Easement for Ingress, Egress and Regress

FOSTER · Post by **FOSTER** » Fri Jan 30, 2015 1:50 pm

A PLS or RCE submits a Record of Survey of a parcel that was created by deed and within the deed Parcel 1 (PIQ) and Parcel 2 (Private Access Road Easement) are explained but only Parcel 1 is depicted on the RS. No lines are delineated to show Parcel 2 nor is there a Surveyor's or Engineer's Statement explaining the access easement. The map appears to shown the P.I.Q. to be land locked. The individual submitting the RS does not feel he or she needs to provide the information because the P.L.S. Act does not say they have to! How does "Joe Public" in reading this map know how to get to the property? Properties to the north are also deeds and depict similar easement rights to access their property through the deeded property in question. If the P.L.S. Act [say in 8764 (d) (g)] does not adequately address the question at hand, then when does one show or explain an easement for Ingress, Egress and Regress purposes on a Record of Survey? What are the C.L.S.A. professional opinions when it is appropriate or prudent to show an easement on a Record of Survey?

bruce hall · Post by **bruce hall** » Fri Jan 30, 2015 6:11 pm

I would plot it on the RS. If I didn't have it, I wouldn't.

Dylan Kolstad · Post by **Dylan Kolstad** » Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:11 pm

If the client did not request the easement be plotted or marked on the ground, and it had no bearing on the establishment of the property boundary, why? It could potentially require a significant amount of research, calculations and field work to resolve the status and location of the easement(s). A record of survey is not a tentative map

steffan · Post by **steffan** » Sat Jan 31, 2015 6:47 am

You might consider whether the last sentence of Section 8764 of the LS Act is applicable. It states: "The record of survey need not consist of a survey of an entire property"

FOSTER · Post by **FOSTER** » Sat Jan 31, 2015 7:51 am

Dylan, It is the position of the licensed professional to educate the public and to demonstrate to them that it is in their best interest to show what issues within the deed that effective their property. I would not want to be before a judge and have to explain that I chose not to display any easements that were called out in the deed because the client did not instruct me to! Believe me you do not want to portray yourself in the judicial system by not demonstrating your due diligence as a professional. Thank you for your opinion.

Dylan Kolstad · Post by **Dylan Kolstad** » Sat Jan 31, 2015 8:27 am

Respectfully, the purpose of the survey is required to be identified on the map, and invariably that relates to the boundary. If you do not show all the easements which exist (or don't), and do not represent on the survey that you have done so, it would be difficult for someone to argue that you are liable for that "omission". The proper place for a landowner to identify easements which are appurtenant (and perhaps more importantly, encumbering) to determine whether a parcel is "landlocked" is a title report. It seems to me that more liability would arise from any implication that you are showing all the easements that exist, or doing so piecemeal by your own sense of obligation...

Berk Blake, PLS CA · Post by **Berk Blake, PLS CA** » Sat Jan 31, 2015 9:06 am

I agree with Dylan, there are significant hazards in trying to educate the public while trying to make a living. If the easement was necessary to re-create the boundary of the fee, then it needs to be shown. If owner wanted to see the easement, then it should be surveyed and shown on the map. Other than that, the record of survey will suffice for what it was intended to portray, i.e., parcel one of the grant deed.
IMHO

Jim Frame · Post by **Jim Frame** » Sat Jan 31, 2015 9:23 am

I agree with limiting the ROS to the parcel boundary. If the client wants/needs easement location information, then a title survey (e.g. ALTA) would be the product of choice. It's very possible that the ROS was required because a title survey was conducted.

FOSTER · Post by **FOSTER** » Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:29 am

Jim Frame, You make a valid point regarding the RS following a possible Title ALTA. Unfortunately, the State of California does not require the recording of the ALTA. Public offices (County or City or State) have no idea what may or may not have been stated in an ALTA. We need to review the RS map for technical correctness and that the "Public" is served with safe and valid information. Many times we are caught in the middle of proper law / statue interpretations and trying to serve the interests of both parties (RCE / LS and the client being served). Thank you for you opinion.

David Kendall · Post by **David Kendall** » Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:15 pm

I've never heard of an easement to regress! What does that mean? I suppose I want the rights to progress, aggress and digress in there as well...

Jim Frame · Post by **Jim Frame** » Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:32 pm

Public offices (County or City or State) have no idea what may or may not have been stated in an ALTA.

This is as it should be; there is no need for a County Surveyor to have any knowledge of what might or might not be shown on an ALTA in order to do his/her job as defined in the statutes. And there is certainly no justification for a County Surveyor trying to extend the purview of a Record of Survey by asking the submitting surveyor for information regarding title matters that don't affect the boundary location. We're land surveyors, not title insurers.

FOSTER · Post by **FOSTER** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:09 am

Page 1285 of Black's law Dictionary - Regress: to return, go back or re-enter; used to signify the reentry of person who has been disseised of land. Quoted from the said mentioned book.

California Surveyors Forums

Easement for Ingress, Egress and Regress

Easement for Ingress, Egress and Regress

If I had a copy of that easement

Point taken

Regress?

Regress