Survey Date

[Derek_9672]

I would like to take a poll. 

The Surveyor's Statement on a Record of Survey reads as follows per 8764.5:

This Map correctly represents a survey made by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of the Professional Land Surveyors' Act at the request of xxxx in xxxx, 20 xx .

The phrasing indicates that the surveyor is to state a month.  Should the month stated be that in which the survey began, the month in which the survey was completed, the month in which the monuments were set, the month in which the survey was requested by the person authorizing the survey ?  Does the month indicated in this statement begin the 90-day time limit to file the map per 8762(c) ?

Just curious to get some thoughts on this.

[Warren Smith]

Typically, it is the month of completion. However, I have seen (and used) language that states both begin and completion dates.

[Ric7308]

Agree with Warren. Additionally also seen (and used) where multiple dates were listed in times where additional field visits were necessary.

Example: December 4-12, 2021 or November 18-19 and December 1-2, 2021

[CBarrett]

If we are supposed to put the survey date in there, the date should be placed before the request, that way the date will clearly apply to the verb "survey", right now it has a built in ambiguity whether it applies to the verb "survey", or the verb "request". being that it is put behind a comma, after the request. Purely grammatically, it is more likely to be interpreted as request date.

Maybe someone needs to propose a housekeeping change to this statement at the next legislative cycle, if this is indeed meant to be the date of survey rather than the date of request.

[David Kendall]

My MO is to have the date of request (contract date or sometimes when the RS was triggered) in the surveyor's statement.

The date of completion of survey (usually a month and year only) goes below the title block preceded by the words "Date of Survey".

It never occurred to me that the legislative creators of this statement intended for the date of survey to be in that statement but I guess in hindsight it sort of makes sense. If that is truly the intent then I find the sentence structure to be very awkward....

There is a way to set up a poll. It's a valid question and clearly ambiguous

[Ian Wilson]

Great discussion. We just had a map sent back to us from the Recorder because the date of the survey was not on the map. PLS Act §8765(c) was cited.

Just sayin'...

[MikeT]

I've always done what David Kendall does as well. Request date (received contract from client) in surveyors statement and actual survey dates in title block. I've put month and year in title block. If it has taken months like on larger surveys requiring numerous site visits, I've put in a range like January-May, 2020.

The format is ambiguous and some kind of clarity in the text of the PLS act would be helpful.

[hellsangle]

Make that another for what Kendall does . . . Month in which the request was made (contract).

Merry Christmas/Holidays/Festivus

[Dave Lindell]

I go for date requested, and rather than a range of survey dates for the field work just state "Completed in November 2020."

I don't care how long it took you to do the survey. I want to know when you were done with it.

[Derek_9672]

Straw Poll results are 4 for date of request, 2 for date of fieldwork (referring only to the date in the Surveyor's Statement). Small sample size but there is some confusion as I suspected. I'm not sure what value the date of the request of the survey is to anyone, but maybe I'm overlooking something.

Personally I think the statement should be modified to read

This map correctly represents a survey made by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of the Professional Land Surveyors' Act at the request of xxxx. The survey was performed/completed in xxxx, 20 xx.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Ric7308]

Sometime between 1955-1957, the PLS Act changed which added 8764.5. Prior to that, 8764 had "(f) Date of survey" and "(g) Name of person or persons for whom the survey was made."

The statement in 8764.5 refers to date(s) of the survey.

[CBarrett]

Pardon my ignorance of the system, where does one start in order to propose a housekeeping change in the language of this statement, so that it is more self evident which date needs to be stated.
Legislative committee I suppose?

[Derek_9672]

Ric7308,

Do you have a copy of the historical LS Act you can share ?

Thank you for the information.

[Ric7308]

I don't have the 1955 version electronically (maybe in CLSA resources) but I attached the 1941 version which provides the same language. And the 1957 chaptered language which added 8764.5.

[mpallamary]

I normally state the date the field work started and carry it over as long as needed until the date of the last field work.

[Peter Ehlert]

Typically, it is the month of completion. However, I have seen (and used) language that states both begin and completion dates.

That has been my practice, never occurred to me to state otherwise.
I believe on occasion the CS will receive written notice that a survey is in progress...it can take Years depending on how deep the client's pockets are.

[mpallamary]

Yes, I agree.

[Jim Frame]

I use the date the job was created in my system (basically, when the contract was signed) for the statement date. And I consider the date I sign the ROS to be the completion date.

[D Ryan]

The 1891 and 1907 codes both call for the date of the survey. The fieldwork seems to be more critical than some arbitrary date that a conversation (or a work request) occurred triggering the subsequent work. I'm with D. Kendall and Mike T. on this issue. The date in the statement seems somewhat unimportant.

Not smart enough to embed an image-see attached pdf...

Dave Ryan

[Jim Frame]

The fieldwork seems to be more critical than some arbitrary date that a conversation (or a work request) occurred triggering the subsequent work.

A boundary survey involves a whole lot more than just fieldwork. It's not uncommon for me to spend a week or more researching a boundary before I even set foot in the field.

[D Ryan]

I'm not sure it matters much to me when you started your research. I would like to know when you were in the field finding, tieing, and describing monuments you found. That can be critical information relative to what I can expect to find as I follow you.

[CBarrett]

It is however fun when your own field survey finds "no reference" monuments, then you discover there is a pending survey with the same LS and a date of survey long after the stated date of survey... and not fitting by 0.4' in a busy urban area subdivision. Do you accept or reject that monument location?
I ended up sending my crew out to reshoot the monuments in question to prove to local agencies that the monuments that did not fit weren't reset by a later date of survey declared on the neighboring map. It is one of those areas where 'unofficially' I know that the neighboring surveyor has worked in the area for the last decade. Date of contract would have helped substantiate that his project was alive during my date of survey. But then, these are declared by honor system, so who knows.

Fun times. Slightly off topic, I'm sure this is not a unique occurrence.

I'm not sure it matters much to me when you started your research. I would like to know when you were in the field finding, tieing, and describing monuments you found. That can be critical information relative to what I can expect to find as I follow you.

Assuming people tell the truth, and not just fudge it because of the 90-day time period. Even though a 90 day time period is extendable by a letter to the county surveyor.

I see a good number of maps that say "Date of Survey, January 2021" and they reference a monument which was replaced by someone in 2008. Then you look at few more maps in the submittal and next door and see that they filed a map on a parcel next door in 2018, and another in 1212, and another in 2009 and another in 2006 and another in 2004... and haven't even walked by that monument since the last pavement rehab (by someone qualified to notice), or pulled a new corner record.

[Jim Frame]

I would like to know when you were in the field finding, tieing, and describing monuments you found. That can be critical information relative to what I can expect to find as I follow you.

How so?

I just filed a ROS on a 17,000-acre ranch. I signed the contract and began the research in August of 2020. I began searching and tying monuments a week later (still August, so the statement date would be the same in either case). I was still tying monuments in November. What information does the August date when I started the field work tell you about the monuments I found in November?

[Ric7308]

I think its interesting that this conversation is still going on. Its all about the survey. Not about when the map was drafted or about the contract or any other business aspects associated with the services. If a land surveyor wishes to reflect all dates associated with "the survey" on the submitted map, regardless of whether it is field, office, research, recon, drafting, etc., then that is the land surveyor's prerogative. Everything about the map is all about the evidence and conditions at the time of "the survey". That can, but doesn't have to, include field conditions, research conditions, etc.

[Derek_9672]

Ric,

As you mentioned, in the 1941 version that you shared there is 8764(f) Date of survey.

In the current code, we have

8764(c) Name and legal designation of the property in which the survey is located, and the date or time period of the survey.
8764(f) Statements required by Section 8764.5.

Another source of confusion.