Setting another surveyor's tag?

[bruce hall]

turns out, the map that was being filed was a RS, not a PM or a Tract Map.

Very interesting.

[David Kendall]

Some holes exist in this thread presumably due to people deleting their forum accounts (which I find frustrating) but I digress.

I went out yesterday to set property corner monuments for construction of a higher value home straddling two small city lots in Palo Alto. Boundary survey and calculations had been performed previously by another surveyor in our office. At one of our calculated positions I found an old 3/4" pipe with tag bearing 11000 series RCE number (origin unknown but not sure that it matters after reviewing this thread) leaning slightly, possibly due to being buried under a sizable pile of boulders and old fencing material which three of us cleaned up.

I have been on a few crews (where I was not in responsible charge) where we straightened or reset found monuments that were leaning or bent. I'm not certain that we are honoring the position of the original monument when we do that but it would seem to me to be the best available evidence. Sometimes we find them even more horizontal and more obviously disturbed (due to natural or unnatural forces) and more difficult to assess original intent. I see little value in leaving them disturbed or out of position and it may be a disservice to the fellow coming along soon to build the fence.

If a pipe is laying sideways then obviously we reset and place our tag. If it is slightly disturbed then do we straighten and reset where we think it ought to be? Maybe where it was before? Maybe add a new tag?

My intended position was a tenth east of this pipe (not the quite the direction it would be if I stood the leaner up to be apparently straight in fact that would probably make it worse). I'm not a proponent of setting pipes next to other pipes. I find it confusing and consumers probably do too. This may be a situation where one tenth of land has some value.

If that original surveyor is alive it is likely that he is also leaning slightly by now so I'm going to forgo trying to contact him. We are contracted for Record of Survey in this case.

Please feel free to offer perspective or constructive criticism. Thanks

[PLS9196]

Hi Bruce,

That opinion is not mine. It is the law. If you remove a monument, you have to file a ROS. That is the distinction. You can use a Corner Record or a Record of Survey to set monuments. You can only use the ROS to remove a monument. That is the distinction, to wit:
*****************
CORNER RECORDS
LSA 8773. Corner records - “lost corners”
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 8773.4, a person authorized to practice land surveying in this state shall complete, sign, stamp with his or her seal, and file with the county surveyor or engineer of the county where the corners are situated, a written record of corner establishment or restoration to be known as a “corner record” for every corner established by the Survey of the Public Lands of the United States, except “lost corners,” as defined by the Manual of Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands of the United States, and every accessory to such corner which is found, set, reset, or used as control in any survey by such authorized person.
(b) After the establishment of a lost corner, as defined by the Manual of Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands of the United States, a record of survey shall be filed as set forth in Section 8764.
(c) Any person authorized to practice land surveying in this state may file such corner record for any property corners, property controlling corners, reference monuments, or accessories to a property corner.

8773.3. Corner record - monument rehabilitation
In every case where a corner record is filed pursuant to Section 8773, the licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer shall reconstruct or rehabilitate the monument of such corner, and accessories to such corner, so that the same shall be left by him in such physical condition that it remains as permanent a monument as is reasonably possible and so that the same may be reasonably expected to be located with facility at all times in the future.

ROS MAPS

8764. Record of survey - technical requirement

The record of survey shall show the applicable provisions of the following consistent with the purpose of the survey:
(a) All monuments found, set, reset, replaced, or REMOVED, describing their kind, size, and location, and giving other data relating thereto.
(b) Bearing or witness monuments, basis of bearings, bearing and length of lines, scale of map, and north arrow.
(c) Name and legal designation of the property in which the survey is located, and the date or time period of the survey.
(d) The relationship to those portions of adjacent tracts, streets, or senior conveyances which have common lines with the survey.
(e) Memorandum of oaths.
(f) Statements required by Section 8764.5.
(g) Any other data necessary for the intelligent interpretation of the various items and locations of the points, lines, and areas shown, or convenient for the identification of the survey or surveyor, as may be determined by the civil engineer or land surveyor preparing the record of survey.
The record of survey shall also show, either graphically or by note, the reason or reasons, if any why the mandatory filing provisions of paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, of subdivision (b) of Section 8762 apply.
The record of survey need not consist of a survey of an entire property.

************************

The word "removed" only occurs once in the LSA and that is under the ROS provisions. A Corner Record cannot document a removal.

I hope this opinion has merit. The removal of a monument under any circumstances is a very significant undertaking and should not be treated lightly.

That's my two cents worth. As always, I appreciate the exchanges. Bruce, as always hoping to see you down the road.

PS, Happy Holidays to all.

I'm following the logic behind the word "removed" only being mentioned once in the LSA but the section of code you refer to pertains to what a record of survey shall show, that section is enacted when an 8762 trigger is hit. 8773 authorizes us to rehabilitate existing monuments and file a corner record, I suppose my statement is more of a question, how can I (in certain instances) rehabilitate a monument without removing the tag and replacing it with my own and file the appropriate documentation?

[mpallamary]

Good question. I hold monuments set by others as sacred objects. I am probably too conservative perhaps?

[DWoolley]

Recently, I physically “removed” a number of monuments citing §§ 8725 and 8764 (a). I noted the monuments I removed and reset monuments with my tag (no, they are not in the same physical location). During a recent deposition it was stated I was going to be sued for removing the monuments.

I have done it before, I will do it again. However, it is not for the faint of heart – if a surveyor removes monuments and she is wrong, there could be ramifications. A well mapped section corner monument in the middle of an agriculture field might not present a liability problem. In my particular instance, the width of the 10 beachfront lots can be measured with a long pocket tape – each having a value in excess of $2m. It speaks not of foolishness or courage, rather the power and authority of original monuments, dating back to 1947, which were overlooked in the last 25 years by land surveyors looking to get in and out of the projects quickly, cheaply. As it sits today, I would much rather be me than them. That low noise those land surveyors are hearing – just over the horizon in the form notice of deposition – is the sound of the four horsemen riding to their individual Apocalypse.

D. Woolley

[-Dave Ryan-]

Removing another’s monuments is treading into dangerous territory. Once removed, there’s no “un-removing” it (can I coin a term?). Unless of course it’s unavoidable, such as new improvements that leave no choice, but in that instance, documenting its character, history, and previous position for accurate perpetuation are the appropriate process.
But you say you are not setting yours in the same position, but indicating a disagreement with others’ positions. I guess my interest is piqued as to what would warrant such an extreme act. I can understand and even empathize with the desire to snub your nose at some recently set monument that appears to be the result of rubbish methodology, but still…
I say if those monuments are of record, you also have the option of placing your monuments on record for others to make the judgement of which to hold. Isn’t that the purpose of our filing laws? To alert others that a surveyor was there and what they did? I anticipate maybe your reasoning is that you don’t want to create confusing arrays of closely placed monuments nor fill the record with competing maps of varying boundary opinions. Whatever the case, yes indeed, not for the faint hearted.
Dave, I will observe that you think things through, so I also anticipate you have thought this through carefully. Not saying I would never do it, now that you raise the specter, just have never contemplated doing it myself.

Dave Ryan,
Arcata, Ca.

[DWoolley]

Like most surveyors, I was trained that monuments have some sacred authority and the idea of removing a monument was not part of the everyday discussion – although explicitly allowed by the PLSA. However, under specific circumstances, today the removal of monuments must become part of the practice.

In the industry’s push to preserve monuments, in the absence of specific local technical standards, we have seen flimflam artist take advantage of the ignorance within the local municipalities. For example, we have land surveyors hired by paving contractors to preserve monuments as part of their paving projects. The land surveyors get paid per unit i.e. $400 per pre and post construction corner record. The contractors are hired, according to the law, by the “lowest responsible bid”. The agency makes it the responsibility of the contractor to provide land surveying services as part of the paving contract. Outside of my own contracts, I have not seen provisions for the land surveyor to be paid when the monument has been destroyed prior to the current paving contract. In other words, if the land surveyor shows up to the project and there are no “monuments” to preserve there is no paycheck. Locally, this has resulted in thousands of concrete nails, mag nails and most anything else in the street being tied out and replaced with a tagged durable monument. Interestingly, this has been going on for so long we have land surveyors preserving the referenced tagged durable monuments which were initially nothing more than a concrete nail.

When a follow up land surveyor finds these referenced tagged durable monuments it is presumed to have some value – especially when there is a succession of records. However, if the land surveyor goes back far enough in the record she will realize it was never anything more than a concrete nail. There are no filed maps in the jurisdiction in which I work that state they set concrete nails at all centerline intersections, lot corners etc. Another common scenario is concrete nail may actually fit record from one direction. Why? Because the flimflam folks that tend not to file maps will set a “temporary” point at record from the direction they are surveying – this is less common now that folks work less off the centerline. However, their nails remain. Future surveyors hold these “record” – from one direction – because they fit so well and yet, this results in more “error” being incorrectly pushed into another block.

Indeed, the day of removing tagged durable monuments is today. It is a matter of public protection. It has been my experience the agencies want to do the right thing as to monument preservation. Unfortunately, we have land surveyors that will take advantage of the agency rubes and equally, have no qualms ripping them off.

Turn it into BPELSG you say? Meh. Their technical experts, at least one of them, have sanctioned the actions described above. Apparently, the existence of a note stating any lack of responsibility for the location of the monument absolves the land surveyor of any professional responsibility. It is probably the same technical expert that believes 80 year old monuments set at the time a deed was written do not hold over the deed bearings and distances.

How do we fix it when most City Surveyor positions have been eliminated? We demand that agencies hire land surveyors by a QBS system as the law states and end the relationship between contractors and land surveyors. Low bid contractors should not be hiring professional services.

Dave Ryan, I am familiar with the land surveying in your jurisdiction. Unlike Humboldt County, I can assure you there are jurisdictions in which the County Surveyor will sign anything and file it into the record, no questions asked. There are counties in which any property corner could be set from any two monuments in the county - according to the filed maps. Setting monuments in a senior tract from two monuments in the junior subdivision? No problem. Two monuments 60’ part and setting all four monuments on a lot in a different block over 1000’ feet away – including those that abut on a senior tract? No problem. Besides, why look for a third monument when it may not agree with the first two found monuments – resulting the in the calling “off” a monument of equal value. Not kidding, a fellow finds three monument wells from the same map and calls one off –how was that determined? When I called the surveyor on it and he thought he was in trouble suddenly there were monuments everywhere which he hadn’t initially showed on his map. What did BPELSG do about it? Helped him file an amended map - clearly he had no idea what he was doing - and wagged a finger. All of the maps mentioned were signed by a County Surveyor in the bay area - home of the Two Monument Tango.

Thanks for asking.

Respectfully,

D. Woolley

[rmaher]

I've surveyed in a neighborhood where I have 4 well monuments boxing the block, all of record. I also have all but one of the front lot corners on a production to the top of the street curb, all of record. I've several consecutive rear lot corners on each side (including both of the ones for my lot). Everything but one pipe I'll describe below is fitting the map dimensions for under 0.10 and I feel comfortable with their location as being where the original surveyor set them and where they have been relied upon.

The rub; predictably on the side of the property where there may be some tension over the location of nearby improvements that encroach into a drainage and maintenance easement (homes built on a zero lot line clearance on one side) ...one front produced corner has been chipped out of the concrete. It's clear from where it was chipped out that it would have fit the dimensions called for on the map and lines up with the exposed footing of the house (like all the other produced corners appear to). Now in the rear its more prickly .... It wasn't hard to find this correctly tagged pipe, as unlike all the others it was exposed nearly 8", with just the slightest of leans, and clear of the rear low wood fences. Interestingly it "now" lines up with a side lot fence the "other" owner installed that is set not on the line, not splitting the house line, but inset so the outside face is flush with the house line. The other rear corners that we searched for and found are all set and found a few inches below grade and as mentioned before fit very well ... this pipe being nearly a foot off what I think was the originally set position in two directions (off line and inset into the property in question). If the original position, the house was built over the line and we'd have a very skewed line running forwards to the front corner (chipped out spot in concrete), and the lot dimensions would be remarkably off in a unique way for these two lots.

Is it a coincidence that the front corner monument is missing at this time and the rear corner monument seems in an implausible condition and position?

My plan is to reset the front corner monument in the prorated position (not as simple demolition occurred as leaving a lead or hole and it was patched with concrete) and then remove the pipe I believe was set back after being pulled up to accommodate new fencing and reset to align approximately with the house line and no knowledge of the other rear corners to establish it correctly on-line. I would replace the pipe with my own, and note clearly what was found and why I removed it on an RS. As I can't in good conscience accept this as an original monument or evidence of current property rights, I think my only other alternative is to set a new pipe next to it and leave a specter of doubt or set nothing and make my notes on my RS which leave those in the future without benefit of my map (e.g. homeowners) confused.

Thoughts?

[rmaher]

Thoughts?

To be clear; I welcome and even request anyone's ideas on the topic, specifically with (assuming) the convincing evidence that a property corner has been altered.

[LS_8750]

Maher, that is another topic, and a worthy one - which has been extensively discussed. Search "map vs. monument" in this forum and you will find stuff on your subject.

There is such a thing as "rehabilitating" an existing monument, and/or setting a witness to the monument - different from a pincushion corner. But specify what you are doing on the map! Some don't, which causes confusion.

When you are talking about "rehabilitating" a monument a tenth from your bosses calc corner, it is usually fair to conclude that the boss understood the scenario, despite the existence of the monument that was not found in the beginning of the survey, but only after the monuments were to be set. Both calc corner and found disturbed monument represent the same corner. Next thought should be the best way to perpetuate the true corner, when calc point and "disturbed monument location" found point coalesce.

[E_Page]

Dave W., I'm not fully clear on the monuments you removed. If I understand correctly, they were not undisturbed originals but examples of those "flim-flam" perpetuations of some object that may or may not have been a previous attempt to set the corners, and that you have some manner of history indicating the shortcomings in the previous perpetuations. I also assume that none of the removed monuments have had any substantial reliance as a result of landowners presuming them to have been the proper corners. Are my understanding and assumption correct?

Rich, from your description, it sounds like the hole at the front corner very well may be the location of the originally set front. If that's so, then you should monument that precise position regardless of whether record dimensions place it in a slightly different location. In retracement, our only responsibility is to locate, and if necessary perpetuate the actual original locations as established on the ground and not to reset the corners where they were supposed to be according to map or deed dimensions.

From your description of the iron in back, it seems obvious that it had been moved from its original location, and once removed, no longer has the sacrosanct status of an original monument. I would reset that one by the best available evidence, which I believe you described as the side of the bldg. foundation and the line of other rear corner monuments. Assuming the house foundations on the other lots line up well with their respective monuments, I agree with that evaluation.


On one survey about 10 years ago, I found a monument for a 1/16 that had been set 20+ years prior to my being there. It was shown on something like 7 different record maps prepared by 5 different surveyors over a 15 to 20 year period. Their respective measurements from other monuments all placed that corner at the same position within a tenth or two. I had located several other monuments variously shown on the previous maps. Everything was fitting together well except for that 1/16. It was a substantial monument, being a 2" galvanized IP with a 2 1/2" cap. It was sitting up nice & straight with the cap 4" or 5" above grade. It all looked right except that it was 26' NW of where I expected it to be. Had it been shown by 1 or 2 surveyors as a tie to their surveyed parcels, I might have written it off to bad measurement by the first and a record tie (not really measured) by the 2nd. But this had been shown by several surveyors, including a couple with very good reputations, was integral to (more than just a remote tie) to 3 or 4 of the surveys. Darned confusing.

First, I rechecked my measurements & calcs. With the position being so different from all those corroborating surveys, I looked closed at the mon itself and the surrounding present and past circumstances. The mon looked good. It was straight, solid, and even had the top of the cap oriented toward North. But it was also just above an old grade break. I was surveying the property to the N, an active gravel pit. The slope, falling to the N from the mon looked very similar in nature, other than the growth of brush and young(ish) trees to the slopes of recently excavated areas in the active gravel pit. The property to the south turned out to be the location of a long-abandoned gravel mining operation. The vegetation below the grade break at the mon was noticeably younger than that above it. Based on both the measurement evidence and the evidence of past excavation near the mon, I concluded that it had been moved, clearly by someone with enough survey knowledge to make it convincing by casual inspection, and probably for the purpose of extracting whatever was in the ground (gravel or possibly gold) at that location.

I set a new mon with my own # on it at the location that agreed with the prior surveys. I considered pulling the old monument, didn't and don't see any professional or ethical problems with it, but chose to leave it in place because there was active litigation between the landowner and the lessee of the parcel I was surveying, each looking for any pretext to escalate their disagreement in any direction and without concern for collateral damage to 3rd parties. I left the mon I had determined had been moved from its original location but ensured that all affected parties were informed of the situation.

With regard to Clark's topic of perpetuating corners where a damaged/disturbed monument still exists at the apparent correct location of the true corner, the pat nonanswer answer to that is "It depends on how damaged the existing monument is." Assuming it is very damaged, I would replace it with my own monument. The type of corner and nature of the surrounding land will determine what I do with the old mon. If it's a small tract or lot, the old mon goes to the back of the truck and eventually to a recycle center or the dump. If it's a PLSS corner amongst larger and or rural tracts, I go back to my what I learned in the BLM and bury the old mon upside down alongside my newly set mon.

If mildly or moderately damaged, so that the markings on the existing mon are still legible, I'll first tie out the center of cap as it sits and the location where the pipe appears to straighten out into the ground and compare each position to the locations of other nearby mons. Why locate the top of a bent iron? Because in the areas I often work, the ground can be very rocky, making it difficult for whoever is originally driving that iron in the ground and trying to get it to a precise location. There are circumstances where the ground conditions simply will not allow an iron to be driven straight and be precisely at the correct location, yet it may be impractical or impossible to set a reasonably permanent and visible alternative monument on or in that rocky material at the correct location. A common solution for the field crew is to drive the iron in as close as possible and then intentionally bend the top couple or few inches in order to get the cap over the rocky obstacle and in the proper location.

If my measurements place the cap, thus bent over at or reasonably near the proper location relative to nearby mons, I leave it undisturbed and report just what I found (bend and all) on my map, stating that the cap marks the corner. If I find that the location of the straighter portion in the ground better (and reasonably) fits the proper location relative to nearby mons, I'll straighten it as best I can, report that I found a bent iron which I straightened at the corner position, and call it good as long as it's still reasonably legible. The more disturbed and/or the farther away from a "correct" position relative to nearby mons, the grayer and murkier the considerations get and the more collateral evidence I look for.

As I recall, in the "map vs. monument" thread, the monument was found several feet from where the dimensions from the record map of its survey reported it should have been, but there were no real indications that it had been moved from its originally set position, which was still on the exterior boundary of the subdivision rather than at some random direction from that particular line. Interesting discussion in its own right, but not really on point of replacing a disturbed/damaged monument.