California Surveyors Forums

Lets say one of us performs a boundary survey in a difficult area. During the course of his diligent survey, he uncovers the original monuments. The original monuments disagree with prior Record of Surveys in the vicinity by 5 to 10 feet. He doesn't disclose what he has found since he is preparing a tentative map and states "the dimensions shown hereon are approximate".
Lets say one of us performs a boundary survey in a difficult area. During the course of his diligent survey, he uncovers the original monuments. The original monuments disagree with prior Record of Surveys in the vicinity by 5 to 10 feet. He doesn't disclose what he has found since he is preparing a tentative map and states "the dimensions shown hereon are approximate".

For what ever reason the mapping never gets completed. 10 years down the line another surveyor gets hired and surveys the same piece. Now however the original monuments have been destroyed by a sewer replacement project. The surveyor agrees with some of the less diligent surveyors since he couldn't find the original monuments.

Now one of the homeowners doesn’t like the survey and he remembers you being on site. He also remembers you digging up a monument, which gives him 5 additional feet. He calls you and asks if you'll replace the monument. What do you do?

In the mean time a lot of the adjoiners did Lot Line Adjustments to rectify a perceived problem, which did not exist.

I think it's the welfare of the public that comes in to play. Isn't that the reason for the provisions in the first place? I would worry about liability issues and an interpretation from an attorney of Section 8762.

I would have thought that the sanitation district or the DPW or someone would have found all that stuff and tied it out pursuant to 8771. But maybe not. After all, survey is expensive. And the City Engineer said "We're not digging any holes to find monuments." I was there, I heard it.

"Now one of the homeowners doesn’t like the survey and he remembers you being on site. He also remembers you digging up a monument, which gives him 5 additional feet. He calls you and asks if you'll replace the monument. What do you do?"

First of all, let's take the tentative map aspect of this scenario off the table. As I suggested earlier, if I found feet rather than tenths I'd probably file something, because using record dimensions to propose subdividing a parcel the dimensions of which are that far from record would probably create more problems that it solves.

So now the scenario has me recovering some original monuments, tying them together, finding material discrepancies with prior surveys, and choosing not to do anything about it (see note below) because I've not shared this information with anyone. Fast forward to the homeowner's request, and here's what I'd do: replace the monument from my private control (assuming it still exists) and file a Corner Record. If the homeowner wants me to survey his property, I'll do that, too, and file whatever documents are appropriate.

The crux of the scenario has nothing to do with "making a field survey" beyond being able to perpetuate the locations of the original monuments. Since I found them in good condition, there was no statutory requirement that I file anything at the time I exposed them. No one save my employee(s) and myself would know whether or not I actually took any measurements between them. The fact that other licensees failed to recover the monuments that I found speaks to their negilgence or incompetence rather than to any statutory violation on my part. In short, I don't have a dog in this fight until I'm asked to perpetuate the original monument location.

Note: The above describes what I believe I'm legally and ethically required to do. In actual practice, if I encountered a situation in which other surveyors had grossly mucked up a boundary situation and I thought I could set the record straight by filing a ROS, I'd probably do it, even at my own expense. For almost 16 years I've done most of my boundary work within a single mostly-rural county, and much of it within a single small city. I take a proprietary attitude toward the neighborhoods in which I work, and often spend much more time than I could ever charge out trying to ensure that the work I leave behind will be valued far into the future. In another thread I described raising a couple of 1926 monuments with caps in concrete. I spent a total of 6 hours digging those up and perpetuating their locations, far more time that I had estimated for that aspect of the work. (I haven't filed the ROS yet, but I'm working on it!) I don't take my professional obligations lightly, but I like knowing where I can draw the line. That's my interest in this discussion.

.

Jim,
I think a lot of us tend to do extra work that isn't charged or budgeted.
It is the nature of the industry to attempt to lay down good evidence for future surveyors. I often wish i could help solve boundary problems and/or issues without worrying about cost.
Unfortunately, surveying is expensive. like Golf. . . . Also from the tone of this thread, ANY thing we do can be held against us for any reason.

As far as the opening issue for this thread, I 'm mixed as to why a pre-record of survey needs to be filed, when a parcel map or subdivision map is intended to be filed following approval.

Certainly full disclosure of a boundary problem must be disclosed to the client. From Other threads, there has been mixed reaction as to disclosure to the involved neighbor.

I lean towards the idea of donating up to a full day to be involved with my client and his affected neighbor, to talk things out before "just" filing a ROS.

It seem that to "maybe" discover a boundary issue, then take a left or right turn and file a ROS at the tentative mapping stage may be a little over the top.

Being legitimate in the profession is paramount, however, running off without all of the information may itself ripen into neglegence.
Just my itty bitty thought on this matter

PS
Good job on the monument perpetuation.

I agree and support the direction LA Stevens first said as an option to get a map extension. Or, do a boundary, file a record of survey, then if a tentative and/or subdivision map gets filed, your boundary is of record and you reference the record of survey info. It's in the original contract, and the price to set your corners should be part of your original project. If it falls through, your dime is covered as that happened to Ian. Describe what should be done in your scope of work, lay out the process and steps you see fit, and you should be covered.

That is until your client picks up and leaves.

The opening scenario says that one or more triggers of 8762(b) have been tripped. No need for us to argue about what does or does not trip those triggers. Just accept the premise of the opening statement in order to answer the opening question.

The opening question was, if the LS was not planning to file an RS pursuant to the reasoning under 8765(c), but then circumstances halt the subdivision, does the RS now need to be filed?

Remember, 8762(b) has already been triggered. So by that section, the initial answer is "yes, an RS must be filed".

But then the boundary survey was being performed with a subdivision in mind, so the answer became "no, as long as the boundary info is shown on the subdivision map to be filed".

But then, the subdivision project dies. What then? Well, read 8765(c) carefully. It is a conditional reprieve from the RS requirement, the condition being the pending filing of a subdivision map. If the condition no longer exists, neither does the exemption from the RS requirement. You are back to considering only 8762(b). So the answer goes back to "yes, an RS must be filed".



But to those of you who read conditions into the question that weren't there (or missed conditions stated) and went off on the tangent subject of when the 8762 triggers are tripped... great discussion! I've enjoyed following it.

Thanks to you all, this has been a great discussion!

Dylan Gonsalves, PE, PLS

I think Keith hit the PK on the head when he ends up stating "when your client walks away"

These days, when a client attempts to hire out for a subdivision, he isn't interested in all of the "this went wrong and that went wrong and it costs this much to fix and that extra fee to pay"

The client wants a price for a subdivision or Parcel map PERIOD !
Many times that client is someone who has a development option. If it flies, then the owner. . . say a farmer. . . gets a nice pay day from the developer. If the project fails, the option is cancelled and crops continue to grow.

Ok, so we file a preliminary lien notice because we aren't working for the owner. So a boundary issue is discovered and discussed. It is decided by the money person, to hold off with the issue until the project is approved.

We diligently indicate the "problem" on the tentative map, thereby memorializing it. Now the project fails, the money walks and the farmer returns to his crops and isn't interested nor does he have the money to pay for a Record of Survey. We can go ahead with the ROS then sue owner for the money. L.S. stands for LawSuit ??

Let me recap. We are hired to provide a preliminary service for a non-owner.
The project fails, money walks away, Now we are on the hook to perform a service (maybe for free) or else some P.P.C. group will turn us into the Board, who jerks our license, closes our business, puts employees out of work all for a speculating developer who had the ability to walk when he wanted, yet somehow we become umbilically attatched and owing.

Does this make sense ?

Can we get the government to create a fund for these types of situations so we can take care of this and not have to stress ???

The Bad Boundary Bailout Plan.

If you haven't completed your field survey and resolved the boundary, that is still truly preliminary, then you presumably haven't hit a RS trigger.

If you've completed the boundary portion of your survey and have hit one of the triggers, then yes, it makes sense that you file the RS.

In the case where the client is not the owner, hopefully you are using a contract that won't leave you on the hook for the cost of completing a required activity or document, like an RS, should the project fail. Deposits or retainers can work well for this sort of contingency.

Most of the time we know if an ROS would be required for a boundary we're resolving. If you know your're going to hit one of the triggers for a ROS, why don't you prepare the boundary resolve on the 18 x 26" sheet, before the Tentative Map. You could also require additional deposit for the checking fee and any additional processing you think it will take to complete an ROS if the sub falls through? If you've submitted a letter asking for an extension from the 90 day submission period, you would have the majority of the work completed for the ROS or the sub maps exterior boundary. Also if the CS asks for a copy because someone is submitting a survey in the area, it would be ready to give him.

Try to minimize exposure, especially now!

Scott,
I agree with Jim on this one. 8762 (b) says, “…if the field survey discloses any of the following.â€￾

Inversing between found centerline monuments and finding a discrepancy might be considered “uncoveringâ€￾ evidence that may or may not be material.

Adding to Jim’s hypothetical situation, you then start “checking inâ€￾ with other monuments, some of record and some of no record. You find a ton of “evidenceâ€￾ relating to a bunch of different “property linesâ€￾ that might have “material discrepanciesâ€￾ or might result in “materially alternate positions.â€￾ To make matters even worse, you decide to set temporary TM boundary corners to show the owner roughly where the subdivision will end. Where does it stop?

Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition:

Disclose: To bring into view by uncovering, to lay bare, to reveal to knowledge, to free from secrecy or ignorance, or make known.

Regards,
Ben

Dave,
I was trying to give an example that has happened to me a couple of times where you're trying to subdivide the property but keep the existing home. You set stakes to show the property owner (on the ground) how much land he is going to lose. This can be a real eye opening experience for the owner.

Another example is staking an easement line that is established by an offset to PL or some other record.

A third example is when the water district wants a stake at PL for their meter. Is your stake considered a monument on line with PL? How did you establish this location?

My point is, either way, you’re performing calculations and finding evidence that could trigger items 1-3 You also might be performing tasks that trigger items 4-5.

If their is no disclosure, there is no need to file an RS or CR.

A big difference with the "approximate" corners is the nature of what is set.

Not that I advocate EVER setting "approximate" corners (I've learned my lesson - but that's a different story), but if a surveyor taps in some lath, or hangs some flagging on some bushes to give the landowner a feel for where the line is, at least these points will weather away after a few months or a couple years.

If the surveyor sets spikes, rebar, PKs in a hard surface, he has set something of a permanent nature and should expect that other surveyors will find the points, and that current or subsequent landowners will look at them as they would any other permanent boundary mark set by a surveyor. Those BS points are monumented for posterity.

Even setting temporary (lath, flagging, paint spot on the ground) "approximate" corners is risky for the surveyor. No matter what the person asking for the points tell you, it's likely that they plan to and will use them in a manner that you, as the person with the expertise (read: liability) would not condone - like building a fence, etc.

There is no such thing as an “approximate” corner. The minute you slam something physical in the ground, you have established a point. Whether it is in the correct place or not is immaterial. Whether it is durable or not is immaterial.

As a professional, our clients and the adjoiners have a right to except “professional” answer from us. Whether you intend to or not, even an “approximate” corner marked on the ground is taken as “THE” corner because a “professional” so said. Wells Lamont points to the Courts upholding this logic, too.

OK...I'm leavin' for the airport. I'm flying down to southern California to spend the weekend with my wife and family... See y'all later...

I think my point has been lost.

According to most of the logic posted here, the examples I gave would create the need for filing an RS and I don’t believe they do. Again, I agree with Jim on this one.

I was not trying to argue whether we should put approximate “markers” in the field to help an old lady understand how much land she’s giving up in the process of the subdivision.

There seems to be a problem if the only way two ways you can show the lady the location of her boundary is:

A. Meeting her in the field and drawing an X in the ground with a stick that you immediately scratch out with your boot

Or

B. Tell her you can’t DISCLOSE this information unless she will pay for an RS

Yes we are professionals, but even professionals can have common sense.

Ben,

What you are describing is setting temporaries for corners that do not yet exist, and may never exist if the old lady hiring you to subdivide her property doesn't like where they fall.

What we've been discussing is establishing, or re-establishing corners of existing parcels.

Two different ideas. Different rules.

In your case, your setting temporary (possible) future interior corners. If your client never subdivides, but builds a fence to your points, who cares?

I did something very similar recently for adjoining owners doing a LLA. They wanted to see 3 different line locations through the woods before deciding on one. I already knoew I was going to do an RS, so I set lath on each line. Once they picked one, I set the mons, pulled the lath on the lines not chosen, and filed my RS.

Different scenario. I would not have set points if I had not yet resolved the rest of the boundary and had I not had confidence that I was setting the points on the lines intended. And I would not have set them if there wasn't an RS already in the works, and I would not have set anything permanent in nature in a position that I did not intend to leave something for posterity.

Now, let's get this back to existing property lines and RS maps relative to existing boundaries.

there seems to be a problem with this line of thinking. But, I'll be if I know the answer. I like things simple and uncomplicated.

Thanks, Evan.