Monuments vs. record courses on map

[pls5528]

It is a well settled boundary retracement principle that record monuments prevail over bearings and distances. When a subdivision or minor subdivision is filed (or deed calls to a monument) and monuments relied upon by landowners, it has always been my professional opinion (based upon legal cases and in writings from Brown and others) that you show the courses as they are. This presents the facts as they are on the ground, nothing more, nothing less.

I am having a disagreement with another surveyor regarding this issue. I see a couple of monuments off by 0.14' foot. Which could be sloppy work, or the basis of bearings used from another map (much of the monumentation of the Parcel Map is missing or destroyed). The acceptance of these original (Parcel Map monuments) would create an access strip of 19.8 feet, as opposed to the intended 20'. His take on this, is that the developer intended to have a 20' strip, and so trying to stay with that intent, he would "float the geometry" to fit record. I do not agree with this at all, in that, we should be unbiased to "our client" and present the facts "as they are". Playing the devils advocate, what if it were the intent of the developer "next door" (adjacent to this strip) to have a 20' wide access?

Appreciate some comments----

[land butcher]

There are a number of reasons the mons are off. There is the "follow in the footsteps" and stretch or shrink your chain to his but only if all the mons are off the the same ratio, 0.14/100, 0.28/200.

Is it our job to correct things that do not fit record or just report what we find?

I hold found mons of record. If the tract map created a 60ft street but the front PL mons set per that tract create a 59.8 ft street the street is 59.8 until a court says different.

IMO there are toooooo many surveyors today that think their msmts are better than anyone elses.

Many say that my RTK or EDM are more accurate than the chain used in 1950. True but I find the mons set prior to the 70s a lot more accurate then the stuff set in the late 90s.

[Gary Schenk]

Is it our job to correct things that do not fit record or just report what we find?

I was always told that we report the news, we don't make the news.

And that we are a monument based system.

[Mr. Smith]

I think all agree the physical iron is the corner not a calculated position. Surveyors do need to map with enough (mathematical) information so disturbed corners can be reset, if the map has too much Floating Geometry we have a dilemma.

My question is what service do we provide by creating a whole new series of records for each record line? (not much)


Mr. 5528 I think it's your call. I pick an error ellipse that I can call record, for me, most of the time, 0.14’ is JUST inside this ellipse. I confess most of my work is not down town big city.

IS 19.8’ = 20’ --------- IS 59.8’ = 60’

Answer = yes

What do you all think when you see a ROS that has bearings off by 4” and distances off by 0.05’??

Brian ---- my 5 cents

[E_Page]

When undisturbed original monuments are present, the measured and reported dimensions are merely informational. The monuments control the corner positions. Rejecting mons because they are 0.2' off without some other evidence to support a finding that the mons had been disturbed isn't a judgment call, it's simply incorrect.

[dedkad]

Is this a flag lot where the easement is bounded by two property lines or is it an easement that just happens to be monumented? Was the access easement solely created on the map or is there a separate easement agreement that addresses use and maintenance of the easement? If a separate easement agreement is in place, any description of that easement in the agreement could be introduced into evidence as to what the width of that easement is supposed to be. Looking at the bigger picture, if the fire department, City/County codes, and/or conditions of the map require a minimum 20' access easement and either property owner wants to develop/redevelop their site, calling off less than minimum because 0.14' is beyond your level of tolerance to accept it as 20' could result in some issues for your client.

[bruce hall]

Twenty feet or 19.8'. that is no big deal. Easy workaround if needed. I sincerely think that I am supposed to hold the original monument and blow out the math/dimensions. If it has been disturbed, moved than all bets are off, but I better have a good reason to think that. Like Page said.

[pls5528]

Yes, This is a flag type lot, with two parcels on either side of the strip created by the same map. I am sure it was the intent for the strip to be created at 20-feet (most likely a requirement from the City of Fire Department during the conditions of approval.
I also agree with Mr. Smith, in that an analysis can be made by a "positional tolerance" method, especially when using GPS methods. However, for a tolerance of 0.14' to be acceptable, the land surveyed would have to be quite a large plat of land. In this case, we are talking about each parcel being an acre or smaller. The monuments were found to be undisturbed. Just wanted to provide more information as it pertains here.

Appreciate your input, as always. Mike Walters PLS 5528

[Mr. Smith]

Similar logic one might follow

Your Client’s deed reads SW ¼ Section 8,
Your break the section and your CALCULATED Acreage = 159.56 Ac
Parcel is zoned 40 ac min. can you argue to planning that the intent of the zoning act
Is to allow a 4 way split on ¼ section plots of land?

Does 159.46Ac = 160Ac? again I say yes and will argue for my client to Planning.

Mathematical certainty will cut both ways.

Brian

[pls5528]

Mr. Smith,
First, your acceptable positional tolerance would perhaps work on large areas of land (e.g. sections or portions thereof), but, not on smaller parcel of land such as which I am referring to (whether in the City or in Tim-Buck-Too). Second, although we work for a client, as a surveyor, we need to be unbiased in regards to boundaries. I would certainly attempt to assist in getting a project done efficiently and quickly for them, but a boundary is a boundary. I would hate to have explain in court "that your boundary was established by the intent of my client". Case closed, you loose.

[LS_8750]

Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2077:

Section Two Thousand and Seventy-seven. The following are
the rules for construing the descriptive part of a conveyance of real
property, when the construction is doubtful and there are no other
sufficient circumstances to determine it:
One--Where there are certain definite and ascertained particulars
in the description, the addition of others which are indefinite,
unknown, or false, does not frustrate the conveyance, but it is to be
construed by the first mentioned particulars.
Two--When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or
monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines,
angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount.
Three--Between different measurements which are inconsistent with
each other, that of angles is paramount to that of surfaces, and that
of lines paramount to both.
Four--When a road, or stream of water not navigable, is the
boundary, the rights of the grantor to the middle of the road or the
thread of the stream are included in the conveyance, except where the
road or thread of the stream is held under another title.
Five--When tide water is the boundary, the rights of the grantor
to ordinary high-water mark are included in the conveyance. When a
navigable lake, where there is no tide, is the boundary, the rights
of the grantor to low-water mark are included in the conveyance.
Six--When the description refers to a map, and that reference is
inconsistent with other particulars, it controls them if it appears
that the parties acted with reference to the map; otherwise the map
is subordinate to other definite and ascertained particulars.

"Absolute correctness in the surveys will not, and cannot be attained, and that is a matter for both the government and the purchaser to assume this fact at the outset, and be governed by fixed monuments, instead of leaving everything open to change in the future, when new and more careful surveys might be practicable."
-Thomas M. Cooley, Britton v. Ferry, 14 Mich. 53, 65 (Mich. 1866)






See also:

http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.or ... nts#p37499

[bruce hall]

"...................otherwise the map is subordinate to other definite and ascertained particulars."

..................."monuments are paramount."

I know I am pulling things out of the paragraphs but this is really crucial stuff. My thoughts on this discussion, without seeing your map or the situation that you have, is that the intent of the surveyor performing the survey via this minor or major subdivision is the monuments. That was his/her intent-the monuments. The map is a representation of the survey , the position on the earth of the undisturbed monuments is his intent.

As far as positional tolerance goes, pull out a tape, pull twenty feet and tell me what you read. If it's 19.80' then that's how wide that easement is. Probably the reason the easement was "intended" to be 20 feet wide cause they developer or municipality knew that they needed at least a minimum of a15 foot wide piece of dirt (or 18 feet) to make this easement work for its intended purpose, so they decided to make it twenty and cover any weird stuff. Don't like to assume anything, but this is not an unreasonable assumption (and yes I know what happens when one assumes) or thought process.

Don't know right now what I would do if the distance was ten feet instead of 19.8', and I am really glad I don't have that on my plate or yours. Ten feet is a tough workaround, two tenths is a piece of cake, a slice of pie. Standard procedure is to report the facts and let the chips fall where they may, I guess, although this sounds a little dogmatic.

Good Luck.

[land butcher]

Does 159.46Ac = 160Ac? again I say yes and will argue for my client to Planning.

Good luck. Unless you are dealing with a pro development planning dept to them that is 159ac. now if it was 159.54ac then you might have an argument.

I have dealt with a planning dept that took a 5ft storm drain easement that is totally in the side yard setback and remove it from the total acreage thereby denying the property owner the right to split the lot in half.

[Mr. Smith]

"Absolute correctness in the surveys will not, and cannot be attained, and that is a matter for both the government and the purchaser to assume this fact at the outset, and be governed by fixed monuments, instead of leaving everything open to change in the future, when new and more careful surveys might be practicable."
-Thomas M. Cooley, Britton v. Ferry, 14 Mich. 53, 65 (Mich. 1866)

Judicial functions of surveyors Cooley 1864-1885 one of my keystones.

Mr. 5528 maybe I loose maybe not, I assume you have been involved in these court coin flips.

the 1/4 = 160 argument is Just another tool against planning, I am batting about 300 on that one.

" I say look the original deed it may say's 160 Ac.:: I am just a Surveyor and broke the section with some original corners gone and proportion used, I show
159.46 Ac on the ROS. The zoning statute indicates 40 acre min. (per my measurements) the client has 39.86 Ac. (Just my opinion of measurement)

"39.86 Ac = 40 Ac". Approve the Tentative. you wont win all the time especially if the planning department and commission you deal with is confiscatory
in nature.

Now back to the 0.2', my heart goes out to you Mr. 5528 all I would recommend is state the facts (measurements for surveyors) and try to support your Client. I think you are in one of those situations where no matter what you do it will be wrong.

[dedkad]

Does 159.46Ac = 160Ac? again I say yes and will argue for my client to Planning.

Good luck. Unless you are dealing with a pro development planning dept to them that is 159ac. now if it was 159.54ac then you might have an argument.

I have dealt with a planning dept that took a 5ft storm drain easement that is totally in the side yard setback and remove it from the total acreage thereby denying the property owner the right to split the lot in half.

And I've seen a planning department require a 40 sf lot line adjustment on a City residential lot in order to meet a certain lot size for development.

[dedkad]

"...................otherwise the map is subordinate to other definite and ascertained particulars."

..................."monuments are paramount."

I know I am pulling things out of the paragraphs but this is really crucial stuff. My thoughts on this discussion, without seeing your map or the situation that you have, is that the intent of the surveyor performing the survey via this minor or major subdivision is the monuments. That was his/her intent-the monuments. The map is a representation of the survey , the position on the earth of the undisturbed monuments is his intent.

As far as positional tolerance goes, pull out a tape, pull twenty feet and tell me what you read. If it's 19.80' then that's how wide that easement is. Probably the reason the easement was "intended" to be 20 feet wide cause they developer or municipality knew that they needed at least a minimum of a15 foot wide piece of dirt (or 18 feet) to make this easement work for its intended purpose, so they decided to make it twenty and cover any weird stuff. Don't like to assume anything, but this is not an unreasonable assumption (and yes I know what happens when one assumes) or thought process.

Don't know right now what I would do if the distance was ten feet instead of 19.8', and I am really glad I don't have that on my plate or yours. Ten feet is a tough workaround, two tenths is a piece of cake, a slice of pie. Standard procedure is to report the facts and let the chips fall where they may, I guess, although this sounds a little dogmatic.

Good Luck.

In our City, 20' is typically the standard for a flag lot, and it has nothing to do with the potential for "weird stuff". Just pondering here, but I've always thought that it is kind of odd that a monument would always hold as being representative of the intent of the surveyor. Why would the surveyor for a subdivision who himself drew up the map showing the distance to be 20' and knowing that the agency requirement was 20' go out to the field with the intent to set the monument at 19.8' instead.

[E_Page]

I really don't understand the continued confusion about this in the survey community. The courts have been very clear and very consistent.

If land was subdivided by survey, except where it may interfere with a senior right, the survey controls the location of the lines and corners created. The survey is what occurred in the field and, whether created before or after the monuments were set, the map is deemed to have been prepared with the intent to reflect the actual survey.

Only in very rare and specific circumstances where some manner of blunder occurred in the performance of the survey after the map was drawn and the conveyance made, and the landowners clearly took possession in accordance with the map and clearly ignored the contradictory monuments has it been held that the map controls over the points on the ground, and then only to those points in error and having been ignored.

Never has the court rejected original monuments as controlling when the justification for doing so was minor (by the court's view, not by a surveyor's view) differences in measurement or because a later measurement showed some dimension between monuments to result in a distance some small amount less than zoning minimums.

Although from a measurement QC point of view, 0.14' in a 20.00' measurement is unacceptable, in the view of the courts it is de minimus. In other words, it's inconsequential and any fuss over that 0.14' is a waste of the court's time. A court would probably entertain rejecting an original monument on a 20' strip if the error amounted to several feet.

Unless you have a darn good reason to reject original monuments, don't do it. I would hate to be the expert explaining that rejecting an original monument is justified because of not meeting zoning regulations or because of a difference in measurement of a magnitude that can be demonstrated by holding one's thumb and forefinger up in a pinching gesture. If the judge has a lick of sense, and the other side has both a competent attorney and a competent expert, you will lose credibility not only on this one point, but it could cloud the court's perception of your knowledge and credibility on all other aspects of your survey.

As to application of zoning, we all know that there are planning officials in many jurisdictions who would deny a 4-way split of a 1/4 section measured to be 159.64 acres if the zoning is for 40 acre minimums, and many who would deny a project if an existing easement was found to measure 19.86' wide where zoning calls for 20'. That doesn't make them right but it does show them to be uneducated as to the science of measurement and the use and application of significant figures.

159.64 ac = 160 ac.
39.9 ac = 40 ac.
19.86' = 19.9' = 20'.

If you don't believe me, go look up your high school physics teacher and ask him or her. Or, find a publication on scientific measurement and calculation and read up on it. Hopefully, we all have a copy of B. Austin Barry's book Errors in Practical Measurement in Science, Engineering, and Technology or at least have one of the several general text books on surveying (i.e. Surveying by Bouchard, Theory and Practice by Breed, Hosmer and Bone, and later by Kavanaugh and Byrd, or Elementary Surveying by Wolff). You will find verification in those books that 20' does not exclude 19.99', 19.86', or 19.51' unless it is expressed to a greater degree of precision (more decimal points).

A few years ago, a PM application was denied in our county because zoning called for 5 ac minimum and one of the parcels came in at 4.96 ac. When appealed to the BOS, one of the supervisors came down pretty hard on the Planning Dept for not knowing what they were enforcing and having no understanding of significant figures.

The understanding and application of significant figures is such a basic concept in the science of measurement and the appropriate use of measurement data that all surveyors must have a reasonably good understanding of significant figures to be competent. I believe that the vast majority do, and that most if not all of the surveyors posting to this thread do. I also believe that many get so wrapped up in the uneducated application of measurement minimums as interpreted by zoning officials that it's understandable why the surveyor might temporarily forget his own training and knowledge on this subject.

If the planning officials are going to get so hung up on minor differences in measurement, report all of your dimensions to the nearest foot and land quantities to the nearest acre on planning documents, exactly as is done in the ordinances and regulations being enforced. Save your survey-grade dimension reporting for your final mapping products.

[dedkad]

Evan, next thing you know, the Planners are going to change all of their zoning ordinances to 40.00 ac, 6000.00 sf, etc.

[E_Page]

Some might try. Fortunately, the local bureaucrats don't get to change ordinance on their own. Any proposed changes have to go through the elected body, be subject to open public hearings, and are generally subject to other public notice and input requirements before being passed. That public comment period provides local surveyors and engineers the opportunity to interject a measure of reasonableness back into the ordinance proposal.

[Anthony Maffia]

Hypothetical: Three 50'x150' lots, the 4 rear corners found apart 50.00'm&r
Front corners found apart as: 50.00'm&r, 49.80'm/50.00'r, 50.20'm/50.00'r
Mons are original, but were placed after the map filed, after construction was complete.

I'd accept the middle lot as 50' wide, and call one of its front corners off by 0.2'.

[Anthony Maffia]

Fortunately, the local bureaucrats don't get to change ordinance on their own

But they do make discretionary decisions using logic, ambiguous rules, latitude, attitude, inexperience, a sense of right and wrong ("that is just wrong") ("let's make the developer pay for a new library!"), and their east coast college education ("I was taught descriptions are always metes and bounds.")

Tight funding causes highly compensated experienced staff to be pushed out and replaced with inexperienced replacements.

Architect jokes are so 90s. Let's write new ones about city planners. :D

[E_Page]

"Mons are original, ..."

Okay. Have they been disturbed?


"...but were placed after the map filed, ..."

Immaterial unless out of position by a very significant amount and possession was taken according to the map and clearly not according to the monuments which are thought to be out of position.


"...after construction was complete."

Also immaterial.


"I'd accept the middle lot as 50' wide, and call one of its front corners off by 0.2'."

You would have no legal or valid survey practice reason to do so as 0.2' would be considered de minimus and unless you had reliable evidence that the monument you chose to reject had been moved from its original position. The fact that the rest of your measurements matched record would be insufficient. I'm not just saying how I think it should be, I'm telling you how the courts have consistently viewed such situations.

A more realistic scenario would be that you are following a map that shows all lots to be 50' x 100' and have 90 degree corners, but all of your measurements range from 0.06' to 0.30' from record except for 1 which measures 50.02', and all of the angles range from 5' to 15' from being right angles. All of the monuments appear to be original and none show any obvious physical indication of having been disturbed.

How will you handle that one?

[Anthony Maffia]

Thanks for the reply Evan.

Regarding my hypothetical situation, I'd treat the pipe off by 0.2' as a layout blunder, and check fences and house side setbacks to see if they support that.

My training in the SF bay area tends to preference record over one-off monuments in platted subdivisions, which comports with practice of the dozen or so PLSs I've worked with and the county surveyor staff. I'm aware this isn't common practice in the south land. However, for rural or deed parcels, monuments are always paramount.

I'm not sure your scenario is more realistic, no fences built? I haven't encountered that situation. I almost never find rear corners in platted subdivisions. I may hold the rear monuments, the front monuments for line/only holding the R/W as a straight line determined using that and other evidence. I'd confer with another surveyor.

[LS_8750]

Always check the older houses for setback prior to holding a monument that may have been set after the original subdivision map was recorded, or on old metes and bounds descriptions. Absolutely.

Occupation might just mean something. Holding occupation might be the better route to go in lieu of proportioning. Some times.