Forgot Code Road Widths

[Gromatici]

Isn't there a Code in CA for giving the platted roads their exact width? I can't find it.

Thanks,

[Warren Smith]

How's this?

[Gromatici]

Thanks. What I mean, is the code that stipulates that a road width cannot be narrowed by found monuments. Seems like the practice here in CA is to call off monuments that aren't at the exact terminus of rights-of-ways, and I am trying to find that code.

[Olin Edmundson]

It can be narrowed by found monuments, that’s an old wives tale that a perfect width must be maintained.

That principle may hypothetically apply in the context of proration, that you are holding full record street width if prorating across blocks.

[Elias French]

I would second Olin’s take, my understanding is that found controlling monuments are not rendered “off” even if their acceptance results in the right of way measuring narrower than record. I am not aware of any such code or principle.

However I agree with your observation that there is a general practice that leans towards holding street widths full record and perfectly straight, resulting in myriad points being found “off” as you describe. The phrase ‘Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” is how this practice was explained to me.

Perhaps though it is the preference of Surveyors for straight lines and even widths that is part of the cause of this, combined with the lack of gold-plated “original monuments” encountered in so many blocks, topped off by the common method of setting up the street lines by offsetting centerlines per cl mons or curb splits. Something has to give... and it usually seems to be the property corner markers at row.

I believe there are some references addressing this topic directly, but don’t have them at hand. If there is such a code section or other source supporting the right of way getting full width bar none I would be interested to see it too.

[Gromatici]

O.K. Well if you submit a map in Ventura or Santa Barbara holding the monuments, and they narrow the width you're going to get a note on your map. English Common Law and even case law hear in the U.S. (and even Santa Barbara in 1893) also dictate we hold the monuments. However, as you've pointed out, the practice seems to be a little different. This is probably why some old timers don't change the record if the monument is found with a tenth...…..why muddle the record?

I just getting licensed in other states and trying to see what the practice is. Seems like we're all inclined to hold the monuments but when submitting for review, we may have to compromise in order to get things recorded. In other states, they don't allow for "paper pincushions" where you call a monument "From True Corner". You either have to set your own or accept it. In Idaho this is a whole process to go through to reject a monument. They don't have the high level of review in those states, so it's much easier to simply record the map...….no one is going to throw a note on your Record of Survey stating that you're put an "angle point" in the right of way. I've run into this personally here in Santa Barbara. They don't like those angle points!

[Olin Edmundson]

There are techniques to display this without calling points off. One would be to shown a centerline then give fallings from cl to each individual found point, some may be 19.8’ while another 20.2’, etc. this way you aren’t making judgments about each corner but are tying them all together on the map without lying about it.

[Gromatici]

One method is to simply stay on one side of the road. Then you're holding the r/w monuments and not calling them off.

[Olin Edmundson]

Yes, if working in a city block, any error (for lack of a better term) should be confined to the block in which you are surveying. It defies common sense and basic logic that one would allow points in another block to control the position of a property. Leaving the block should be an absolute last resort.

[Gromatici]

I'd love to see a sample! See how that would work down where I practice.

[David Kendall]

In other states, they don't allow for "paper pincushions" where you call a monument "From True Corner"

Good to hear that!! It’s a ridiculous practice and should be discouraged. I’ve seen that done to original subdivision monuments, found and accepted non-record monuments and one guy even did it on his own set monuments. Why? Doesn’t the client look at you like your insane when you put that on their plat? How do you explain to them where their “true corner” falls on the ground?

Regarding your OP, I have experienced that note from the map reviewer as well. I don’t believe that it is based in law, just entitled bureaucratic nonsense at it’s finest. I like Olin’s suggestion to show the monument locations and omit the ROW resolution.

[Warren Smith]

Rights of way are interesting creatures. The local agency has jurisdiction over them - holding them in trust for the right of the public to use as means of travel.

When they are dedicated by subdivision map, adjacent lots are simultaneously created - with underlying fee title extending to centerline (or to the edge of the land being subdivided when along an exterior boundary). All lots, then, are subject to the right of the public to have unfettered access. The widths of such rights of way are generally depicted to the nearest foot.

Similarly, when grants of right of way are described, they will commonly be referenced to a uniform width on each side of a centerline, or as the westerly, say, XX feet of an underlying property.

Certainly, consistent with the principle that the sovereign interest cannot be infringed upon adversely, the stated dimensions of a right of way are expressly those dimensions. An easement interest is also reconstructed in this manner.

When resort is made to prorate dimensions of a block, the proper method is to do so using the underlying fee lot corners. This is usually along centerline - the division between blocks within a subdivision.

A right of way is simply an encumbrance and, like all such overlays, is retraced once the underlying fee position is determined.

I'm actually surprised that Curt Brown didn't include this topic in his writings.

[Olin Edmundson]

As a super clean hypothetical, imagine that a certain right of way is dedicated and accepted and during this process a survey is performed to lay out the edges of the right of way on the ground. Let’s even go a step further and say that it was described by a perimeter metes and bounds description and each set point was specifically called for in the deed. A subsequent survey is performed and recovers all original monuments marking the extent of this right of way. The results indicate that a perfect width was not layed out. If a perfect width must be maintained, exactly which one(s) of these original monuments should be called off?

[LA Stevens]

Brown's Boundary Control and Legal Principles 3rd edition. Original monuments control right of way width.

.

Establish R-W per Original Monument BCLP 3rd edition.pdf

[Olin Edmundson]

then from this extreme hypothetical, we can back in these principles to the more real world situations we encounter, like when all original monuments have disappeared, one must resort to the best available evidence of where they once were, like secondary monuments in the ground today, old improvements built near the time of the original subdivision, etc., and we're left with a width being what it is.

[LS_8750]

What Olin said.
Monuments mean something.
Don't they?

[Warren Smith]

They sure do. In the absence of property corner monuments, who hasn't 'curb split' to determine an existing right of way?

[Olin Edmundson]

Monuments mean something.
Don't they?

Usually

[Gromatici]

So he is another stab at it, since I find a lot of County Surveyor's don't like to mess with the width of roads. I've ask other state board about this and they reply that this is a "rudimentary" questions, but I think it's worth revisiting this stuff since it seems to come up a lot.

My questions is this: At section 12.23 of Boundary Control and Legal Principals, it states: “In the absence of evidence covered by the foregoing principals (lines run, improvements, nearby streets), the exact width of the street as given on the plat and the distances and angles are presumed to goven street location. Occasionally, a measurement index is applied.” It further states: “The right of the public to a street are thus protected by the courts so that deficiency or excess cannot exist within a street EXCEPT where the original monuments set by the ORIGINAL surveyor indicate otherwise.”

If I’m submitting a survey, and I can show that the original surveyor set the right of way monuments, but they don’t match the record width, can I hold them and insist that the County Surveyor not put a note on my record of survey stating he disagrees with my survey? What about a Parcel Map or Final Map. Can he insist that the road be given it’s full width, regarding of original lines run and original monuments set by the original surveyor?

[Warren Smith]

I buy into Curt's assessment of a road width as a matter of location. That is, original monuments would, indeed, serve to locate it at whatever width the monuments dictate.

As a matter of title, Civil Code section 1007 is the source for the sovereign not capable of being adversely possessed. It's awkwardly worded, but has been in its present form since 1968.

So, in the absence of controlling monuments, a right of way width is as stated by dedication.

You won't be able to insist that a County Surveyor not place a note stating his or her difference of opinion on a record of survey, but final and parcel maps are not subject to such notation. You will need to come to some accomodation, such as a sufficient narrative relating to your determination.

[E_Page]

I fully agree with Olin.

Warren,

When monuments are set in connection with a dedication of a public RW, as on a subdivision map, just as with any other parcel in the subdivision, the map is not only calling for particular dimensions, it is also calling for all monuments set to mark all the lines, corners and parcels on the map. Further, it is the actual survey, when one was performed, which actually controls and the map is considered a graphic representation of the survey.

Holding RW widths as they are marked by existing original monuments is in no way a form of adverse occupation against the public (or the sovereign holding the easement title to the RW in trust for the public). It is simply recognizing the original creation, and establishment of the RW. Any deviation between recent measurements and the original measurements as reported on the map are merely discrepancies between record and the new measurements. New measurements do not control over original measurements and certainly not over original monument locations in any other boundary context, and except for in survey lore (a.k.a. "The Rules of Surveying"), they do not and cannot control over those elements in regard to the boundaries of RWs.

Since RWs are easements rather than fee title entities, Civil Code 1007 is inapplicable. Civil Code 801-813 would be applicable. Under §809, the sovereign (on behalf of the public) can institute an action to enforce the easement where the private owner having the underlying fee is obstructing all or a portion through acts of incompatible occupation.

Since the adjacent private owners also hold the underlying fee, per §810, they have the right to bring a suit for ejectment against any other private party occupying any portion of the RW that they have the underlying fee to.

Nothing that I know of in either statute or case law supports the idea that a RW gets its full record width according to the newest set of measurements on the scene when the monuments of the original establishment do not agree with the new measurements. Neither the broader purpose of a public RW nor the fact that the trustee of that easement title is the sovereign make RW location so special as to contravene boundary location principles.

[Warren Smith]

Evan,

I think that we are in agreement. It is only in the absence of the original monuments that recourse is to be had to reconstruct a strip of right of way based upon evidence as found. CC 1007 does speak to property (including an easement interest) dedicated to a public entity.

The difference between location of that interest and the title to that interest is trumped by monuments - or defined in their absence by appropriate retracement means. The easterly fifteen feet of Lot X for utilities purposes would be established the same way, unless originally monumented slightly otherwise.

[Gromatici]

Well that's interesting since I find that I've submitted RS's and the CS didn't like that I create and angle point in the r/w of a few seconds, when I held the monument over the record straight line of the original subdivision. I was able to persuade him to accept my solution only after I pointed out that a subsequent Parcel Map had an angle point in it, that I was accepting as part of my Record of Survey. For a long time I've understood accepting the monuments, and in other states especially, this is the case. However, I find that many don't like how the monuments don't fit perfectly (we're talking 0.04' or sub a tenth) and they want them called off. For a RS, it's simply a note, but when you're trying to push a Final Map or Parcel Map through, it's a whole different story. Seems like some Counties don't like that right of way being messed with!

I also know that in Los Angeles, the surveyors hold the centerline control, and call off the r/w all the time. In Santa Barbara, many roads don' t have centerline control, so we usually just show one side of the road on our surveys, so we're honoring the practice of holding the monuments, when in fact, the other side might only be 59.5' vs. 60.0'.

In downtown Santa Barbara they only have one set of monuments, so it's always 60' wide no matter what.

[E_Page]

I just re-read 1007. You're right Warren as to the title aspects. The underlying fee might might still be subject to being extinguished in favor of a new fee title based on prescription (AP), but it would have no effect on the public's RW easement, and the sovereign could take action on whoever, whether the written fee owner or an AP fee owner for obstruction of the public easement.

I'm confused about this statement though: "The difference between location of that interest and the title to that interest is trumped by monuments"

Title and location are two different aspects of the property. Title is the ownership of a parcel, not the location. The location is defined by the original establishment. So if the RW is described as a 60' wide strip and the original monuments show a 59.5' wide strip by new measurement, the strip is still 60' wide by original measurement. The difference is merely a differing measurement result between original and new measurements. By law, the original is "correct" and the new merely at variance and useful only for reporting purposes.

Are we still saying the same thing while talking past each other?

[mpallamary]

A lot of this has to do with custom and practice. Here, in San Diego, corner monuments or "tie points" that control block corners, and as a consequence street widths. We had a city surveyor who came from the bay area and argued that San Diegans didn't know what they were doing. (See Brown). As a result, he insisted that the streets be given their record width by establishing a center line intersection and setting the fixed width. He would not allow a map to file unless the surveyor adhered to his mandate.

Custom and Practice and Standard of Care.

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

THE SURVEYOR AND THE LAW

Tie Points

September 1961

From a local surveyor I received a question concerning the status of tie points and what special value they have as evidence.
My answer is:

Public records are admissible in evidence; there is no trouble introducing evidence of tie point positions. Private records, on the other hand, cannot be introduced as evidence without the author being present (there are some exceptions).
Usually, but not always, the monuments and tie points set by the city engineer or the public surveyor, when performing official duties, is prima facie evidence. At law, prima facie evidence is taken as true until such time as it is proven false. Recorded deeds are prima facie evidence of the contents of writings. The original deed may be produced to refute the contents of the recorded document, but, until it is, the recorded deed is accepted.
Monuments and tie points set by city officials, especially if in connection with their official duties, are often accepted in court as being correct unless proven incorrect. This has advantages and much merit in some instances.

After all of the original monuments of an addition to a city have disappeared and uncertainty exists as to street and property locations, tie points by the city engineer are a welcome sight. And after these have been used a number of years, they become accepted as true. This is one of the methods of establishing boundaries and eventually this gives certainty to locations. Without tie points having prima facie status as evidence, many property lines could not be established without court action.

But tie pointing by the city engineer, improperly done, can cause great harm. In one city in the Imperial Valley the city engineer tie pointed all of the blocks by giving them exactly record measurements, and then placed all of the surplus and deficiency in the streets. Many instances of improper tie pointing are found in the court’s records, as at Santa Barbara, Sacramento and Racine (Wis.). The usual objections to improperly set tie points come from surveyors with private records; they know when something is wrong. Prima facie status of evidence (tie points) does not always prevent troubles; but it does, at times, give definiteness to otherwise degenerated situations. Tie points, properly set, represent one of the best methods of giving stability to property location.

- Curtis M. Brown

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