California Surveyors Forums

Jim Frame wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:48 am I see the same pattern, but my statement about the agreement being binding on successors refers to an agreement recognized by the courts, not a casual agreement -- written or oral -- between neighbors. Once the matter is litigated (through appeals, if necessary), I maintain that the agreement binds all involved.

Truth.

DWoolley

The court employs a staff of engineers and surveyors to help accomplish the task of determining land title and boundaries.

What expertise do engineers bring to title and boundary determination?

Are you talking about in California or Massachusetts?

We are engineers by legal definition. (I know a lot of surveyors do not like to hear that). It has been in the books since 1956.

Jim Frame wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 7:59 am I'm not sure the title thing is a problem for most agreed boundaries in California, because the requirements for recognizing an agreed boundary are so stringent.

Please elaborate on these requirements. Are you referring to Bryant V Blevins?

DWoolley wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:26 am The majority of the boundary cases I am involved with have a similar fact pattern:

1. Two neighbors lived in harmony for years, often decades, one neighbor dies or moves and the new owner wants to improve their "new" property.

2. The boundary is established in a different location than previously recognized.

3. The new owner wants all of "their" property.

4. Some surveyor slammed in two stakes or monuments and walked away - not without saying "hire an attorney" on his way out the door. This fella may or may not have done a good job.

And they're off to the races.

This describes 90% of the boundary conflicts that I see. Please explain what you would do differently in number 4 to protect your client from unnecessary litigation, specifically in cases where acquiescence or estoppel (absent judicial determination) may exist. What is your CYA protocol?

DWoolley wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 7:07 am Actually, the fact you prepared an exhibit (ROS) evidencing the elements of a legal theory to be argued before the court - constitutional due process - makes my point very precisely. In the alternative, a land surveyor establishes a boundary by her understanding of "acquiescence" (denying due process rights and proper legal representation to the parties) and walks away thinking a note on the record of survey fulfills the duty, unquestionably negligence. In the event the court disagreed with your exhibit and the attorney's argument, you would not be negligent as you cannot control the outcome of the case. However, it would be recommended that if your map had filed before the final adjudication a second map reflecting the outcome would be filed.

Please clarify this statement. Are you saying that documenting evidence in support of the elements of a legal theory are only relevant if the boundary dispute is already certainly in litigation? If you see these elements in the course of your survey do you intentionally leave them off your map in order to allow for the neighbors' due process?

If faced with the scenario you describe, how then do you complete the boundary survey? Would you show several alternate boundaries on your record in order to cover every possible contingency? Then let the parties resolve it on their own? Where is your client supposed to build the house?

It seems to me that every boundary establishment that the neighbor doesn't like could be perceived as "denying due process rights to the parties". If I stressed out over this potential every time I set a corner monument then I can't see how I would never get anything done. Surveyors express an opinion and (hopefully) sufficiently explain the evidence and reasoning in support of the opinion. As you said, we cannot control the outcome of the case or even whether there is a case.

Ric7308 wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:08 am Just based on my experiences surveying in CA, a BLA is very rarely, if ever, applicable out here for the reasons the rest of you have described.

I am trying to gain a better understanding of this statement. Please elaborate.

Ric7308 wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:08 am This is where I learned to document field findings to the nth degree in field books so the information can be passed on to the respective parties.

Is it your position that this information is not appropriate to be placed on the record of survey due to it potentially being perceived as denial of due process?

Ric7308 wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:08 am cue MP talking about LC

Nice call, how did you know?

Jim Frame wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:48 am I see the same pattern, but my statement about the agreement being binding on successors refers to an agreement recognized by the courts, not a casual agreement -- written or oral -- between neighbors. Once the matter is litigated (through appeals, if necessary), I maintain that the agreement binds all involved.

So what do you do for resolution of the 99.5% of surveys that never go to court? If the elements of acquiescence or prior historic agreement exist then is it inappropriate for a surveyor to facilitate documenting the agreement for the record?

I encounter latent ambiguities in about 50% of my surveys. This is the normal state of affairs in Marin County. I assert that we are obligated to render an opinion of the boundary based on the best available evidence. This is our professional duty. What am I missing here?

I agree. What does "Cue MP talking about LC" mean?

David Kendall wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 11:09 am ...
I encounter latent ambiguities in about 50% of my surveys. This is the normal state of affairs in Marin County. I assert that we are obligated to render an opinion of the boundary based on the best available evidence. This is our professional duty. What am I missing here?

David Kendall:

I will address your other questions over the weekend.

Generally, when dealing with latent ambiguities - the written document is clear - the surveyor documents the heck out all available evidence i.e. monuments, improvements, adjoiner's documents etc., but judiciously limits the extrinsic evidence into the solution.

Title isn't ownership, but it serves as evidence of ownership - possession outside of the title isn't ownership - it could be an encroachment just as easily. Again, generally, the rub is monuments (including some properly dated improvements) hold over maps and math and the surveyor strikes that balance by applying the preponderance of evidence standard.

The surveyor must understand the application of contract law i.e. most strongly construed against the grantor, cannot sell what you do not own, only remove from consideration the least likely information and apply full meaning to all other terms, places the error where the error most likely occurred, do not create an absurdity, etc. None of these are legal theories - they are statutory law. They are the application of statutory law and judgement. Diligently following this path with proper documentation, the surveyor has the latitude and discretion to make a determination with little concern for being negligent. Of course, a missed original monument or properly dated improvement, map, deed, or applying a legal theory without the proper title work (contract), well, all bets are off and the surveyor is back to negligence.

Lastly, if the parties are not adverse the land surveyor has the authority to legally remedy any land issues through the proper legal instruments - none of which are an ex-judicial adjudication (random surveyor proclamation on the face of a record of survey as to acquiescence) denying a person of their rights.

DWoolley

Finally, determining "the intent" outside of written documents is often a lung shot for the surveyor.

Mr. Pallamary mentioned above that Mr. Kline's article is almost inapplicable in California. Might you care to elaborate Mr. Pallamary?

Also, in dealing with the discovery of excess during the course of a survey, Mr. Lucas makes some interesting suggestions:

https://www.xyht.com/surveying/legal-bo ... he-excess/

What does "just leave it alone" sound like?

I will when time permits. In the meantime:

Back east surveying is based upon very ancient rules of survey. By the time California was settled and began adopting its rules and procedures, most of these ancient remedies had been worked out.

https://www.gothamcenter.org/blog/the-c ... y-disputes

*****************************************

The pilgrims arrived in 1620.

The Jefferson system was developed in 1785.

California was admitted to the union in 1850 - 230 years after the pilgrims arrived.

The public land surveys started in earnest with the establishment of the Mt. Diablo Initial Point in 1853

California adopted the Record of Survey laws in 1891.

California adopted subdivision act laws in 1907.

A lot has changed and California laws reflect these changes which have avoided a lot of headaches.

David Kendall wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 10:59 am

Ric7308 wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:08 am Just based on my experiences surveying in CA, a BLA is very rarely, if ever, applicable out here for the reasons the rest of you have described.

I am trying to gain a better understanding of this statement. Please elaborate.

I can only speak for the other states that I performed surveys in and through discussions with other peer professionals who practice across the country. LLAs and the SMA, as we know them, are either non-existent or not implemented to the degree that we are accustomed to here in CA. In much of the country, subdivisions can still occur by deed. Historical division of land is/was not "as controlled" (best way I could put it) as it is here. Probably a larger percentage of historical divisions did not rely upon a survey as much as they likely do now and many landowners have less defined occupational features to rely upon as compared to here. As DW mentioned, LLAs and PM together with the more consistent advent of SMA has largely made BLAs a moot exercise in CA.

Ric7308 wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:08 am This is where I learned to document field findings to the nth degree in field books so the information can be passed on to the respective parties.

Is it your position that this information is not appropriate to be placed on the record of survey due to it potentially being perceived as denial of due process?

Where I performed these surveys, a "Record of Survey" as we know it doesn't exist. This doesn't mean that a survey map (or plat) isn't prepared reflecting the field conditions/findings but that generally originated from the field notes developed during the survey and was given to the client(s). In New England, I had several occasions where I documented parole evidence from land owners and had them sign the field book pages. I even had one time where I had to survey/document a full fledged squatter and report that. In CA, the land surveyor needs to document evidence which is used to determine/support the location certified to by the land surveyor. Many think this is only referring to evidence which is accepted but it also includes that evidence which is not accepted. I read what DW is saying as crossing over from documentation of evidence leading to the survey determination to outright making legal decisions that are beyond the sole authority of the licensed land surveyor, thereby circumventing (or appearing to) the appropriate legal process to occur. Some may put more weight into a Record of Survey than I generally do...I tend to have the belief that a boundary survey is a boundary survey whether it is required to be filed in the county or not. The licensed land surveyor is responsible for performing the same level of due diligence in either case regardless. Put another way, if it was incumbent upon the land surveyor to responsibly document the evidence, I would expect that whether it was a filed Record of Survey or a boundary map provided to the client(s).

Ric7308 wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:08 am cue MP talking about LC

Nice call, how did you know?

Every time, I mention New England or surveying back there, Mike always chimes in with his experience there and Land Court stuff. I'm not criticizing him...I too found that process interesting and very much enjoyed my surveying then. Even after being in CA for over 30 years, I still believe I learned more about pure boundary surveying, deeds, retracements, etc. there then I have anywhere else.

The point I am trying to make is Acquiescence is not an exclusive remedy. It is one of the elements for applying the Agreed Boundary Doctrine, to wit:


[1] In order to establish a title by agreed boundary it is necessary to show that there was an uncertainty as to the true boundary line, an agreement, express or implied, between the coterminous owners fixing the line, and acceptance and acquiescence in the line so fixed for a period equal to the statute of limitations or under such circumstances that substantial loss would be caused by a change of its position. [228 Cal. App. 2d 481] (Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, 51 Cal. 2d 702, 707 [336 P.2d 525]; French v. Brinkman, 60 Cal. 2d 547, 551 [35 Cal. Rptr. 289, 389 P.2d 1]; Mello v. Weaver, 36 Cal. 2d 456, 459-460 [224 P.2d 691]; Fobbs v. Smith, 202 Cal. App. 2d 209, 214 [20 Cal. Rptr. 545].) fn. 8 [2] "It is not required that the true location be absolutely unascertainable [citation]; that an accurate survey from the calls in the deed is possible [sic] [citation], or that the uncertainty should appear from the deeds [citation]. The line may be founded on a mistake. [Citation.]" (Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, supra, at pp. 707-708.)

Please elaborate on these requirements. Are you referring to Bryant V Blevins?

Mostly Ernie. Bryant placed some limitations on finding an agreed boundary, but left the door open when the circumstances fit. (I think Bryant was correctly decided, but for the wrong reasons.)

Ric,

I was 19 years old the first time I testified in court as a land surveyor, in 1973, even though I was not licensed as a land surveyor. It was a Land Court survey dispute where the boundaries had been fixed by the court. A city engineer was moonlighting and he made a five-foot error by misreading a map. There were maybe 20 lots in a row and all, except the last lot were 50-feet wide. The last one was 55-feet wide. He staked it at 50-feet. Because it was a Land Court certified survey, that was the end of that; the 50-foot dimension was honored. I was working for Whitman & Howard at the time. That is where I started as my two step uncles worked there.

https://digital.hagley.org/08166111_Howard_early_days

mpallamary wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 1:19 pm The point I am trying to make is Acquiescence is not an exclusive remedy. It is one of the elements for applying the Agreed Boundary Doctrine, to wit:


[1] In order to establish a title by agreed boundary it is necessary to show that there was an uncertainty as to the true boundary line, an agreement, express or implied, between the coterminous owners fixing the line, and acceptance and acquiescence in the line so fixed for a period equal to the statute of limitations or under such circumstances that substantial loss would be caused by a change of its position. [228 Cal. App. 2d 481] (Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, 51 Cal. 2d 702, 707 [336 P.2d 525]; French v. Brinkman, 60 Cal. 2d 547, 551 [35 Cal. Rptr. 289, 389 P.2d 1]; Mello v. Weaver, 36 Cal. 2d 456, 459-460 [224 P.2d 691]; Fobbs v. Smith, 202 Cal. App. 2d 209, 214 [20 Cal. Rptr. 545].) fn. 8 [2] "It is not required that the true location be absolutely unascertainable [citation]; that an accurate survey from the calls in the deed is possible [sic] [citation], or that the uncertainty should appear from the deeds [citation]. The line may be founded on a mistake. [Citation.]" (Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, supra, at pp. 707-708.)

Again, truth.

The appellate cases provide a citation and a precedence for future courts to rely. This creates stability in land title. Again, state law controls private property rights. Most of the land cases, noted exception being Blevins, are ancient and date back more than 125 years.

The adjudicated case does not provide the land surveyor with another procedure for resolving boundaries - I will note a variation below. The cases are much more complex than the published headnotes or final decision and include legal considerations we are not trained to navigate. Rather, the cases provide the land surveyor with a guide to better evidence a complex legal theory. We, as boundary land surveyors, are required to generally know the results of these cases.

An example of a variation to a case becoming a surveying procedure is the use of proration between lots in a simultaneous conveyance or giving the senior grant full measure (actually statutory law, but it probably wasn't 150 years ago). The courts hold previous decisions, precedents, so that each case with the same or similar facts has a predictable outcome. This is known as the doctrine of stare decisis. There are many legal considerations or perspectives in making a legal decision, two of which are ex ante and ex post perspectives. I developed an understanding by reading "The Legal Analyst - A toolkit for thinking about the law" by Ward Farnsworth. The book is about 400 pages, but the land surveyor reader only has to read the first 125-150 pages and you have everything you need.

From Page 7:

"I build a house. Unfortunately, I was mistaken in my measurements, and the structure extends onto your neighboring property by eighteen inches. There is no cheap way to correct the problem; either the house stays where it is or much of it will have to be torn down. What to do? The ex post style of thought accepts the situation as it is and asks how it might be resolved. Nothing the court says can change the fact that the house encroaches; all we can do now is try to keep the damage caused by the mistake to a minimum. So that natural remedy might be an order that I can pay you for the strip of land I built on, perhaps with a little premium since the sale is, in effect, being forced on you. Why waste a perfectly good house by tearing much of it down? But the ex ante perspective is entirely different. On this view it matters little how our particular mess gets resolved. The important question is how the resolution will affect our behavior in the future - and the behavior of others like us. From this standpoint an award of damages - a forced sale - might seem like a terrible solution. It deals sensibly with the problem we already have, but it doesn't give me or anyone else an incentive to be more careful next time. Indeed, it might create the opposite incentive: if I wanted to build on a bit of property but were unsure whether you would be willing to sell, my best plan would be to go ahead and build and then let you sue for the value of the land. Even if I have to pay a premium, I still might be better off this way than by negotiating with you.

So the usual rule in encroachment cases is that the plaintiff - the complaining neighbor - gets an injunction entitling him to insist that house is removed. ...For now the important point is to see that it's another win for the ex ante perspective. Ex post - after the thing is done - having one neighbor pay the other might seem attractive; ex ante - thinking about the incentives for the next time, before anything has happened - payment of money seems decidedly unattractive precisely because it makes the bad thing more likely to happen again." [emphasis mine]

This page provides a good example with which most land surveyors can identify. This is precisely why the courts require encroachments to be removed - they do not want future bad actors rolling the dice on the property rights of another.

The point being, additionally, the ex post and ex ante perspectives provides us with an example as to why we are not qualified to make legal determinations even when we believe we are following court precedents.

DWoolley

Yes, Dave, as always good points.

I was involved in one lawsuit many years ago. The property owners were fighting over a small strip of land in La Jolla. The judge put me on the spot when he asked me what I thought of the lawsuit. It placed me in a difficult position with my client. Nonetheless, the judge asked me how it should be resolved. I proposed a simple easement with some limitations.

The judge thanked me and declared my suggestions to be the court's order.

In a few other disputes, a former judge asked me to "master" a dispute being driven by surveyor ego, a very deadly place to work from. I explained to the judge which survey I thought was correct, and why. he agreed with me. One of the surveyors was very unhappy - not because the court didn't like the solution. It was because his ego was got in the way.

Surveyor ego can be one of the greatest impediments to solving problems.

It would have been helpful if the other surveyor understood the law.

I have always enjoyed the attached article:

A neighbor whose existing fence or wall was set several feet over on an adjoining owner's property for more than seven years might think he has a supportable claim to the portion of the adjoining land enclosed by his fence or wall. If that neighbor had read only Curtis Brown (Boundary Control & Legal Principles, 4th Ed. (1995); and Evidence and Procedures for Boundary Location 4th Ed. (2002)), and maybe perused some California statutes, he might feel encouraged to try his claim in court.

But if that neighbor found out what courts in California had been saying on the subject – particularly in the last fifteen years or so, he would know that if he filed a complaint or cross complaint based on fence or wall location, he would very likely lose.

California courts probably will not apply the doctrines of adverse possession, prescriptive easement, agreed-upon boundary, or even practical location, to settle most disputes over a wall or fence that is perceived to be located too far away from the property boundary. As demonstrated in some significant case reports discussed below, the happier landowner is one who hires a land surveyor experienced in boundary location, and relies on the good will of his neighbor to reach a settlement of any perceived claim, staying out of court altogether.

The remedies, if any, that a court is likely to offer the neighbor are probably not worth the cost and not worth the trouble.

David Kendall wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 10:59 am ...

DWoolley wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:26 am The majority of the boundary cases I am involved with have a similar fact pattern:

1. Two neighbors lived in harmony for years, often decades, one neighbor dies or moves and the new owner wants to improve their "new" property.

2. The boundary is established in a different location than previously recognized.

3. The new owner wants all of "their" property.

4. Some surveyor slammed in two stakes or monuments and walked away - not without saying "hire an attorney" on his way out the door. This fella may or may not have done a good job.

And they're off to the races.

This describes 90% of the boundary conflicts that I see. Please explain what you would do differently in number 4 to protect your client from unnecessary litigation, specifically in cases where acquiescence or estoppel (absent judicial determination) may exist. What is your CYA protocol?
...

David Kemdall:

Performing boundary surveys do not invoke any real sense of a need to CYA - as I do for construction related work. In short, I document evidence of boundary location, possession, title etc . When any two of those three things are in disagreement I proceed through the mental flowcharts to get to a resolution - none of which includes any considerations towards acquiescence, estoppel, laches, prescription, etc.

As for the record, 99% of my maps show improvements near the boundary, include an accuracy statement, notes of my considerations, boundary establishment, thorough monument descriptions that sparingly have abbreviations. Of the 300+ filed maps I believe less than 10 are a single page. And yes, I have shown and mapped as many as three different solutions for a single boundary and explained why I selected the particular solution. Mapping various solutions will sometimes provide more clarity. Also, this process keeps another surveyor from guessing why I chose a particular solution or if I had considered a particular solution.

How can another surveyor tell if I am feeling a little stretched out on my solution? I set a ton of monuments, one particular map was almost the entire highend subdivision, this appeals to the common laziness among our peers to rely on my solution and not attempt to impeach my work. That's about as CYA as I get with boundary.

Also, I quite often personally see every monument of consequence collected and in litigation will personally search for any monuments someone claims are missing.

After finding a problem, I ask my client "how well do you know your neighbors?" The issues usually come when I am the second one in and some donkey didn't go through the same process and said to his client "you need a lawyer".

If the parties are amiable and want to fix the problem the problem gets fixed. In the event they don't want to fix the problem I button it up by documenting my findings on a map for the next surveyor.

DWoolley

DWoolley wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 7:41 pm How can another surveyor tell if I am feeling a little stretched out on my solution? I set a ton of monuments, one particular map was almost the entire highend subdivision, this appeals to the common laziness among our peers to rely on my solution and not attempt to impeach my work.

Beautiful!

I have attached a record of survey in which I detailed the documentation of alternate solutions.

I do not usually map the alternate solutions, but I had the room and saw a purpose. In this particular case I thought I would describe and map each potential solution to keep these folks out of litigation. In this neighborhood they have the money and disposition to get after it. I didn't want some donkey to wander in and pull some stunt that would send these folks into litigation. The logic was to show every solution to rob the donk of something that may nominally disagree and get these folks to pull the trigger for a couple of inches.

See sheet 4 of 4. The map describes the outcome depending on which method a surveyor chose i.e. holding record from a monumented line with a history, establishing the tract line and prorating in the lots or prorating over a tract line between the two tracts.

Absent the solution mapping on sheet 4 this map is representative of our typical boundary surveys.

DWoolley

Solid RS, David. I like the presentation of the data and the methods used to interpret the data. Any future "competent" land surveyor should be able to retrace your work, whether they agree with your conclusions or not.

The only comment I would have made, had this come to me, would be that, since the house, garage and walls are assisting you with your boundary resolution, they might be fully described so that future surveyors would know that they are looking at the very same house, garage, and walls that you were.

8764.
(a) The record of survey shall show the applicable provisions of the following consistent with the purpose of the survey:

(1) All monuments found, set, reset, replaced, or removed, describing their kind, size, and location, and giving other data relating thereto.

Ian Wilson wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 10:28 am ...
The only comment I would have made, had this come to me, would be that, since the house, garage and walls are assisting you with your boundary resolution, they might be fully described so that future surveyors would know that they are looking at the very same house, garage, and walls that you were.
...

Ian Wilson:

I appreciate the comment - the foundations to the houses and/or garages were mostly original construction and dated back several decades and could have been noted. In this instance, the relationship to the house, garage and walls were not particularly ancillary, but confirming, to the boundary establishment. As we know, boundaries are invisible. Laypeople, clients etc do not care where the invisible boundary is located unless they are building something - they really care about the relationship of the boundary to the existing improvements. That stated, has the surveyor provided a proper service to the public by not showing the relationship to the existing improvements? Not according to the nationally accepted, peer reviewed, regularly updated, ALTA/NSPS minimum standards. The fact a surveyor wasn't hired to perform an ALTA survey is usually immaterial.

Has the surveyor met the standard of care by not considering or showing the existing improvements? Not if the CEAC guide to records of survey and corner records is applied - in the absence of a notation the assumption is the boundary established does not indicate any issues or encroachments. When the contrary has been found after the fact by another surveyor was the first surveyor providing honest services as a neutral?

Not observing improvements, has the surveyor evaluated all available evidence? Not in the absence of found original monuments. Regardless of local jurisdictional practices, the surveyor pressed into a lawsuit is unlikely to have met the minimum standard of care and as such, would likely be determined to be negligent. Substandard local practice is not the standard of care - the courts have been clear on this topic. Relying on a phone conversation or an email from Ric and/or Dallas - absent a citation of authority - is of no use in that setting and it is a mistake to think otherwise.

For those that may not know, the courts are not asking me for my naked opinion or experience to determine negligence, no, they are asking me how I determined the standard of care. It is relatively easy to point to the ALTA/NSPS minimum standards, adopted in all 50 states (probably includes Puerto Rico) in determining boundary establishment criteria and I can rely on the CEAC guide - all peer reviewed guides and/or standards that apply to all jurisdictions in California.

Frankly, it doesn't usually get so far as to needing the written standards because the surveyor usually missed existing monuments (two monument tango, maybe even calling off one of the monuments) or she didn't document the conflicts, or review the adjoining deeds in a sequential conveyance or she pulled some legal theory (acquiescence) out of her pocket, all equal lung shots in determining negligence.

If the maps I have seen filed in Alameda County are representative of the overall practice, a similar map is quite unlikely to land on your desk. I certainly appreciate the fact you're willing to take some flak to try to improve the mapping in your area.

Happy Sunday.

DWoolley

DWoolley wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 4:18 pm I have attached a record of survey in which I detailed the documentation of alternate solutions.

Thank you for posting the sample survey, this is very enlightening information.

Not exactly how I would of done it but that is the beauty of our maps. We have professional discretion to demonstrate the evidence which we find important in supporting our boundary solution.

I will refrain from nitpicking the quality of your work product because I genuinely appreciate and respect that you have the stones to stick your neck out and put a map that you clearly have some personal investment in on the forum. This also helps me to understand where you are coming from with some of the statements you are making.

It should also be noted that this is a 4000 square foot lot with a land value of $1.5 million and improvement value of $50000. Someone is probably planning to build something nice here and every inch counts at around $400 per square foot of land.

I have mixed feelings regarding the CEAC guide.... I will say that I do not value it as you do but I acknowledge that it is a recognized standard

David Kendall wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 7:59 pm ...
I will refrain from nitpicking the quality of your work product because I genuinely appreciate and respect that you have the stones to stick your neck out and put a map that you clearly have some personal investment in on the forum. This also helps me to understand where you are coming from with some of the statements you are making.
...

David Kendall:

I welcome nitpicking or critical review. The maps are publicly available for anyone's scrutiny until the end of time.

One thing that caught my eye on the survey that made me cringe - monument note 15 references "4 spikes", my own donkey description (hopefully was corrected on the filed map), in that there are no less than 6 types of spikes and it is best to spell out "four" for consistency if for no other reason. I suppose it still beats "found mon per ..." or "SMS". Monuments hold so much value to the establishment of boundary lines we should take the time to, ah, write an accurate description in conformance with the Business and Professions Code?

Question: How are property rights recognized and protected if the land surveyor doesn't establish the block (all four sides) or minimally, lots on either side of the boundary being established? We should be able to agree record bearing and distance from two monuments does not fulfill the duty of the land surveyor to protect the public's property rights. It is unreasonable, actually absurd, to think the public is protected when insufficient survey is collected to determine any excess or deficiency or conflicts. That is wandering from negligence to incompetence.

Frankly, most any engineering or architect technician, general contractor or GIS person with access to RTN-GPS can easily replicate record data slapped on the ground after locating two monuments. It is wild-eyed hypocrisy to think their work - doing the same as a land surveyor - damages the public anymore or less. Think about it.


DWoolley

Dave:

I ask this because you said you were ok with some review etc, and I also find that I am always happier having asked my question.

One thing that jumped out from your map is that your not using monuments on the north side of Thalia St and south side of Seaview St to set up the CLs as well as the CL intersections. I don't have easy access to OC maps so not able to check the references easily, but it looks like 2 Parcel Maps carved up a larger lot, so wouldn't the CLs of Thalia and Seaview be controlled by positions of monuments/fixed works on both sides?

I have used evidence from only my subject block before, but it was on a irregular shaped Block from a map that was quite lacking in almost everything a surveyor would want. See attachments if interested ( my map and the original subdivision map).

Mikey Mueller, PLS
Sonoma County

Mikey:

I am on-site today and do not readily have access to the file. I will bet dollars to donuts the original subdivisions didn't have centerlines - they were likely subsequently to the 1924 subdivision.

DWoolley

Dollars to donuts... I used that recently and then realized donuts cost more than a dollar now!

Figured it would be a quirk of title, no need to waste too much billable on it.

Mikey Mueller, PLS
Sonoma County