You don't need no stinkin' surveyor . . .

[DWoolley]

While local agency culture and reviewer discretion can influence how plans are processed, licensed professionals are obligated to comply with the rule of law, not the rule of convenience.

Please show me the law that covers a siteplan for a lot line adjustment submittal in Sonoma County. Building code references are for construction documents btw. I am quite familiar with the County's posted requirements and comply with them.

Local culture is largely the problem in many jurisdictions.

...
Culture is often described as the rules we follow that we don't consider rules. So what is your culture Dave? What are the "rules" that you think are right and proper that are just a product of where you live? Is it thousands of dollars for a RoS review? Is it that every RoS requires a boundary resolution note? Is it that a Basis of Bearings has to be between two found monuments shown on a recorded map? Is that every house should require a parking space per bedroom?
...
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Setting aside the topographic considerations—focusing solely on the boundary—let’s think about who is authorized to determine it.

Boundary and Site Plans

The establishing real property boundaries on the ground is the sole domain of a land surveyor in California. No other licensed professional is authorized to establish property boundaries. Establishing a boundary requires a land surveyor to perform a thorough record search, evaluate monumentation, resolve any conflicts in the evidence, and document their findings—typically by setting monuments and/or filing a map. For a licensed surveyor, this is not optional; there is no leeway in fulfilling these legal and professional obligations.

The CBC or UBC notwithstanding, if the preparation of a site plan does not involve establishing or depicting a property boundary (your hypothetical barn in the middle of a 640 acre section), then the services of a licensed land surveyor are not required.

Professionals don’t engage in gamesmanship by omitting ties from buildings to boundary lines thinking I have avoided professional responsibility. Another common tactic—leaving off bearings and distances—is equally problematic. But ask yourself this: who, aside from trained professionals, actually knows how to read bearings and distances or even realizes they’re missing from a map? That’s the issue—the very people relying on the map often lack the expertise to recognize what’s been omitted, which is why the professional has an obligation to include it.

No Boundary, No Problem

Our project proposals typically separate the costs for boundary determination and topographic mapping, as they are distinct professional services. In most cases, the cost to establish a property boundary exceeds that of collecting topographic data. Occasionally, a client will authorize only the topographic portion of the work, and in return, that is exactly what we deliver: the topography—no boundary included.

When the client later states they “need a boundary,” my response is straightforward: “Please initial the contract for the boundary services, and we’ll get started.” As many professionals reading this will recognize, this is a common scenario.

As a workaround, I may explain that the site is on a state plane coordinate system and that they can extract a rough boundary approximation from the county’s GIS platform or possibly, Zillow. Other professionals or laypeople can donk boundaries, I cannot. I emphasize that this representation may be accurate “within a few feet (or not)”—but it is not a legal boundary and I cannot provide that for them. If that level of precision is insufficient, the next step is simple: initial the contract for boundary work, and we’ll proceed accordingly.

Why the Surveyor Can't Just "Eyeball It"

Even if the client says, “Just give me a rough sketch,” or “I’m not going to record anything,” the moment the surveyor’s name, license number, or judgment enters the conversation, their actions carry legal weight.

TL;DR: Licensed Professionals Can’t Take Shortcuts

A professional license comes with legal and ethical obligations. Just as a doctor can’t hand out prescriptions without an exam, and a lawyer can’t casually draft contracts without understanding the facts, a land surveyor can’t define or suggest a boundary without proper research, analysis, and field verification/monumentation.

Even if the client wants to "just get something on paper," the moment a licensed professional engages, they are held to a higher standard—and legally accountable for their work. Cutting corners isn't an option.

Professional licenses are not just titles—they are legally enforceable commitments to public safety, due diligence, and ethical conduct.

That is textbook, mileage may vary.

DWoolley

[PLS9196]

As a temporary workaround, I may explain that the site is on a state plane coordinate system and that they can extract a rough boundary approximation from the county’s GIS platform or possibly, Zillow.

"As a temporary workaround" that language in context with the thread is very intriguing.

[DWoolley]

Corrected. Removed "temporary".

I have been thinking about it and came up with several analogies.

Casually asking a structural engineer how to repair a sagging roof does not grant the engineer permission to respond informally or to provide anything less than a fully professional solution.

Professional obligations remain in place regardless of the manner in which the question is posed or the client's ability/willingness to pay, and it does not require restatement through specific rules. Again, a structure engineer and the repairs, like a boundary survey, is a service not everyone can afford. Also, being that I am not an engineer, I can offhandedly tell my neighbor "a couple 2x4s and duct tape should work". What do I know about sagging roofs?

Similarly, in land surveying, the notion of a "record boundary" i.e two monument tango no longer applies once a field survey is conducted or has been commissioned. This includes the location of buildings for a site plan that has a "boundary". This principle holds true even if it is was not explicitly stated (which it is) in the California Building Code or the Uniform Building Code. The presumption is that licensed land surveyors understand this, and the building code reiterates it so that others are also aware - and validates the land surveyor's opinion when explained to the client that we cannot perform anything less without a waiver.

What have I missed?

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

I am going to let you make my point for me :)

That’s the issue—the very people relying on the map often lack the expertise to recognize what’s been omitted, which is why the professional has an obligation to include it.

As a workaround, I may explain that the site is on a state plane coordinate system and that they can extract a rough boundary approximation from the county’s GIS platform or possibly, Zillow.

Professionals don’t engage in gamesmanship by omitting ties from buildings to boundary lines thinking I have avoided professional responsibility.

So you are ethically ok telling someone how to add a boundary, putting their Topo on SPC and letting that map with a unknown unknown amount of error or incorrectness get used for making decisions about where to build stuff. It seems like the distinction between what I am advocating and what you just described is pretty small.

I would rather have a professional be involved in that step so they at least don't have a 12' shift from survey to international foot involved on top of whatever error that GIS data has, and then explaining the limitations verbally, written into the contract AND stated on the map. This way there is at least a known unknown, and a chance for the conversation to be had, as well as a proper note explaining the source of the boundary information.

In terms of the actual use of a siteplan by a person, your approach is much more likely to have a 50X100 lot have a 12' bust in their boundary because anyone can get your topo, add a GIS boundary and submit it for whatever purpose they want. You have removed yourself from the "what will be done with it" step of preparing a siteplan, which is the whole reason a siteplan is being sought out.

So while I agree that your approach is better for the surveyor's legal exposure, and is much easier to assert the technical high ground in a debate, I think it is actually much worse than my approach when considering actual harms to the public.


Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS.

....but it is not a legal boundary.....

Whats a legal boundary? From the context it seems like you mean a "legally prepared boundary, in accordance with the laws of the state"?

[DWoolley]

Upton Sinclair's quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

It's in our bloodline.

DWoolley

[Derek_9672]

Dave,

Have you heard of Teladoc ? It's a great service, free with my insurance. With a phone call, you can get prescriptions from licensed medical professionals for common, low risk ailments with common, low risk treatments without seeing a doctor. Who makes the judgment as to "common" and "low risk" ? I assume it's largely up to the professional. Some treatments are over the counter, some require a prescription, some a doctor's visit, some surgery.

Mikey,

In your barn situation, would you be willing to put a surveyor's statement on the site plan, or maybe a letter in the permit file if the site plan requirement is waived, stating that you reviewed data pertaining to the boundary to the extent you deemed necessary and that you believe the project presents no boundary conflicts ? If that is a service you are willing to sell, I do not have a problem with it.

Derek
PLS 9672

[DWoolley]

Dave,

Have you heard of Teladoc ? It's a great service, free with my insurance. With a phone call, you can get prescriptions from licensed medical professionals for common, low risk ailments with common, low risk treatments without seeing a doctor. Who makes the judgment as to "common" and "low risk" ? I assume it's largely up to the professional. Some treatments are over the counter, some require a prescription, some a doctor's visit, some surgery.
...
Derek
PLS 9672

I had not heard about Teladoc, but I looked it up. I do not see the correlation, what am I missing?

DWoolley

[No_Target]

While local agency culture and reviewer discretion can influence how plans are processed, licensed professionals are obligated to comply with the rule of law, not the rule of convenience. Local culture is largely the problem in many jurisdictions. Regulations exist to protect the public, ensure fairness, and establish consistent expectations—not to be selectively followed based on what might be overlooked. Following the law also creates professional parity and cost uniformity that fosters legal compliance.

Professionals are not merely service providers—they are fiduciaries of the public trust. The standard must be full compliance with the law, not calculated risk-taking based on informal local practices. It's true that not everyone can afford a land survey—just as I can no longer afford to buy a home in California. But that fact alone doesn't entitle me to one, nor does it prevent someone from giving me a house or selling it to me below market value out of generosity. Similarly, a land surveyor is not obligated to take on every project or to charge for their work if they choose not to. However, once a survey is performed, the legal and ethical obligation to follow all applicable laws, codes, and standards remains unchanged.

My argument is not that we should be going outside the law, my argument is that we should be changing the law to allow for some of these situations to be addressed by surveyors at lower cost to the general public

Widespread noncompliance also triggers regulatory backlash. When practitioners cut corners and damage the public, agencies respond with tighter procedures, reduced flexibility, and increased scrutiny for everyone—including those who follow the rules. In the long run, this undermines the market, efficiency and professionalism across the board. I have had several land surveyors, of the SoCal variety, state "I will follow the law when everyone else follows the law". Migrated Benson blood, muscle memory.

$1,000,000 surveys in my mind would also trigger regulatory backlash. I think there is a middle ground and that we aren't doing enough to provide surveying services at reasonable rates to the average person. I do not think surveying should be a cudgel wielded by the rich, nor do I think surveying needs to always be available at bottom of the barrel rates. I argue that we all need to charge more, but try to find ways to make sure the public is still being served, and not just the wealthy few.

[Kyle, based on the business challenges you've described in the forum, is the core issue a technical or legal inability to compete— is it that others are disregarding the rules you’re choosing to follow?

Put another way: if everyone in your area were held to the same legal standards, wouldn’t you be thriving? It seems the real problem isn’t the law itself, but rather the willingness of the local professionals to ignore it—something you’re not willing to do, and rightly so.]

I think the problem is both bad actors and portions of the law. I frequently compare it to driving in the carpool lane with 1 person. I see cars do it all the time, with no repercussions. I still don't get in that lane, but surely there is a breaking point for everyone when a lack of any enforcement means we give up on the system that society has put in place. To carry this metaphor further, I think express lanes are a regressive tax similar to making every house in the middle of a 20 acre lot get a full boundary and topographic survey + Record of Survey. We need to get out of the way of providing housing to people in California and work to make the law more capable of providing cost effective methods to do so.

I have no solutions only complaints. I want things to be cheap, fast, and good... Optimistic naivety is what I have been calling it lately.

Kyle Brook
PLS 9686

[David Kendall]

To carry this metaphor further, I think express lanes are a regressive tax similar to making every house in the middle of a 20 acre lot get a full boundary and topographic survey + Record of Survey. We need to get out of the way of providing housing to people in California and work to make the law more capable of providing cost effective methods to do so.

Where do you draw the line on the ‘house in the middle of the 20 acre lot’ being exempt from a proper boundary survey?

500 feet? 50 feet? How much risk do you defer to the adjoiner at each distance?

I have seen this done, estimated +/- ties >100 feet and I have seen the client go pull the distance (down the hill) and dig a well which turned out to be on the neighbor’s side of the line. The offset distance was just a little bit wrong….

Offending surveyor (not me this time) dodged the board complaint because he was not hired to do a boundary survey, just a topo (with a record boundary). They got him for a contract violation though (aka fix it ticket). The well driller was the same client who earlier declined the opportunity for a boundary survey due to concern over his financial burden.

The corner record is an example of the easier softer boundary survey that is commonly exploited for the good of the disadvantaged by community-minded land surveyors

I advocate for affordable housing in my community in many other ways. I support your premise but this is a complex situation (slippery slope) and the intent of the legislation will be twisted and abused by some of our brethren who were never involved in the conversation in the first place. Truth spoken firsthand by a self proclaimed corner record exploiter

If we become willing to sign, stamp and date these documents then I believe that we can already legally pull off the mapping gymnastics which you propose. The agency will eventually comply if your application package can sell it to them, they don’t have a choice at the end of the day.

Sometimes I have to get an attorney to write a nasty letter to the agency, and that ends up costing as much as the record of survey would have but it is cheaper than a parcel map

[Derek_9672]

A professional license comes with legal and ethical obligations. Just as a doctor can’t hand out prescriptions without an exam, and a lawyer can’t casually draft contracts without understanding the facts, a land surveyor can’t define or suggest a boundary without proper research, analysis, and field verification/monumentation.

I had not heard about Teladoc, but I looked it up. I do not see the correlation, what am I missing?

I'm sure there are plenty of doctors who would insist on a physical examination prior to prescribing medication, just like you don't want to provide any sort of statement about boundary lines without going through your process. That is your call to make with your license. I don't agree with your assertion that the law precludes your ability to use professional judgment to determine that a full physical examination is not required in some instances. The law dictates how you document that determination for purposes of public welfare. How you protect yourself from lawsuit is up to you.

[Mike Mueller]

Mikey,

In your barn situation, would you be willing to put a surveyor's statement on the site plan, or maybe a letter in the permit file if the site plan requirement is waived, stating that you reviewed data pertaining to the boundary to the extent you deemed necessary and that you believe the project presents no boundary conflicts ? If that is a service you are willing to sell, I do not have a problem with it.

I have made statements about setbacks, not boundary conflicts. IE I will say, zoning code is 20' backyard setbacks and the proposed barn is at least 1000' from the nearest boundary. As required for all survey documents I prepare, I will have my stamp and signature etc. I also make a very clear note that says something along the lines of:

"This map is prepared for a zoning clearance on a proposed barn located in the middle of the site as shown. No field survey was performed as part of the preparation of this exhibit, and all information shown is publicly available sources."

As needed i will add more statements about what the map shows and doesn't show to try and prevent the misuse of that map.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

Mikey,

In your barn situation, would you be willing to put a surveyor's statement on the site plan, or maybe a letter in the permit file if the site plan requirement is waived, stating that you reviewed data pertaining to the boundary to the extent you deemed necessary and that you believe the project presents no boundary conflicts ? If that is a service you are willing to sell, I do not have a problem with it.

I have made statements about setbacks, not boundary conflicts. IE I will say, zoning code is 20' backyard setbacks and the proposed barn is at least 1000' from the nearest boundary. As required for all survey documents I prepare, I will have my stamp and signature etc. I also make a very clear note that says something along the lines of:

"This map is prepared for a zoning clearance on a proposed barn located in the middle of the site as shown. No field survey was performed as part of the preparation of this exhibit, and all information shown is publicly available sources."

As needed i will add more statements about what the map shows and doesn't show to try and prevent the misuse of that map.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

In complete sincerity, as a land surveyor, what service are you providing to the client? A compilation of publicly available records?

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

Where do you draw the line on the ‘house in the middle of the 20 acre lot’ being exempt from a proper boundary survey?

500 feet? 50 feet? How much risk do you defer to the adjoiner at each distance?

This is the entire reason I think it helps protect the public for surveyors to be involved in the preparation of these sorts of siteplans. I believe that a surveyor is better able to consider the adjoiner's interests when making that determination than the homeowner, architect, engineer, landscape architect or whoever.

Addressing when the boundary in question needs to be accurate AND precise enough to accomplish the planning checkbox while still protecting the public is exactly what we are (in theory) the best able to do.

I have seen this done, estimated +/- ties >100 feet and I have seen the client go pull the distance (down the hill) and dig a well which turned out to be on the neighbor’s side of the line. The offset distance was just a little bit wrong….

None of us will ever come up with the solution to people cheating. That has been the effort of every government since we progressed beyond hunter gatherer groups. Attempting to prevent ALL misuse of some map or survey is impossible within the framework of a limited government. I trust that we can prevent the worst and keep educating the gatekeepers. Its like a garden, there will always be weeds, no matter how well you do the job today, just wait a week or two.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Mike Mueller]

In complete sincerity, as a land surveyor, what service are you providing to the client? A compilation of publicly available records?

Helping them through a silly paperwork process.

Anyone can do it, and many others do. The only difference between me as a land surveyor providing that service and someone else is that it gives me a chance to educate the prospective client about what is involved, keep at least some of these maps within the surveyors realm, AND if it all works out, it gets someone through a silly paperwork hurdle.

I am not sure the statistics, but I would guess about 50-75 percent of the folks calling up for a siteplan are not candidates for a record only siteplan. But by explaining that yes I do offer that service, it helps validate why their particular situation does not.

For what its worth, we almost always split the topo from the boundary work as well. Since it gives us the chance to add the language about RoS triggers and such. It also lets me as a PM write directly into the contract the maps that will be used to show the boundary on the topo, which helps in delegation to my techs. It is also a great thought check for new contract writers to make them research the boundary enough to know if there is an automatic ROS due to a lack of recorded maps showing the boundary in question.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Derek_9672]

I would also suggest that on the off chance Mikey overlooks something or the record data lies to him, his statement on the map protects the public through his resulting liability. So long as he is willing to attach his name to it, it is up to him if he wants to provide that service in light of the potential liability associated.

[DWoolley]

A professional license comes with legal and ethical obligations. Just as a doctor can’t hand out prescriptions without an exam, and a lawyer can’t casually draft contracts without understanding the facts, a land surveyor can’t define or suggest a boundary without proper research, analysis, and field verification/monumentation.

I had not heard about Teladoc, but I looked it up. I do not see the correlation, what am I missing?

I'm sure there are plenty of doctors who would insist on a physical examination prior to prescribing medication, just like you don't want to provide any sort of statement about boundary lines without going through your process. That is your call to make with your license. I don't agree with your assertion that the law precludes your ability to use professional judgment to determine that a full physical examination is not required in some instances. The law dictates how you document that determination for purposes of public welfare. How you protect yourself from lawsuit is up to you.

Misuse of “Professional Judgment” and the Fraud Triangle

Therein lies the rub: Licensed professionals often misuse terms like “professional judgment” or “discretion” to mask actions that fall below the standard of care. For land surveyors, this is a dangerous misinterpretation. Their duties allow very little flexibility. To believe otherwise is a professional error.

When I taught this subject, I advised surveyors never to include a disclaimer note as a form of “informed consent” if the intent was to justify a breach of duty. Such notes don’t protect the professional—they document the violation. For example, consider a statement like “This is not a boundary survey…” when a boundary is clearly shown. This isn't a limitation or a release from liability; it’s evidence of misconduct.

Worse yet, some maps reference a “record boundary” when there is evidence of a field survey. There is no textbook, standards manual, or procedural guide that defines or supports this concept. It simply doesn’t exist in surveying law or methodology. The only legal exception in California is for tentative maps under the Subdivision Map Act, which explicitly states that such maps “need not be based on accurate information”. That exception reinforces, rather than weakens, the need for accuracy in all final documents.

As someone trained in fraud detection and law enforcement, I refer to the Fraud Triangle to illustrate how ethical breaches occur—even among licensed professionals.

The Fraud Triangle Applied to Land Surveying

1. Pressure
The motive or incentive driving unethical behavior.
This is always there in land surveying.
Examples:
a. Low-budget contracts
b. Client pressure to “just show the building” or "I do not want any monuments set" -we've all heard this before.
c. Tight deadlines or internal production goals - unrealistic utilization rates, budget constraints, profit driven incentives, these are all to common in professional business models and resulting in a moral hazard within "business units".

2. Opportunity
The circumstances that make unethical conduct possible.
Few folks know what land surveyors do, the opportunity is always present.
Examples:
a. Working unsupervised or with non-discerning clients
b. Lack of peer review or quality control
c. Weak board enforcement or vague industry standards

3. Rationalization
The internal justification that makes misconduct feel acceptable.
Examples:
a. “This is what the client requested.”
b. “It’s a small issue—no harm done.”
c. “Everyone else does it this way.”
d. “I can’t make a living if I follow every rules.”
e. “I’ll comply once others start doing the same.”
f. Anything related to judgment based on a client's ability or willingness to pay.

At the center of this triangle lies a disturbing truth: The only thing between honest work and fraudulent conduct is the surveyor’s ability to rationalize it away using the language or rationalization of “professional judgment.” That’s the pivot point—plain and simple. The pressure and opportunity is ever present.

Legal Perspective on Negligence and/or Fraud [Misrepresentation]

The challenge in proving fraud lies in establishing intent. Ironically, many surveyors incriminate themselves with disclaimers intended to reduce liability. These so-called “CYA notes” often serve as direct evidence of knowing misconduct, there is proof of intent.

To prove negligence, only two elements are required:
1. A duty owed (easy to establish in boundary work), and
2. A breach of that duty.

In boundary work, this analysis is often straightforward—especially when the breach is written right on the map i.e. "this is not a boundary survey...". It is not a shared responsibility, no other licensee is permitted to establish boundaries, rights of way, property lines, etc. Restated, we cannot say "I thought the engineer or architect was taking care of it."

I would also suggest that on the off chance Mikey overlooks something or the record data lies to him, his statement on the map protects the public through his resulting liability. So long as he is willing to attach his name to it, it is up to him if he wants to provide that service in light of the potential liability associated.

Leo Tolstoy offered a moral lens on the same challenge: “Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it,” reminding us of the individual responsibility to break with collective error.

Readers are welcome to disagree, it is essential for rationalization. If readers disagree, ask yourself, "why do I so strongly disagree with this opinion?". And, "besides my opinion, what citations to authority am I relying on?".

Key words for additional research; social proof, informational cascades, moral hazard, informed consent thresholds, Dunning-Kruger effect.

I have dropped more cowboys out of the saddle than Tom Horn with this knowledge. The only thing that slows down the count is the amount of time I dedicate to it and BPELSG's willingness to issue the citations. Fish in a barrel.

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

The only thing between honest work and fraudulent conduct is the surveyor’s ability to rationalize it away using the language or rationalization of “professional judgment.”

That sounds awfully like moral relativism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism when in the next part you assert that

Leo Tolstoy offered a moral lens on the same challenge: “Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it,” reminding us of the individual responsibility to break with collective error.

It is my understanding that fraud was a willful deceit (https://thelawdictionary.org/fraud/). Extending my paper plate metaphor from above, if I tell someone I am selling them a paper plate, and they say "yes, give me a paper plate" there is no fraud. Fraud would be more like me telling them "This plate is great and will never fold in half and spill your BBQ on the ground" and then selling them a flimsy paper plate.

When I taught this subject, I advised surveyors never to include a disclaimer note as a form of “informed consent” if the intent was to justify a breach of duty. Such notes don’t protect the professional—they document the violation. For example, consider a statement like “This is not a boundary survey…” when a boundary is clearly shown. This isn't a limitation or a release from liability; it’s evidence of misconduct.

See thats the thing. I do not see a duty being breached in the barn situation described above. When I am adding notes like that on the map, my intended audience is the reviewer of the application and or the client themselves so they understand more clearly what the map is good for (see paper plate above). In the case of some LLA or zoning clearance, its a planner. So adding a note allows the planner reviewing the permit application to have a better understanding of the quality of the map when they decide if what is shown is good enough.

If the note is in fine print and has tons of jargon and narrowly worded phrases then I would tend to believe there is some needle threading going on. Even then, I would try to look up and see the forest for the trees and consider if there is an actual harm being done, or is it just "not how some folks think it ought to be done"?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

P.S. Just want to point out that I asked for some laws that show how a GIS data siteplan is illegal for me as a surveyor to prepare for various zoning or administrative permits in Sonoma County, and no one cited any.

[Mike Mueller]

Worse yet, some maps reference a “record boundary” when there is evidence of a field survey. There is no textbook, standards manual, or procedural guide that defines or supports this concept. It simply doesn’t exist in surveying law or methodology. The only legal exception in California is for tentative maps under the Subdivision Map Act, which explicitly states that such maps “need not be based on accurate information”. That exception reinforces, rather than weakens, the need for accuracy in all final documents.

I was under the impression that "record boundary" was used in reference to 8762 and the first three triggers:
8762(b)1 "...previously recorded or properly filed..."

8762(b)2 "...previously recorded or filed..."

8762(b)3 "...previously recorded or filed..."

I read them generally as an intent by the preparer of the topographical map to show that the topographical map was showing one of these "recorded boundaries" and thus was not a trigger for a RoS.

I do not think every topo map I prepare requires a RoS prepared by me to go along with it. If it has been surveyed and shown on a previously recorded or filed map, and I don't discover a 8762 trigger, I will be happy to show the monuments I found from that map and the recorded (or filed) boundary from that map. I will then place a note on the topo map letting everyone know that the boundary information is from such and such map.

Please note that I am not defending all such notes. Like all things, there will be folks who misuse it. But I am in favor of some sort of note on a topographical map giving information about the recorded (or filed) boundary being shown, or a note about an in progress RoS.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS I would bet that when folks wrote out, "recorded boundary", it felt awkward, and it was truncated to record boundary... thus the origin of the term.

[LS_8750]

Life in the Bullz Eye.

[DWoolley]

The only thing between honest work and fraudulent conduct is the surveyor’s ability to rationalize it away using the language or rationalization of “professional judgment.”

That sounds awfully like moral relativism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism when in the next part you assert that

Leo Tolstoy offered a moral lens on the same challenge: “Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it,” reminding us of the individual responsibility to break with collective error.

It is my understanding that fraud was a willful deceit (https://thelawdictionary.org/fraud/). Extending my paper plate metaphor from above, if I tell someone I am selling them a paper plate, and they say "yes, give me a paper plate" there is no fraud. Fraud would be more like me telling them "This plate is great and will never fold in half and spill your BBQ on the ground" and then selling them a flimsy paper plate.

When I taught this subject, I advised surveyors never to include a disclaimer note as a form of “informed consent” if the intent was to justify a breach of duty. Such notes don’t protect the professional—they document the violation. For example, consider a statement like “This is not a boundary survey…” when a boundary is clearly shown. This isn't a limitation or a release from liability; it’s evidence of misconduct.

See thats the thing. I do not see a duty being breached in the barn situation described above. When I am adding notes like that on the map, my intended audience is the reviewer of the application and or the client themselves so they understand more clearly what the map is good for (see paper plate above). In the case of some LLA or zoning clearance, its a planner. So adding a note allows the planner reviewing the permit application to have a better understanding of the quality of the map when they decide if what is shown is good enough.

If the note is in fine print and has tons of jargon and narrowly worded phrases then I would tend to believe there is some needle threading going on. Even then, I would try to look up and see the forest for the trees and consider if there is an actual harm being done, or is it just "not how some folks think it ought to be done"?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

P.S. Just want to point out that I asked for some laws that show how a GIS data siteplan is illegal for me as a surveyor to prepare for various zoning or administrative permits in Sonoma County, and no one cited any.

This appears to be a case of sesquipedalian obfuscation—using complex language to obscure a weak position [see what I did there]. I would much prefer a solid rebuttal.

The regular use of irregular vocabulary and axioms falls flat when there is no counterpoint or the faux argument still sidesteps the actual point. I like words and axioms as much as the next guy, if it serves a point.

Paper plate use is not a parallel with professional license responsibility. You can do better [like your next post questioning the definition of a record boundary].

Upton Sinclair said it, I understand it.

There is irony in the fact your repeated stated concern is saving the public cost on their site plans and yet, when a land surveyor is not needed you choose to do the work anyway. There are legions of unlicensed folks i.e. planners that do the same work for a fraction of the cost of a land surveyor - not to mention applications for waivers. Waivers indicating the written standard of care is an accurate boundary. Email them a application for a waiver and suggest a cheap alternative person, free. Is this a version of "educating" the public on the proverbial wooden nickel? Rhetorical question.

Pressure+opportunity+rationalization= Bullz Eye, the Benson Bullseye.

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

Sesquipedalian is one of my favorite words btw, always makes me laugh that the word for a word being too long is itself sesquidedantic.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

Worse yet, some maps reference a “record boundary” when there is evidence of a field survey. There is no textbook, standards manual, or procedural guide that defines or supports this concept. It simply doesn’t exist in surveying law or methodology. The only legal exception in California is for tentative maps under the Subdivision Map Act, which explicitly states that such maps “need not be based on accurate information”. That exception reinforces, rather than weakens, the need for accuracy in all final documents.

I was under the impression that "record boundary" was used in reference to 8762 and the first three triggers:
8762(b)1 "...previously recorded or properly filed..."

8762(b)2 "...previously recorded or filed..."

8762(b)3 "...previously recorded or filed..."

I read them generally as an intent by the preparer of the topographical map to show that the topographical map was showing one of these "recorded boundaries" and thus was not a trigger for a RoS.

I do not think every topo map I prepare requires a RoS prepared by me to go along with it. If it has been surveyed and shown on a previously recorded or filed map, and I don't discover a 8762 trigger, I will be happy to show the monuments I found from that map and the recorded (or filed) boundary from that map. I will then place a note on the topo map letting everyone know that the boundary information is from such and such map.

Please note that I am not defending all such notes. Like all things, there will be folks who misuse it. But I am in favor of some sort of note on a topographical map giving information about the recorded (or filed) boundary being shown, or a note about an in progress RoS.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS I would bet that when folks wrote out, "recorded boundary", it felt awkward, and it was truncated to record boundary... thus the origin of the term.

A record boundary refers to the geometric figure produced from a metes and bounds description or subdivision map applied to field measurements. In practice, some land surveyors reduce this boundary establishment responsibility to a mechanical task—finding two monuments in the field and rotating the record geometry to fit, without regard for the actual principles of boundary establishment or the supporting body of boundary evidence.

This shortcut ignores critical elements in a metes and bounds description—calls such as "to," "along," or "parallel with," and most importantly, disregards connections to senior documents or monuments that legally define boundaries and/or ownership. In lot-and-block systems, accepting two found monuments and holding record dimensions—without even traversing the entire block—prevents identification of excess, deficiency, or map errors. It is not boundary analysis; it is coordinate geometry.

Such work does not meet the standard of care required for preparing an “accurate boundary” on a site plan. Without a written waiver, proceeding in this manner is a professional failure, negligence.

Whether a Record of Survey or Corner Record is required after the fieldwork is beside the point. The moment a surveyor engages the task, they are bound to perform it to professional standards. If the work is too complex, to expensive for the client or simply, inconvenient to resolve properly, the surveyor should decline the assignment—rather than reduce it to a two-monument rotation and call it a boundary (by any other name) or to believe a wonky CYA note makes this acceptable.

Let’s be clear: no boundary exam, no standard of minimum competence, has ever accepted “rotate the figure to two monuments” as a valid solution. It’s not taught because it’s not defensible. It abandons analysis, abandons evidence, and abandons the public trust and cannot be considered protected work. There is no professional judgment required. If Clark, Wattles, Brown, the BLM Manual or any other acceptable citation details this, er, two monument procedure, please provide a reference.

And in today’s world, where $1,000 and a cellphone connection gets any contractor access to sub-decimeter-grade GPS, unlicensed individuals can already perform this kind of work product. If this is what passes for professional surveying, then licensed surveyors have surrendered their role—willingly—to anyone with a GNSS unit and CAD capabilities.

If boundary resolution consists merely of rotating a record map or geometric figure to align with two field points, it cannot reasonably be considered a protected professional practice—nor would it require a license to perform. In fact, licensed land surveyors are ethically and legally prohibited from presenting this shortcut as a valid boundary determination or work product. If such minimal effort is deemed acceptable, there is no defensible reason to prevent engineers, architects, contractors, or laypersons equipped with a $1000 L5 GNSS unit from doing the same. To argue otherwise is to defend a title to hijack the public, not uphold a professional standard. After all, anyone can write “Fd. Mon.” and check the record distance—can’t they?

Last point, notice the ALTA standards apply to all 50 states and are a "minimum standard detail". Why would any field established boundary not conform to a national minimum standard for boundary establishment? Also, if an inaccurate boundary was acceptable, why did they require a waiver?

I am interested in another perspective. Show me the error in my thinking and we'll see how quickly I can eat Upton Sinclair crow.

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

Worse yet, some maps reference a “record boundary” when there is evidence of a field survey. There is no textbook, standards manual, or procedural guide that defines or supports this concept. It simply doesn’t exist in surveying law or methodology.

A record boundary refers to the geometric figure produced from a metes and bounds description or subdivision map.

So there is no definition that describes what many folks do, even though there is directly related words in our act, that directly relate to how they are used? Perhaps I should define the term so you can reference it next time :)

Record Boundary= 1) A shortened version of the term "a boundary shown on a previously filed or recorded map".2) A boundary from any recorded source, including but not limited to deeds, maps, plats, plans.
Usage: Often used by surveyors when providing a reference for the boundary information shown on a survey, typically topographic maps, siteplans, tentative maps and exhibits. The full version was often shortened to save room on often crowded maps, in the same way that many long words or phrases are shortened in the English language.

There ya go Dave. You can use that going forward to help prevent confusion. Or maybe it will just be ChatGPT that will use that definition...

Banter aside, and getting to the meat of your point, I think there is a missing step in your logic. You appear to not consider someone else's map to be a good enough boundary resolution to use their work.... ever.

...finding two monuments in the field and rotating the record geometry to fit, without regard for the actual principles of boundary establishment or the supporting body of boundary evidence.

See, I believe that someone else's RoS can depict a boundary that has been determined by proper regard for the principles of boundary establishment. I am willing to accept a previous RoS as "good enough" once I have reviewed the map to check for potential 8762(b)(3) triggers, tied into sufficient points in common to be sure its all groovy and not find any other trigger under 8762(b). Then when I am showing that map's bearings and distances on a topo map I am saying that other map did it good enough for the matter at hand, IE a topo for a barn permit etc.

Depicting a record boundary is just a means of referencing another surveyors work, it is not meant to be a new boundary resolution since the entire point is that the previous work was good enough for the project at hand.


Here is a thought experiment for you:
Do you accept that someone else's RoS can be good enough that you do not need to file a new RoS after doing a field survey?
Is "material discrepancy" something a professional surveyor should be able to determine?

If the answer to the first question is "yes", then your entire concern is related to question 2.
If you say "yes" to the second question, and accept that other surveyors can make such a determination, then you entire issue is with a immaterial difference in measurement. IE you are saying that it constitutes professional negligence to not show an immaterial difference in measurement on a topographical map being used for a permit process. By definition it HAS to be immaterial since otherwise it would be a trigger for 8762(b)(2)

I can hear the response already "I trust SOME other surveyors, you know, the ones that agree with me about what is material".

If your answer to those two questions was "No", well then I think we have found the source of our disagreement :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Warren Smith]

Mikey,

I think Dave is referring to the "two point tango", where two monuments are accepted, and the dimensions (metes) are thrown on the ground without reference to the bounds. Previously set monuments are then called "off" or out of position. I agree with him, there seems to be no authority for that methodology.

[DWoolley]

Mikey:

The record of survey requirements in Business and Professions Code § 8762 does not create the duty of the land surveyor—the law merely recognizes, affirms the duty and requires the memorialization of the findings. This mirrors the structure of the California Building Code: both the law and the applicable standards acknowledge that an accurate boundary is essential, and only under specific exceptions may that requirement be waived. Nowhere does it state, “at the land surveyor’s discretion a waiver is not required.” That determination is not left to the surveyor’s druthers or personal interpretation.

The obligation to evaluate, interpret, and determine boundary information independently exists regardless of whether § 8762 is triggered - which is a backend requirement. You will not find a legitimate textbook, licensing exam, or ethics manual that suggests, “If you like the other guy’s work, just go with it.” That’s not professional judgment—that’s professional abandonment.

While additional references could be provided, it is foreseeable that they would be selectively interpreted or rationalized to support a predetermined conclusion - big words, wiki posts and meaningless distractive arguments notwithstanding. Nevertheless, the duty remains unequivocal: a licensed professional is both legally and ethically required to exercise independent judgment, apply critical analysis, and personally carry out the work within their scope of licensure. This includes the obligation to retrace the work of a prior land surveyor, regardless of how reliable or longstanding that work may appear.

To put it plainly: if we follow the logic being advanced—that existing survey data and including that in a GIS systems makes retracement unnecessary—then the very foundation of licensed boundary practice is undermined. Yet both statute and standard demand otherwise. Retracement is not an administrative formality; it is the profession's safeguard. It ensures that responsibility is reaffirmed by each practitioner, for each engagement. ALTA/NSPS standards do not include a clause that reads, “If you like the other guy’s work, feel free to skip the minimum requirements.”

Make no mistake: this is a well-established legal and ethical principle defining the role and responsibility of the licensed surveyor. Chapter 2 of Clark on Surveying and Boundaries, Fifth Edition, by Robillard and Bouman, reinforces that a land surveyor bears heightened liability due to the trust placed in their impartiality, technical competence, and provides a very detailed legal outlines related to professional negligence. Reading that chapter may not shift a fixed mindset—but if it spares one person from the consequences of a negligence claim, it has served its purpose.

Numerous professionals have embraced similar assumptions—only to face disciplinary action, legal exposure, or lasting reputational harm. I’ve witnessed this firsthand. I recently obtained two depositions involving land surveyors who echoed the same rationale. One has since had his license revoked; the other faces pending disciplinary proceedings and likely, revocation. As an expert witness, I’ve also observed civil litigation where the total liability paid by multiple land surveyors has exceeded $15 million and currently, more than $20M in pending claims. That, in no uncertain terms, has been my education.

And we must confront a final truth: It is impossible for a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.

I miss Evan Page.

DWoolley