse pulling my band wagon) why crosses like this exist and how you can tell they were set by the subdividing engineer/surveyor.

Back in the 60's, maybe into the 70's, everything was graded out. Pads, streets etc. Curbs were laid, asphalt may have been placed.

The engineer/surveyor sends his crews out. Instructs then to set crosses (or w/e) in the center of the curb line at a specific offset from sideline, on each PL prod. This is done because, when someone needs a lot surveyed or a home laid out, the foresighted engineer has all of his control in to do it quickly and make a nice profit. I mean, is not the original surveying company for the brand new subdivision the one to call for stuff like this?

Back to the guy I am following.

Unfortunately for him, he could not recognize these undocumented, yet original, cut cross monuments. So he pops in a new shiny tag, about 0.2' away.

I may just be a nice guy and pay his tuition to Professor Evan Pages class on how to recognize original monuments, unless the class has already filled.

[shaunb]

Well, on the bright side, at least he's filing the Cr's and stuff.... giving at least a little information and ability to trace things.

[PLS7393]

It is my experience and understanding that the undocumented cut crosses on the curb you address are for the purpose of constructing the fences.

If a subdivision is monumented and shown on the original tract, I would hold the monuments as the field crew and LS setting the undocumented cut crosses in TC may understand the purpose and not spend the time to set the cut cross accurately. 0.2' is not critical for string line when construction a wood fence in a 1' diameter hole for fence posts.

I would only research, search for, and evaluate for my boundary resolution undocumented cut crosses if there were no other monuments to use. Some Cities use to require plats for the construction of new homes and you will find cut crosses shown on the plats (City of Oakland) to evaluate any boundary issues.

[Darth Vader]

What is an “Undocumented original?â€￾ Is it similar to an undocumented alien? Something or someone that breaks the law and now people find it politically correct to give it permanent status or even more give it an original status?

Surely you are joking that someone must hold a chiselled cross which is: (extrapolating from the word undocumented) not shown on any map; not called for in any description; not mentioned in any oath by someone of actual knowledge; the methods and procedures are unknown is somehow to be equal to a documented original undisturbed monument set by the original surveyor at the time of the survey.

Please help me remember when it was legal in California to create an “undocumented original?â€￾ I believe it was ONLY legal before the first land surveyors’ act of 1891, but I am open to your clarification. So if these streets predate the first land surveyors act I would agree these could be held as original points without more documentation but I surely would be open to your thoughts.

Why are you giving someone a bad time about refusing to hold an illegal point? Do you accept all undocumented points to be an original?

Do you have information that the other surveyors have access to that would support mandatory holding of these points? I would be very interested in your criteria and think if you shared it on this board we could all benefit.

To start a productive discussion, if you were resurveying a lot from a map filed six months ago would you hold a new chissled cross in a location that comes close to where you would establish it?

I am sorry but I don’t buy prescriptions from undocumented pharmacist, get my work done by undocumented aliens or hold undocumented originals. Maybe in your area people embrace illegal activity as acceptable but I think it is the scourge of our profession.

Now as to the distance being shown to 0.001’+/- are you really thinking the unknown surveyor proposes that their measurements are that precise? Are you saying that your maps that show distances to 0.01’+/- are really that precise? I would love to see the procedures and equipment being implemented to achieve 0.01’+/- precision.

[RMLAND]

Oh Darth.. hope you realize what your into now
This going to be good

[E_Page]

Yes, if the original front irons are not in, the cut crosses are excellent evidence of the sidelines.

They were typically set just as carefully as any other monument in a subdivision. They served several purposes and were often used to turn down the sideline to set the iron monuments that some hold as so superior to the cut crosses as evidence of the line.

If it was known to be standard practice among surveyors in a particlar area, or even known to be the practice of a particular surveyor to set such points, then when you find them, they are just as good in evidentiary value as any monument documented on the map. But you need to be able to show that it was standard practice.

If you dismiss marks and monuments simply because you have not found a record for it and do not investigate further, and if that is your regular practice, then it is a certainty that you are trampling valid property rights accrued to some of those points in some instances.

They are not illegal points. No one can get arrested for setting such points. It may be a violation to have not shown them on a filed map, but it is not the filing that makes them valid. If they were set to mark the lines, were represented to the lot buyers that they mark the lines, were recognized by lot owners as marking the lines and relied upon, then that's what gives undocumented monuments their validity.

Not simply my opinion. The courts have been pretty consistent on it.

[LS 4722]

To start a productive discussion, if you were resurveying a lot from a map filed six months ago would you hold a new chiseled cross in a location that comes close to where you would establish it?

That would depend.

I am not talking about 1 or 3 cut crosses Darth, each lot prod has one. I am also not taking about new crosses but aged ones. In a few of the crosses, a smart surveyor set his tag in the center of the cross, a few more ignored the cross and set their own tag based upon their calc's.

I must have spotted at least 20 crosses, each one in the original curb. I have told you why they were set and who set them. If you want to ignore what was standard practice back in the day, then do so.

It's very evident that todays LS spooks when evidence is contrary to his calculations.

What is an Undocumented original?

Well, how about this example.

I did a survey in Pasadena. It wasn't a large subdivision, maybe 15 lots. The tract map showed the norm, S/T's set at PI's or BC or w/e. Anyway, I walked the block as I always do and I saw on the top of curb on each lot line prod a lead/tag. The number on the tag matched the number of the signing LS who did the subdivision. An undocumented original. Some have numbers, some don't, you just have to learn how to recognize what's in the ground.

[LS 4722]

It is my experience and understanding that the undocumented cut crosses on the curb you address are for the purpose of constructing the fences.

Umm, probably. Usually people want fences as close to line as possible.

If a subdivision is monumented and shown on the original tract, I would hold the monuments as the field crew and LS setting the undocumented cut crosses in TC may understand the purpose and not spend the time to set the cut cross accurately.

Slop happens, be it with 2 " IP's or cut crosses, the fact of the matter is that the crosses were set by the subdividing LS/RE, so they hold.

PS One can hold all the monuments, documented or not.

[LS_8750]

I see non-documented original monuments all the time. Old timers a hundred plus years ago would set hand made hubs at lot corners, paint the lot numbers on the sides of the hubs facing direction of the corresponding lots, chamfer the edges, paint them white, but not describe on the map that they set anything.

I found one in old town Palo Alto about a year ago, everybody all around had been splitting the curbs for the last 60 years and I walked up on an old hub with a hand forged lopsided rectangular headed nail driven into the middle of it, chamfered, remnants of of old white paint still remaining on it. Nothing was shown as set on the original 1906 subdivision map. I held it as original, it may have not been original, but I held it.


My question concerning the original post is, Mr. LS 4722, should your predecessor have filed a R/S given that he showed a material discrepancy of +/- 0.001'? Just kidding.

[LS 4722]

I give the guy 1000% credit for digging down about 3 inches through some of the hardest AC I have ever come across and finding original S/T PI's, he did it in two places.. then he tosses one out.. amazing!

[pls7809]

A surveyor needs to evaluate ALL of the evidence and determine the strength of value of each piece of evidence collected. I would certainly hold an "undocumented original" over a shiny new brass tag with a recorded reference.

[Darth Vader]

Quote:
They are not illegal points. No one can get arrested for setting such points. It may be a violation to have not shown them on a filed map, but it is not the filing that makes them valid. If they were set to mark the lines, were represented to the lot buyers that they mark the lines, were recognized by lot owners as marking the lines and relied upon, then that's what gives undocumented monuments their validity.

I thought illegal meant against the law and criminal meant you could get arrested for it. I thought a violation means someone broke the law or rule which is also something illegal. If I am wrong I apologize.

Do you think the courts would be consistent with their decisions based on the following: 1- If the crosses were found in a position close to the position other surveyors would establish as the boundary; 2- were never represented to the lot buyers; 3-were never recognized by the owners of the lots (hence the need for a survey); 4-are not shown or described on any written instrument, notes or maps that the retracing surveyor can find; and 5- does not follow the mandatory filing law of the state.

Would you recommend that a surveyor with just these facts should hold these undocumented originals?

Would you tell them to throw them out in every instance with just these facts?

Quote:
I see non-documented original monuments all the time.

I don’t see this all the time so that is probably why I don’t relate so well. Is this still happening?

If it has stopped when and what was the cause?

Quote:
I must have spotted at least 20 crosses, each one in the original curb. I have told you why they were set and who set them. If you want to ignore what was standard practice back in the day, then do so.

Do you think a Land Surveyor that finds undocumented originals during a field survey would need to file a Record of Survey? Would they need to get oaths or some documentation to justify that these crosses were set by the original surveyor at the time of the survey and are undisturbed or is the mere fact that local lore tells that the engineering firm who did the map many times (but not all) set chiselled crosses in practice enough?

Quote:
It's very evident that todays LS spooks when evidence is contrary to his calculations.

It’s very evident that in some areas LS's of the past were unprofessional and broke the law.

Anyone know if the board will take action on a license that is expired or retired?

[RAM]

ill eagle is a sick bird

[LS 4722]

I believe this has been posted before, but I think it's worth a re post.

In a few areas of this subdivision where original sidewalk still remains, a land surveyor may come across two lead/nails on lot or fence lines produced.

The problem is, the l/n do not line up but may be a foot or two, left and right of line, from each other?

What to do?

Back in the day there was a program initialed WPA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration

During this time of WPA the lot corners of Beverly Hills Tract were monumented with 2x2 hubs. Individuals were hired through WPA that were instructed to go to each 2x2 and set (2) L/N swing ties in the sidewalk. The hirelings were told to keep the two reference monuments as close to a 90° from the lot corner and at a two foot distance away.

Local lore only but common knowledge amongst the practicing LS of that day.

[E_Page]

" 'In cases of disputed boundary, all evidence, whether documentary or parol, which bears upon the point in issue and which is not inadmissible on general principles, may be received in evidence, including records of original proprietors, their plans and maps and the location of lands by ancient settlers.'" - Chandler v. Hibberd (citing Pounders v. Nix, 222 ALA 27, 130 So. 537), 165 Cal.App.2d 39, 55

and immediately following...

""Lines actually run and marked on the ground may be proved by any evidence, direct or circumstantial, competent to prove any other disputed fact, and where markers of the original survey have been destroyed, secondary evidence as to the authenticity of their relocation is admissible." California recognizes these rules to be sound." - Chandler v. Hibberd (quoting 11 Corpus Juris Secendum §108), 165 Cal.App.2d 39, 55 (emphasis by EAP)

[LS 4722]

A couple of examples on how these 2 footers may appear in the field...many variations naturally


attached

[E_Page]

Do you think the courts would be consistent with their decisions based on the following: 1- If the crosses were found in a position close to the position other surveyors would establish as the boundary; 2- were never represented to the lot buyers; 3-were never recognized by the owners of the lots (hence the need for a survey); 4-are not shown or described on any written instrument, notes or maps that the retracing surveyor can find; and 5- does not follow the mandatory filing law of the state.

At the trial level, it would mostly depend upon the ability of the attorneys to effectively use their experts and upon the experts' abilities to explain what they did and why they did it. Assuming that the attorneys present their cases well and the experts testify well, yes, I would expect a certain degree of consistency at the trial level and an even greater level of consistency at the apellate level.

Would you recommend that a surveyor with just these facts should hold these undocumented originals?

No. The surveyor should also seek to find out if it was either standard practice in the area about the time the subdivision was originally surveyed, or standard practice for the surveyor who prepared the subdivision to set such points. One should not base professional decisions on blind assumptions. But when knowledge of past standard or even past specific practice provides a basis to make a logical presumption of the relationship of a found point to a corner, that point can be valid evidence.

Would you tell them to throw them out in every instance with just these facts?

No. I would tell them to learn how such points may have fit into standard practices for the area in the timeframe in which the subdivision was originally surveyed or as to the standard practices of the surveyor who performed the original survey of the subdivision.

Quote:
I see non-documented original monuments all the time.

I don’t see this all the time so that is probably why I don’t relate so well. Is this still happening?

If it has stopped when and what was the cause?

If you are not finding undocumented monuments that are also valid boundary evidence, then there are a few different possibilities:

1. You work in an area where practically all such points have been either remonumented and documented on a subsequesntly filed map, or have otherwise been destroyed because of construction or agricultural activity.

2. You do not know what to look for and thus are unable to recognize evidence of an existing boundary that does not also appear as a symbol on a filed map.

or

3. You are more concerned with the past violations of other surveyors than you are with the validly accrued property rights of the landowners who rely on our profession and so refuse to acknowledge the existence of an undocumented monument that marks the location of a boundary. You wilfully cannot recognize evidence of a boundary that does not also apprea as a symbol on a filed map, preferring to move a boundary to where it should be according to dimensions of a filed map than recognize an established boundary in a slightly different location when that boundary is delineated by marks not shown on a filed map.

Quote:
I must have spotted at least 20 crosses, each one in the original curb. I have told you why they were set and who set them. If you want to ignore what was standard practice back in the day, then do so.

Do you think a Land Surveyor that finds undocumented originals during a field survey would need to file a Record of Survey?

Yes. §8762(b)(1): Material evidence that doesn't appear on a previously filed map.

Would they need to get oaths or some documentation to justify that these crosses were set by the original surveyor at the time of the survey and are undisturbed or is the mere fact that local lore tells that the engineering firm who did the map many times (but not all) set chiselled crosses in practice enough?

"Local lore", in legal terms is known as "common report", meaning that if a thing has a reputation among those who should know as being somehow pertinent to the question at hand, then that reputation is sufficient to make the thing admissable as evidence.

Should one get oaths or some other documentation? It depends. If an undocumented point does not fit into the category of standard practice as would cut crosses on curbs in many locations, then documenting oaths from individuals who have direct knowledge of a point's establishment is a very good idea, and in many cases necessary. If you can find some corroborating documentation for the point, that's always good, but not necessary in every case.

Quote:
It's very evident that todays LS spooks when evidence is contrary to his calculations.

It’s very evident that in some areas LS's of the past were unprofessional and broke the law.

Anyone know if the board will take action on a license that is expired or retired?

Yes, many were in violation of the recording laws. The problem was so widespread that it appears to me that it must have been more a matter of ignorance as to what the requirements actually were rather than an overt desire to circumvent the law. The LA area seems to be a unique bubble in which there was widespread understanding of the actual legal requirements and very good compliance with recording laws several decades prior to majority compliance in other parts of the state. Most parts of the state with which I am familiar had little or inconsistent compliance with the recording law prior to the 1960s, and then there seemed to be increasingly better complaince from that time forward to the point where all licensed surveyors have a pretty good understanding of the filing requirements. In some parts of the state, it seems like majority compliance didn't occur until sometime in the early or mid 70s.

The courts have not penalized landowners for the noncompliance with recording laws by the surveyors they hired. The courts realize that landowners have and should be able to rely upon the points set by the surveyors they hire who have been licensed by the state to mark boundaries. The violation of non-filing is a separate question from the establishment of points on the ground.

Will the Board pursue a complaint against a retired or expired license? Under certain circumstances, I'm sure they would. If I'm not mistaken, they have in the past required a retired licensee to cause several RS maps of his past surveys to be filed.

[Jim Frame]

it seems like majority compliance didn't occur until sometime in the early or mid 70s

And in some cases later. In the late '70s and early '80s I worked for a Sacramento firm that staked thousands of residential lots during my 4-year tenure with the company. Our standard practice in flat ground -- which accounted for a large percentage of the subdivisions -- was to stake the BCs, ECs and curb returns at the back of walk from temporary centerline control, then flat-chain the intermediate lot lines between these temporary marks, marking the lot lines with a red pencil. If the chaining between temporary control points checked in more than a few hundredths off, we'd prorate the discrepancy back through the pencil marks, and finally chisel a gash at the back of walk to mark each lot line. Permanent centerline control -- the monumentation that shows on the subdivision map -- was the last thing that got set in the subdivision. This happened after paving was completed, usually weeks after marking the lot lines.

This procedure had been in use by the company for at least 20 years, and it undoubtedly persisted for some years after I left the firm. The back-of-walk gashes aren't shown on any map, but are certainly original, and were used by the builders to layout houses and fences.

I know of a 1990s subdivision close to home in which this practice was followed, though by a different Sacramento company. I had occasion a couple of years ago to replace a lot corner there, and found that the gashes didn't agree with the centerline monuments by about 0.2'. I held the gashes that I found on each side of the lot in question, and showed the discrepancy on the ROS I filed.

[LA Stevens]

Attached is an article from 1969 referencing the Boards Actions from July 11, 1969 that states ROS is not required, if material evidence is not significant enough to make a difference including found or set monuments. I've clouded the article in red on page 3.

It appears our present interpretation is quite different from 45 years ago. That makes a lot of sense as to why so many records went unfiled. I have talked to many surveyor's who no longer reside on earth and they said surveying was much easier in the past because of the amount of monumentation that existed.

[Proud7191]

The standard practices of the past make me think about the practices of the present. The typical subdivision today is surveyed radial from control points. Typically from high points on the perimeter and then the control is moved to the interior of the subdivision as fixed works are constructed. My favorite was a scribed "+" in a catch basin. I have said for years we should get away from setting centerline pc's and pt's offset radius points and set a minimum of controlling points and include the survey control on the plat that it was all set by originally (scribed "+" on cb). My 2 cents Jp

[E_Page]

I have talked to many surveyor's who no longer reside on earth ...

That's going above and beyond to get testimony. How do you do it Larry, seance, ouija board, or unusually strong adult beverage?

[Stephen Johnson]

That's going above and beyond to get testimony. How do you do it Larry, seance, ouija board, or unusually strong adult beverage?

Now that is funny, Evan.

Of course when you reach my age, many of the surveyors you once conferred with are no longer among us mortals.

[LA Stevens]

EP,

Sorry, they were still on earth at the time, I think. Maybe it was the moonshine talking!


Any further comment on the 1969 article?

[E_Page]

There's a couple of points to be made relative to that entry in the Cal Surveyor.

First, it goes a long way to explaining why so few of the surveys performed prior to the mid 70s were reflected on filed maps. It would also mean that with regard to many of those surveys that would be filed under today's common interpretation, that those surveyors were not in violation.

If they weren't in violation according to the Board's interpretation of §8762(b)(1) at the time, how can anyone now entertain the idea that the monuments set in those surveys are somehow "illegal" points? If one were to hold to that view, then logical consistency would dictate that they consider any monuments set in more recent times in surveys not encountering any RS triggers according to today's understanding must also be considered "illegal". But then, that would just be silly.

The second point ties into the thread going about past Board Policy Resolutions. This is one that certainly made sense to rescind as it is out of step with the current state of the law (as I understand it anyway), and defies logical definition of what is material evidence.

It appears to me that when the Board came up with that one, they had material discrepancy tangled up with material evidence as they reasoned it out. If the previously undocumented evidence would make a positional difference, then you automatically have a material discrepancy. Why would the legislature have enumerated two subsections to cover essentially the same trigger?

How can one say that a monument or mark that pertains directly to a boundary is not material to that boundary, whether or not it agrees with other evidence? The purpose of 8762(b)(1) is to ensure that such evidence does get documented on a filed map. If the evidence documented on filed maps which agrees with the undocumented evidence gets destroyed and only the undocumented monument remains, then you're back to having to argue with those who are ideologically opposed to utilizing, recognizing, or even researching the history of monuments that do not appear on a previous record map.

IMO, monuments not appearing on any previous record map and appearing to have been intended to have some relationship to land boundaries must be considered as the material evidence referred to in §8762(b)(1).

[LA Stevens]

B & PO Code 8765 allows a Corner Record to be filed when monuments are found that are not of record.

A record of survey is not required of any survey:
(a) When it has been made by a public officer in his or her official capacity and a reproducible copy thereof, showing all data required by Section 8764, except the recorder s statement, has been filed with the county surveyor of the county in which the land is located. Any map so filed shall be indexed and kept available for public inspection.
(b) Made by the United States Bureau of Land Management.
(c) When a map is in preparation for recording or shall have been recorded under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act.
(d) When the survey is a retracement of lines shown on a subdivision map, official map, or a record of survey, where no material discrepancies with those records are found and sufficient monumentation is found to establish the precise location of property corners thereon, provided that a corner record is filed for any property corners which are set or reset or found to be of a different character than indicated by prior records. For purposes of this subdivision, a material discrepancy is limited to a material discrepancy in the position of points or lines, or in dimensions.
(e) When the survey is a survey of a mobilehome park interior lot as defined in Section 18210 of the Health and Safety Code, provided that no subdivision map, official map, or record of survey has been previously filed for the interior lot or no conversion to residential ownership has occurred pursuant to Section 66428.1 of the Government Code.