California Surveyors Forums

I guess that is what I get for writing a post at 3am in the morning.

So in thinking more about this, I was kind of looking at how other professions operate and learn. For example, when you go to the doctor, they have you complete a form that asks things such as any allergies, chronic illnesses, family medical history, immunizations, etc. Besides this, upon initial intake a doctor can see historical patient data by a simple observation. A scar on your stomach or on your knee could be a good indication of past medical activity. Needless to say, either the patient intake form or a physical inspection will show some history of medical treatment.

For attorneys, the historical trail leads you down case law. Previous cases and decisions are filed. I believe this even includes cases that are settled outside of the courtroom. There will be some trail of filings that could be reviewed prior to working on a particular case.

Now for surveyors, how do we know if a previous survey has been performed? Well we can't always rely on the homeowner. They may have just purchased the property and have no idea if a survey has ever been done on their property, let alone in their neighborhood. I guess we can provide a client intake form to them as well as their adjacent property owners asking for information but then again that may not be the most efficient way to review the historical records nor the most sensitive way to achieve our needs for information. Instead, we rely on the records filed with the County as well as monuments that exist in the ground.

As for tangible items (which many find to be the most valuable) at the root doctors give you health, attorneys give you justice (in the form of compensation or vengeance against those that committed the crime) and what do surveyors give to a person every time we perform a survey? Is there anything tangible that makes them feel like they made the right decision?

So I guess my question turns to this, would you be more appeased by legislation that requires you to file a corner record or record of survey on every boundary survey you do or just the ones where monuments have not been placed on the lines you surveyed? At the very base of this, that is what I believe we are trying to accomplish with this legislation. Show surveyors that you have been there. Honestly, monuments are the easiest way to do so but hey if filing is easier on every boundary survey whether you set monuments or not I am all for that as well.

As a profession, we need to write legislation that will keep our profession protected from non-surveyors who have encroached upon our areas of expertise. When you look at the current state of the profession, what do we have left that is 100% our area of expertise that hasn't been taken by another trade? As I mentioned before, it is not construction staking or topographic surveying. As-built surveys and GIS are being taken by others so realistically the only things we have left are boundary and the placement of monuments in the ground (either for boundary surveys or control surveys).

I have a very real fear that our profession will be de-regulated within the next 10 years unless we take some pretty drastic action. Licensing numbers are not increasing fast enough and they are definitely not sustaining to replace the number of licensees who will be retiring in the next 10 years. We are doing nothing to show our worth in the realms of professional practice and instead sit back and honestly have this arrogance that we will always be needed in some way. We will just keep educating the public one client at a time and that will solve the problem. Based on my conversations with about 80% of the people that call me for a survey, I think they would be happy to hear that they don't need to pay someone thousands of dollars to show them where an invisible line is on the ground. I want to believe that I do a very good job about discussing options with my clients and providing them with the knowledge they need to make an informed decision. I believe at last check I average about 2.5 hours per client just in phone calls prior to executing a contract (yes I track this metric as well as many others in my business). I know it seems like a lot of time but realistically it accounts for about 5% of the total time I spend on most projects.

My last question, do you feel that the profession is better off now than it was 15 years ago? There has been very little legislative change in the practice of land surveying over the course of the last 15 years so lets use that as a gauge. Do we still have the same responsibilities as we did 15 years ago? What has changed and why?

hellsangle wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2023 9:39 pm Wonderful history lesson, Dave.

But what has happened in recent years that has harmed the public because monuments were not set and we need another law?

Again, you are proselytizing. Facts/cases, please.

Phil, as promised.

Setting monuments:

1. Requires the filing of a record of survey or corner record [every surveyor, every time].

2. Stabilizes the real property boundaries – reducing litigation and/or disagreements between owners and provides the public with a visual marker of their boundaries (reducing/eliminating additional or future survey work, disagreement between surveyors).

3. Monuments are recognized by the courts as being paramount over the maps and measurements – eliminating most questions resulting in the measurement and establishment procedures.

4. Lowers the survey costs to the public over a relatively short period of time. The Legislature applied the same logic to the record of survey requirements in 1891. An abundance of monuments and the corresponding records allows surveyors to file corner records within the confines of the previously filed records of survey.

The real example provided was Newport Beach. Another example, I held a granite stone, origin unknown, that was over 80 years old, for a center quarter corner. The mathematical intersection of the original quarter corners placed the center quarter 80' north and would have caused several encroachments onto federal land. The found monument, including the cost of setting it, prevented the encroachments – which, by law, must be documented and pursued. The monuments saved the public untold tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of dollars and a whole lot of heartache. Due to the very nature of monuments, this will most always be true.

Phil, I argue that you do not have a genuine concern for the public as it relates to the proposed legislation. This faux concern is evidenced by the storied history of unfiled maps in your local practice area and two monument surveys (this includes holding two monuments from the same map and calling all others out of position).

Now is the time for the, collectively speaking, land surveying profession to go straight. Let's work together to end Benson's bay area legacy. No more "educatin' clients".

Last time, who's on first?

Dwoolley

hellsangle wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2023 9:39 pm Wonderful history lesson, Dave.

But what has happened in recent years that has harmed the public because monuments were not set and we need another law?

Again, you are proselytizing. Facts/cases, please.

Phil,

Sorry Crazy Phil,

This question/statement is leading me to believe that you don't have this problem in your area of practice. Are you stating that there is not an instance in recent years where the placement of monuments would have deterred the public from being harmed in your area?

Monuments? We call them calamity sticks around here....

Now for surveyors, how do we know if a previous survey has been performed?

Good question, Bryan. (And thank you for the deserved respect of Crazy Phil. Much appreciated.)

When we have a boundary survey we write the adjoiners a notice-of-survey letter. This serves as “notice” should we require trespass rights. Secondly, in your example, I would assume the neighbor would have sent you copies of their survey. If those surveys should have been filed - then what difference would your proposed legislation make? They don’t abide by current law.

To back up a bit . . . your proposal allowing the client to reject setting monuments is okay with me. Just another piece of paper or check-box on the contract for them to sign.

. . . what do we have left that is 100% our area of expertise that hasn't been taken by another trade?

I would have to say, minimally - boundaries. (Your proposed legislation or not.)

. . . very real fear that our profession will be de-regulated . . .

Agreed, Bryan. But that has nothing to do with this legislation. When surveyors cannot service the public then engineers may be back to determining boundaries . . . and that is a scary thought.

do you feel that the profession is better off now than it was 15 years ago?

I haven’t noticed any changes. Positive or negative. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

. . . is leading me to believe that you don't have this problem in your area of practice. Are you stating that there is not an instance in recent years where the placement of monuments would have deterred the public from being harmed in your area?

Well . . . as Clark said . . .

. . . We call them calamity sticks around here. . .

That would be a “yes”, Bryan.

Dave:

Requires the filing of a record of survey or corner record [every surveyor, every time].

Agreed! But your proposed legislation won’t change to bad actors. Look at Bryan’s example!

Stabilizes the real property boundaries – reducing litigation and/or disagreements between owners and provides the public with a visual marker of their boundaries (reducing/eliminating additional or future survey work, disagreement between surveyors).

Do you hang your hat on every survey without vetting it? If you want to “stabilize” boundaries - get rid of the “uncertainty” element of the Boundary Line Agreement (BLA) and make every survey an agreed boundary. (Save, the problem with title companies)

I’m going to have to let Clark chime in on this one:

. . . We call them calamity sticks around here....

(Oh, that is priceless, Clark! LOL!)

Monuments are recognized by the courts as being paramount over the maps and measurements – eliminating most questions resulting in the measurement and establishment procedures.

Com’on, Dave. You are smarter than that. (CCP §2077) NOT ALWAYS!

Lowers the survey costs to the public over a relatively short period of time. . . . An abundance of monuments and the corresponding records allows surveyors to file corner records within the confines of the previously filed records of survey.

Again, depends on the quality of the survey.

. . . I held a granite stone, origin unknown, that was over 80 years old, for a center quarter corner.

Spot on, Dave! But that was a “subdivision” point. PLSS, Parcel Maps, Subdivision Maps and sometimes Record of Survey are/can be subdivision maps which requires the monumenting the boundary(s).

Phil, I argue that you do not have a genuine concern for the public as it relates to the proposed legislation . . .

Dave, I have a genuine concern for my client. The terrain up here is not clear ‘n open and flat. If the client isn’t interested in having all their boundaries monumented who am I to demand that they do? The task at hand may be a partial boundary.

A Crazy Phil example would be: I take my vehicle in for a valve gasket replacement, (she’s leakin’ oil), and the mechanic says, “oh no, Crazy Phil, (my mechanic shows me the same respect as Bryan), we have to remove the heads, valve job and heck . . . while we’re in there we’ll change out the pistons and mic the crankshaft.” Crazy Phil will find another mechanic. And that is my point!

I love the debate and y’alls passion and enthusiasm for what you believe needs fixing. Don’t ever stop.

Respectfully yours,

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

Perhaps we are better off with some surveyors not setting monuments.

While generally it epitomizes a deficient survey, a lack of monuments also makes it easier for the future retracing surveyor to disregard shoddy work.

I make a direct correlation between poor land surveying methodology (as a general behavior pattern for standard of practice) and surveyors who do not set monuments in the course of their surveys.

I am aware of at least one clear example where this has occurred and I felt that my client was better off without the monuments on the neighbor's property corners.

If you're going to do a half-assed job then please, leave no trace!

DWoolley wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2023 8:11 am 3. Monuments are recognized by the courts as being paramount over the maps and measurements – eliminating most questions resulting in the measurement and establishment procedures.
Dwoolley

I think this will be changing as our jurisprudence encounters more modern precise surveys. The entire premise of holding monuments is that monuments were something tangible the original subdivider could point to when people were buying land, coupled with the fact that historic measurement skills were pretty bad. Statute of frauds says we interpret in favor of the grantee when there is conflict, and old measurements (pre 1900) were almost always in conflict with the monuments they set/showed.

If the basis of the monuments hold theory is what was expected/understood by the buyer coupled with conflict/crappy record data, then once those criteria shift, shouldn't the theory evolve?

Nowadays we have very precise measurements(compared to 1900) and all newly created parcels are shown on a parcel map which rightly has more stringent monumentation requirements. The link between court reliance on monuments is not a straight line to courts holding the calamity sticks I set on a RoS. If every monument held, then it would just be a matter of whoever got to the corner first got to determine it, good bad or ugly. I don't think anyone is advocating that extreme of a position, right?

When its said that every survey needs a monument at every corner to force people to file more maps, the fix does not appear to be addressing the harm. When the causal relationship between the proposed change and the professed outcome has been questioned none of the responses seem to clarify/address the causal relationship. IE more laws won't make law breakers follow the law. It appears like you are looking for levers to get action on topics that have proven otherwise intractable...

I like Kendall's point about the folks who generally don't set monuments, prolly shouldn't... How many complaints do we hear from other states about their pincushions? Perhaps there is a positive to not having everyone set a monument at every corner every time a new survey shows a 0.10 "discrepancy".

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

David Kendall wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2023 12:06 pm Perhaps we are better off with some surveyors not setting monuments.

While generally it epitomizes a deficient survey, a lack of monuments also makes it easier for the future retracing surveyor to disregard shoddy work.

I make a direct correlation between poor land surveying methodology (as a general behavior pattern for standard of practice) and surveyors who do not set monuments in the course of their surveys.

I am aware of at least one clear example where this has occurred and I felt that my client was better off without the monuments on the neighbor's property corners.

If you're going to do a half-assed job then please, leave no trace!

For once I am just speechless. I honestly don't know how to respond to such a ridiculous comment.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but in the last State board meeting I thought we were all at least in agreement that surveyors should be setting more monuments. Now we are saying leave no trace? Why is it that we are talking about going completely against what is taught in Plumb Bob 101 which is to follow in the footsteps of the surveyors before us?

There's that word again, "monuments".
Calamity sticks.

Around the Bay Area there seems to be an entire subculture of practitioners who operate under some other form of logic or laws.
They seem to be the type that listen to Beatles and Ozzy Osbourne songs backwards and derive meaning from them.
We see their markings and symbology, like satanic rituals.
You walk up onto one of their sites and it feels like you are in the presence of dark forces.

Their laws don't apply to us. Our laws don't apply to them.

They aim to spread their creed through education, through passing laws to help advance and spread their symbology to the world.
As if calamity and chaos is their bliss.

Mike Mueller wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2023 4:26 pm I think this will be changing as our jurisprudence encounters more modern precise surveys. The entire premise of holding monuments is that monuments were something tangible the original subdivider could point to when people were buying land, coupled with the fact that historic measurement skills were pretty bad. Statute of frauds says we interpret in favor of the grantee when there is conflict, and old measurements (pre 1900) were almost always in conflict with the monuments they set/showed.

I'm sorry what are you trying to say here? Are you suggesting that we throw away 200+ years of court decisions and written doctrine that have said that monuments are paramount because we think that we measure better than a surveyor from the early 1900's? The monuments originally placed in the ground have more than likely been relied upon at some point to either determine boundary line locations and/or construct improvements. According to pretty much any written doctrine on boundary establishment and boundary retracement, original monuments hold. This has been the precedent set and for very good reason.

Also be careful what you say, we do not "interpret" anything for anyone. The bias of "interpreting" something for one party or another is not the duty of the surveyor. We are a reporter of facts, plain and simple.

Mike Mueller wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2023 4:26 pm If the basis of the monuments hold theory is what was expected/understood by the buyer coupled with conflict/crappy record data, then once those criteria shift, shouldn't the theory evolve?

I believe that you are possibly extrapolating the experiences that you have in your neck of the woods onto the entire State of California and beyond.

Mike Mueller wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2023 4:26 pm Nowadays we have very precise measurements(compared to 1900) and all newly created parcels are shown on a parcel map which rightly has more stringent monumentation requirements. The link between court reliance on monuments is not a straight line to courts holding the calamity sticks I set on a RoS. If every monument held, then it would just be a matter of whoever got to the corner first got to determine it, good bad or ugly. I don't think anyone is advocating that extreme of a position, right?

Not every monument holds, only original or perpetuated original monuments hold; or have I been doing this all wrong?

Mike Mueller wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2023 4:26 pm When its said that every survey needs a monument at every corner to force people to file more maps, the fix does not appear to be addressing the harm. When the causal relationship between the proposed change and the professed outcome has been questioned none of the responses seem to clarify/address the causal relationship. IE more laws won't make law breakers follow the law. It appears like you are looking for levers to get action on topics that have proven otherwise intractable...

You are correct, but realize that this isn't proposed legislation to fix the issue of people breaking the law. This legislation has been proposed as a methodology to establish land surveyors as the only profession that can set monuments which control boundary locations. As I have stated in previous posts, there has been a large amount of what used to be under the purview of land surveying that has been taken away by non-surveyors with very little fight from the survey community. This includes contractors self-performing their own construction staking as well as as-builting their own improvements. As a profession we have done very little to show our worth with the community, instead we have sat back and just taken it. The legislation is proposed to help save our profession, not rid ourselves of the law breakers. If we wish to rid ourselves of law breakers, we need to give the Board more latitude in the fines and punishments handed down for unlicensed practice.

Mike Mueller wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2023 4:26 pm I like Kendall's point about the folks who generally don't set monuments, prolly shouldn't... How many complaints do we hear from other states about their pincushions? Perhaps there is a positive to not having everyone set a monument at every corner every time a new survey shows a 0.10 "discrepancy".

Pinchusions are not a direct correlation of a requirement to set monuments, it is a direct correlation to a group of surveyors not understanding the basis and quality of their own instruments and measurements alongside a lack of understanding of the principles of boundary retracement. It is a direct reflection of a belief in your first statement that "my measurements are better than the surveyor before me".

Bryan . . . the horse is dead

hellsangle wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 2:37 pm Bryan . . . the horse is dead

Maybe for you. But I got a few good years left in me.

hellsangle wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2023 11:54 am

Dave, I have a genuine concern for my client. The terrain up here is not clear ‘n open and flat. If the client isn’t interested in having all their boundaries monumented who am I to demand that they do? The task at hand may be a partial boundary.

So monument what you can, and what is reasonably accessible, of the parts that you surveyed - at least the low hanging fruit, rather than nothing. Leave a few breadcrumbs for the owners and subsequent surveyors.