Deed Info on RS

[PLS7393]

So a recent Record of Survey came back stating the recording date is required along with the Document No. for each deed.

How many other counties require this, as the date is part the deed (by Document No.). This is 100% parallel to referencing a filed map, when we only need to document the map book and page?

I have 16.5 years experience in map reviews, and this appears to be a "Style" issue, not a "Technical" issue (which would be required per Sect. 8764 of the PLS Act). Including the recording date can not have a potential alternate solution to the boundary, making it a personal style.

It is my opinion that many County Surveyor's complain they can't check a RS within the budget (map review fees), yet they make these additional waste of time comments. If they stick to their review requirements as outlined in Sect. 8766 of the PLS Act and not attempt to expand on personal preferences, they may save funds needed from the general public.

[Jim Frame]

Back in the old days -- around my part of the state, anyway -- you submitted your record of survey with closure calcs and a check for a couple hundred dollars, and the County Surveyor did the rest. Now you have to provide copies of the maps and deeds referenced because the CS isn't a county employee, he/she works for a top-level ENR corporation in an office two counties away and doesn't have convenient access to county records. And the fees are now well north of $1k, in one nearby county over $2k. That's progress, I guess.

About a year ago I did an ALTA on a small commercial property for a prospective buyer. My ROS referenced the vesting deed, but by the time the CS checked the map my client had purchased the property. The CS asked me to revise the deed reference and provide a copy of the current deed. I noted that the reference was current at the time of the survey, and that I would revise the reference if furnished with a copy of the newer deed. The follow-up request was to revise the deed reference, never mind providing a copy to the CS. I declined to make the change because I didn't have the deed to review.

Every time I pull a deed it costs me a minimum of 8 bucks. If my commercial service provider doesn't have it online (e.g. it's very recent) I have to go through the county's service, which charges $15.35. All for a bit of map information that's ephemeral anyway.

The map was filed with the original reference. Apparently the currency of the deed reference wasn't really that important after all.

[PLS7393]

The map was filed with the original reference. Apparently the currency of the deed reference wasn't really that important after all.

Exactly, and "Who's on First" ? Additionally the referenced review noted I didn't include all pages of the document. Well I didn't print and send in the Notary pages, which I guess the county is checking to see if it is a legal notary, lol.

[Scott]

I have always provided a Reference Package for all submittals with all my References and any other recorded or filed item that I show or mention. I want the checker to check everything I show, reference, or mention, but I don't want to have to pay for the checker's time to gather and organize it all when I have already done that to produce the product.
Vice-versa, when I am checking, I no longer insist on a Reference Package before starting the review.
If the submitter wants me to spend my time (and pay me for it) to gather all I need to review, so be it.
It wouldn't be organized the way I want it anyway and usually would take more time for me to request from the submitter rather than gather it myself.

Except for deeds in my County prior to the late 70's or early 80's.
I do not have a source for those that is free and easy.
Unless it is an old road deed. Those I can get from the County Surveyor.

[RAM]

from the other side of the fence.

sounds like a style issue. Ask for the code section in the B&P Code.

but, if you submit a complete package which contains the references you used for your map, which you should have to do the survey right, is it that big of deal to submit a copy or a pdf scan? you have the material in hand. Or I can charge by the hour and go find it myself, but you have to pay for my time for something you already have.

Less time I spend, lowers the map check fee. having worked on both sides, I totally understand the reality of deal with the client and controlling cost to be completive.

What is the purpose of a map check? to protect the public and ensure compliance with 8766, no more, no less. Is it to do the survey the way I would or in my style? Nope.

Is it to help you draw your map in compliance with 8766? Nope.

I am fortune that my system supports the philosophy that, a map check submittal must be complete and ready to file. If not returned and no action taken. I am not here to help you draw YOUR map. end result is lower fees.
Many of my peers, do not have that support. Therefore higher fees.

lower fees, more record of surveys file, better for the public.

end todays rant.

[PLS7393]

from the other side of the fence.

sounds like a style issue. Ask for the code section in the B&P Code.

but, if you submit a complete package which contains the references you used for your map, . . .

RAM,
I think you misread, or assumed I didn't have the deed references on the map submitted. If I didn't show and submit all adjoiners deed references, I need to go back to school, lol.

Per map review comment (by county) " . . . the recording date is required along with the Document No. for each deed."

I clearly asked in the original post; "How many other counties require this, as the date is part the deed (by Document No.)."

Looks like your review checking cap needs to be turned around 180 degrees, grab another cup of coffee, and re-check, lol.

As for your other comments:
1) "sounds like a style issue." - Agreed
2) "Ask for the code section in the B&P Code." - I always do, and most can't provide.

[RAM]

nope didnt assume, i responded, a style issue. hence ask for code and if they dont provide, submit map and ask for them to provide the CS statement of disagreement, file the map, move on.

[Ian Wilson]

Rather than being a “style” issue, referring to documents by both the number and filing/recording date is the legal method of referring to them. Tis is something I learned within the past 18 months, and I’ve been at this game for 37 years.

This example came up just this morning…

A surveyor was looking for the Amended Parcel Map for PM 3858. The reference he had was in the deed and it was noted as Book 167 Pages 1 through 20.

Unfortunately, that map was miles away in Oakland. PM 3858 was a subdivision in Pleasanton.

The amended map did not show up in our GIS database.

The saving factor was that the deed noted “…AMENDED PARCEL MAP 3858, FILED NOVEMBER 3, 1986, IN MAP BOOK 1679 AT PAGE 1 THROUGH 20…”

A quick search of our Recorder’s Data Page for all PMs and Amended PMS filed between 11/02/1986 and 11/04/1986 (to allow for some overlap in dates) yielded Amended Parcel Map 3858 being filed in Book 165 at Pagers 1 through 20.

So, including the date is not really a style thing, but the smart thing. In this case, it was the only means of finding that map. Sometimes something new to you is not a bad thing.

Reference: PLS Act §8764(a)(7)

Deed Reference.JPG

b167p1TR5574.tif

Recorders DB.JPG

b165p01PM3858.tif

[hellsangle]

I love ya dearly, Ian . . .

And you are correct in a descriptive “legal" sense. However, a better "legal" descriptor, (in order to determine typographical errors), would be: 1) who, (names of grantor and grantee); 2) date; 3) instrument number. Should there be a typo, having three descriptors would “tighten up” where the typographical error lies . . . just like a deed conveyance.

Being that surveyors are confined to an 16"x24" easel from which to work within . . . adding a date for the purpose of finding a topographical error seems ludicrous to me. If the "stylist" wants to "go down that road" the grantor and grantee should also be memorialized on the map. (See where we're going with this line-of-reasoning?)

Typos suck. But they can be found and resolved without a bevy of worthless map clutter. Besides - that is what the hefty checking fees are for, no?

Thank you for your input and have a nice Thanksgiving.

Crazy Phil - Sonoma

[scarpa]

According to Keith, the comment from the reviewer was that the recording date is required along with the Document No. for each deed. In my neck of the woods, we do not require the recording date, only the document number, e.g., Book X at Page Y, Book YYYYMMDD Page XXXX, or Document No. YYYYMMDD-XXXX, depending on the Recorder's format at the time. Hopefully, the surveyor has provided us with a copy of the document so we can quickly ensure that there are not any typos on the map. We accept the "creating" grant deed, the vesting grant deed, or a previous grant deed (the last, typically "pulled" when the project started,...years ago).

[DWoolley]

In San Diego county the early deeds started each year as book 1, page 1. Without the year a person had to guess the vintage and go year by year until the deed was found.

From a person that spent several weeks in the County Recorder's office.

I don't think a map with a metes and bounds description can be checked without the adjacent deeds.

DWoolley

[PLS7393]

The amended map did not show up in our GIS database.

Sometimes something new to you is not a bad thing.

Reference: PLS Act §8764(a)(7)

Thanks for the input Ian, and your perspective. Now others do not need to guess which county is requiring this new additional info on a RS map, and those who sent me a private email asking, guessed correctly.

Section 8764(a)(7) of the PLS Act states; "necessary for the intelligent interpretation . . . " How is the recording date "necessary" if I was able to easily pull the correct property deed and all adjoining deeds by Doc. No.?

(Maybe future surveyor's using Google Search, may not be able to find (or interpret) the correct deed, with only a Doc. No.? By then the Board will address that, and we also will be required to add a note on our maps: "Surveyed by Google Maps".)
Crazy Phil, am I following your footsteps correctly here, lol?

Your other comments:
1) The amended map did not show up in our GIS database.
I and many other surveyors have been telling Alameda County that their GIS system has flaws and does not pull all maps as advertised, causing us to miss filed maps all the time due to this flaw in the system. The graphic search, with overlapping colors, and no street names is even worse. Alameda County has one of the worst map search systems in the state of CA, in the opinion of many surveyors I know.

2) Sometimes something new to you is not a bad thing.
As others said, it isn't a bad thing (true), but the "extra" info is not a technical issue. Your example simple clarifies someone did not do their job, period.

According to Keith, the comment from the reviewer was that the recording date is required along with the Document No. for each deed.

You read my post correctly.

[Jim Frame]

Alameda County has one of the worst map search systems in the state of CA

Perhaps, but at least it has one. In Yolo County if a map isn't referenced on the Assessor's Parcel Map (and many aren't), you're on your own.