Re: Encroachments during RS survey and lines of occupation
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:12 am
This is a very interesting discussion.
A boundary survey should not be kept “confidential” because the boundary does not belong to just one person. The land interests of the surrounding parcels at minimum and sometimes an entire neighborhood are involved in every boundary survey we do. If significant differences exist between boundaries and lines of possession, I always make sure the owners of the parcels involved know what is going on. This could be in the form of a map or verbal discussion or whatever is appropriate for the situation. Of course, there are areas where confidentiality should be maintained such as when someone asks us what the owner intends to do with the property. If any of our surveyors observes something significant, they are trained to measure it and we then discuss how to address the situation.
With regard to the County Surveyor asking us to show “lines of possession” on our Records of Surveys, it seems that the seminar that was referred to was attended by more than one County Surveyor. I agree with Ric and see the job of the CS is to provide advice, suggestions and a technical check of the map. We all appreciate this. But not to arbitrarily ask for things that go beyond what is written. Most counties have some sort of local re-write of Section 8764. And we might put up with some local quirks like County of LA which has absconded with the upper right hand corner of the map for their Recorder’s Statement or Santa Clara County using parentheses for record data. But there is a limit to these localized rules.
Another common request from the CS is “Did you search for a monument here? or there? etc. If so, state “Searched, Not Found”.
Also “Please add a note to the effect that you held this bearing or distance per this deed or map” when the data already clearly shows that.
Or “Did you review this map?”.
I use this note or something similar on my RS's to deal with these common questions. It states:
THE BOUNDARY DETERMINATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP REPRESENTS MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION. A THOROUGH SEARCH WAS MADE FOR ALL PERTINENT FIELD AND RECORD EVIDENCE INCLUDING LINES OF POSSESSION AND ALL OTHER EVIDENCE NECESSARY FOR THE RETRACEMENT OF THE MEASURED BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN ON THIS MAP. WHAT IS SHOWN HEREON IS, IN MY OPINION, SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE FUTURE SURVEYORS TO UNDERSTAND THE METHODS USED.
IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE LINES OF POSSESSION IN THIS AREA DO NOT AFFECT OUR BOUNDARY DETERMINATION AND WERE EITHER NOT SHOWN OR IF SHOWN, WERE NOT CONSIDERED TO AFFECT THE LOCATION OF PROPERTY LINES.
(End of note)
If lines of possession are necessary to support our boundary location – such as in areas where there the monumentation and record data is less substantial, we adjust the notes as necessary. And of course, we show on the Record of Survey the lines of possession that are pertinent to the boundary determination.
This is not to say that I mind any of these requests from the CS. I welcome them. Perhaps I did miss a particular map and when it is brought to my attention I will definitely review it. But this statement provides the answer to many questions being asked by the CS so I can just say “Please read the note”.
A boundary survey should not be kept “confidential” because the boundary does not belong to just one person. The land interests of the surrounding parcels at minimum and sometimes an entire neighborhood are involved in every boundary survey we do. If significant differences exist between boundaries and lines of possession, I always make sure the owners of the parcels involved know what is going on. This could be in the form of a map or verbal discussion or whatever is appropriate for the situation. Of course, there are areas where confidentiality should be maintained such as when someone asks us what the owner intends to do with the property. If any of our surveyors observes something significant, they are trained to measure it and we then discuss how to address the situation.
With regard to the County Surveyor asking us to show “lines of possession” on our Records of Surveys, it seems that the seminar that was referred to was attended by more than one County Surveyor. I agree with Ric and see the job of the CS is to provide advice, suggestions and a technical check of the map. We all appreciate this. But not to arbitrarily ask for things that go beyond what is written. Most counties have some sort of local re-write of Section 8764. And we might put up with some local quirks like County of LA which has absconded with the upper right hand corner of the map for their Recorder’s Statement or Santa Clara County using parentheses for record data. But there is a limit to these localized rules.
Another common request from the CS is “Did you search for a monument here? or there? etc. If so, state “Searched, Not Found”.
Also “Please add a note to the effect that you held this bearing or distance per this deed or map” when the data already clearly shows that.
Or “Did you review this map?”.
I use this note or something similar on my RS's to deal with these common questions. It states:
THE BOUNDARY DETERMINATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP REPRESENTS MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION. A THOROUGH SEARCH WAS MADE FOR ALL PERTINENT FIELD AND RECORD EVIDENCE INCLUDING LINES OF POSSESSION AND ALL OTHER EVIDENCE NECESSARY FOR THE RETRACEMENT OF THE MEASURED BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN ON THIS MAP. WHAT IS SHOWN HEREON IS, IN MY OPINION, SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE FUTURE SURVEYORS TO UNDERSTAND THE METHODS USED.
IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE LINES OF POSSESSION IN THIS AREA DO NOT AFFECT OUR BOUNDARY DETERMINATION AND WERE EITHER NOT SHOWN OR IF SHOWN, WERE NOT CONSIDERED TO AFFECT THE LOCATION OF PROPERTY LINES.
(End of note)
If lines of possession are necessary to support our boundary location – such as in areas where there the monumentation and record data is less substantial, we adjust the notes as necessary. And of course, we show on the Record of Survey the lines of possession that are pertinent to the boundary determination.
This is not to say that I mind any of these requests from the CS. I welcome them. Perhaps I did miss a particular map and when it is brought to my attention I will definitely review it. But this statement provides the answer to many questions being asked by the CS so I can just say “Please read the note”.