Boundary Line Agreements

[polaris]

...

To avoid this situation, I worked around it by executing a boundary line agreement as to the location of the west line of lot 1 (not altering the title description), quitclaim deeds either side of the west line of lot 1 (not altering the original description), filed a record of survey locating lot 1 (the west line was in question as to location), and reformed the deeds with a legal description from "Lot 1, Tract XXX" to "Lot 1, Tract XXX as shown on Record of Survey XXX". It walked like a duck, the title company did not balk. Mileage may vary.

DWoolley

This is what I have seen done in the past. I have only seen a few in my practice. They are and should be rare.

However, we are about to go out in an area that has conflicting surveys, fraudulent GLO surveys, and a lack of monumentation. A BLA may be the only solution to the problem. A court judgement would solve the problem but at what cost?! If the property owners can agree on an obviously uncertain location (similar to the "Chimney Rock" question), It seems that it is much better for all involved. How does one do a LLA, if the boundary lines are uncertain? How do you show the "old lines" and the change in area? I think a Certificate of Compliance or a Parcel Legality determination (that includes the CS) is a good solution.

Lynn

[Ric7308]

Questions you may want to ask yourselves: Why is it a burden of the land surveyor community to take on this effort? Why haven't the parties which would benefit from this effort sought some sort of legislative resolution?

[CBarrett]

So...
follow up the boundary line agreement (Line fix)
with perfecting deeds (Title fix)
and Certificate of compliance (SMA fix)

[Mike Mueller]

Ric, I think you meant that as a rhetorical question, but as anyone who knows me will tell you, that won't stop me from answering :)

We often tell clients that surveying is solving problems you don't know you have, in ways you don't understand, for more money than you expected. The interested/benefited parties are mostly folks who don't know they have a problem to fix. Most of the difficulty in selling surveys is convincing my prospective clients of the need/benefit to spend $1000's so I can make a map of a box that looks almost (but not quite!!!) like the AP map shows the box. Convincing another group to care about BLA's is gonna be tough. The only party I can think of that has the muscle and the potential interest is realtors, but I don't think they would understand why a LLA is not an acceptable solution, since the savings in money and heartache do not accrue to them.

At the end of the day, a BLA's validity is the uncertainty in the location of the line. Any BLA I do is always open to attack if another surveyor thinks they have correctly solved that boundary. All that future surveyor has to do is convince their client that the BLA was "taking their land" and was done wrong and we are off to the "make lawyers rich" races. Considering the variety in surveyor's opinions about how to properly locate a line.... I am getting less and less willing to advocate for the BLA process, or do them myself.....

The more I have thought about this topic, the more I believe that the BLA is going away like the buffalo and subdivisions by deed did. Modern surveys (circa 1970/s and on) are accurate and precise enough to make locating points from those maps matters of tenths for the most part. This means there is a finite number of situations that could be solved with a BLA. That finite number is only encountered by someone after they spent money for a survey that determined/established the criteria for a BLA. So the cost is RoS and BLA, or RoS and LLA. The cost difference as a percentage of the total project isn't that much on a BLA vs a LLA, so really the only difference between a BLA vs a LLA is speed and ignoring agency zoning rules.

Perhaps we would be better serving our clients in seeking to get a new lesser form of LLA set into law, like the Corner Record and RoS? Perhaps a LLA that is only valid for 2 parcels, that have built homes, and only on lines that have fences?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Ric7308]

Additional thought to consider: Wouldn't setting monuments more frequently (as required by the PLSA) serve the public better thereby leading to alleviate the need for a BLA?

Or put another way...isn't there already a legislative provision in place (e.g., PLSA section 8771(a) and 8772) which, if implemented appropriately by a greater number of land surveyors, alleviate the need to do anything new on this?

[CBarrett]

Also, considering that a boundary line agreement is between the two property owners only, there is no guarantee that the property, if it was in compliance of local ordinances and SMA prior to the BLA, is still in compliance - since it has not gone through the compliance process.

This then seems logical that the title company would not want to insure against "the effects of the boundary line agreement".

[LA Stevens]

Dave Karoly wrote a good paper attached that included the requirements for a boundary line agreement with case references.

[Mike Mueller]

Additional thought to consider: Wouldn't setting monuments more frequently (as required by the PLSA) serve the public better thereby leading to alleviate the need for a BLA?

Or put another way...isn't there already a legislative provision in place (e.g., PLSA section 8771(a) and 8772) which, if implemented appropriately by a greater number of land surveyors, alleviate the need to do anything new on this?

Not really. There exists right now some number of boundaries which in theory will never be locatable, regardless of how many new monuments we put in. It might prevent future unknowns, but the future is already pretty locked in compared to what it was. Even our current KBS (Known Bad Surveyors) are recording more and showing more than what was done 100 years ago. Heck, just from the spy satelites and google earth street view we are getting so much more information than is available for the old stuff. Another positive for our future, the KBS of today is at least using a lazer, so they are at least precisely wrong :)

Plus the utilization of ground penetrating radar by drone swarm will likely let us locate all those SFNF monuments better too!

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

...
It would be irresponsible/cataclysmic to create any mechanisms to allow our community, a community that does not want to set monuments or file maps, anywhere near the land title system. We need to move along, nothing to see here.

DWoolley

Additional thought to consider: Wouldn't setting monuments more frequently (as required by the PLSA) serve the public better thereby leading to alleviate the need for a BLA?

Or put another way...isn't there already a legislative provision in place (e.g., PLSA section 8771(a) and 8772) which, if implemented appropriately by a greater number of land surveyors, alleviate the need to do anything new on this?

Not really. There exists right now some number of boundaries which in theory will never be locatable, regardless of how many new monuments we put in.
...
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

And there you have it. Full circle.

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

And there you have it. Full circle.
DWoolley

Not really.

Nothing in my response to Ric was a comment on the benefits of more monuments on current work. I was addressing Ric's comment in regards to existing BLA-able situations. The entire point of a BLA-able situation is that there is not sufficient evidence left to locate the boundary in question. No amount of new monuments will create old evidence, so how would implementation of 8771 help me with surveys from 1907? Consider the maps I linked above. The surveyor who did the two point tango could have set 1000 monuments, it would not have helped resolve the issues created by the original 1907 subdivision.

I would ask anyone who has done a BLA if they have done it on a boundary that was created post 1970? I would expect the answer to be no since we already have addressed theses issues with 8771, 8762, and the SMA. Put it another way, a discussion of BLA's is really a discussion of how to fix old problems that are coming to light now. It is not evidence related to current practices, since the current laws/customs/practices are already addressing the specific problem of un-locatable boundaries being created, IE we are not creating more BLA-able situations now.

Enforcing 8771 might help future surveyors avoid BLAs in 100 years, but the problem being discussed is how to get title companies to be ok with BLAs now.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County
PS Edited for clarity on last sentence of 2nd paragraph 5 minutes after posting.

[LS_8750]

My experience with Boundary Line Agreements has almost entirely involved attorneys attempting to circumvent boundary line dispute litigation. Furthermore, almost every time the boundary disagreement has been the result of land surveyors disagreeing on the evidence recovered, or better yet one surveyor doing good work and the other being manipulated by their attorney to puppet some sort of alternate theory to help arrive at some "uncertainty" conclusion.

I am not a fan of this type of Boundary Line Agreement approach, which in my experience is the more common use of the BLA tool.
I like Mr. Karoly's work on this topic.

[DWoolley]

And there you have it. Full circle.
DWoolley

Not really.

Nothing in my response to Ric was a comment on the benefits of more monuments on current work.
...
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

You are correct, monuments set today do not resolve an uncertain boundary location.

Prospectively, the monuments set today will make future boundaries certain and alleviate litigation (and the need for future boundary line agreements). I well understand that surveyors do not like setting monuments or filing maps, whimsical writing. Want to see a surveyor run a 4.40 40? Ask him to set a tag ("feet don't fail me now!")

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

Dave: Amongst those who won't set tags or enough monuments, or even file a RoS, is there a trend related to their license number?

I agree that historically there was a major issue of not setting enough monuments, showing enough ties, explaining thoughts/methods. Anecdotally based on looking at the RoS's that are getting filed in my area( don't worry I see the selection bias there) I am seeing a positive trend in that regard. So I see that as a current issue to a lesser extent because the trend is positive.

I am worried that too much pushing in the form of legislatively required things will narrow the area that we get to exercise common sense. Like the BLA situation. Too much pushing will over correct, like steering a boat, and we will be left following flowcharts and spreadsheets and reduced to technician level thinking because there is no room to wiggle our brains and find the "contrary may be shown" solution that doesn't fit the checklist the mapchecker is using.

There are certainly areas that need a culture shift, but even in some of those areas I see positive growth/trends (thanks Ian!!) amongst the newer generation of LS numbers. The work Connie is doing is perfect for that sort of solution. Lead the surveyors to water, some will drink and some will die of dehydration stubbornly saying the water their dad drank is all they ever need. Both outcomes are positive as long as we can limit the damage those dehydrated surveyors do as they flail around before retir(cough-expir-cough)ing. Which loops back to 8771 etc. I would love to see 8771 included in what a CS was required to check, because it enhances the enforcability of our current laws rather than add a bunch more.

I imagine it as three bars. The lower bar is what the cheap guys who still offer a El Cert for $250 do, and is based on what they can get away with. The middle bar is what is actually required by law. The higher bar is what "ought" to be done by a professional that balances cost to client vs benefit to public vs duty to future surveyors. Consider these three bars as defining ecological niches, low bar to middle= lower, middle bar to higher=middle and above high bar=high. Each area has X amount of money that supports Y amount of surveyors. Raising just the middle bar will only increase the amount of money flowing to the "just enough to not get caught" surveyors, and reduce the money for the middle group, and have basically no effect on the higher bar. The local "best surveyors" won't have their business hurt regardless of the cost increases because folks hiring them are not prioritizing money. The middle group will get hurt as they raise their prices to stay in conformance with the law. This will either drive them to do lower group work sometimes, or drive them out of the market entirely as other industries internalize that cost as it gets too high and reduce the total amount of money flowing into the 3 niches.

I like laws that are based on the outcomes and so unless I can understand how a new law or policy raises the lowest bar, I have a hard time supporting it. Don't get me wrong, I would love if we all got over the high bar. I think I get over it sometimes, other times not. But I will always be trying.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

...
I am worried that too much pushing in the form of legislatively required things will narrow the area that we get to exercise common sense.
...
I like laws that are based on the outcomes and so unless I can understand how a new law or policy raises the lowest bar, I have a hard time supporting it.
...
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Common sense is uncommon. In land surveying, knowing little else, anecdotally, even less common. Look no further than measuring (arguably our simplest task) i.e. inappropriate use of RTN-GPS, coordinates to CAD with no adjustment or ability to qualify or quantify the measurements, an inability to post process static lines, or CAD files with two coordinates to represent one point. Nobody knows the trouble I've seen (so the Armstrong song goes). Collectively, we are not splitting atoms or curing cancer in our leisure. We are far more likely to fixate on a shiny object on a wall and forget to eat. In the end, the atom splitters will eat our lunch.

I am currently sitting at the ESRI conference in San Diego. The exhibit hall is huge - I paced it 334 paces by 134 paces, 1000' x 440'. I asked about the attendance. It was "over 18,000 a few days ago". Trimble, Leica, USGS, Autodesk, Bureau of Land Management, they're all here. I suspect these are what atom splitters look like, if not, they sure look smart, have smart classes. If asked to measure the under 35 crowd, I would choose legions as the best unit. For those that want to romanticized our plight to Leonidas v. Xerxes, I remind readers Xerxes won and more importantly, we are not Spartans.

If you do not like legislative cures to regulate/over regulate the practice - making us appear more important than we actually are to society - well, you'll be especially offended when they legislatively deregulate the practice in its entirety.
There's your outcome. Pick your poison.

DWoolley

[Ric7308]

Dave - off topic but...have you heard any scuttlebutt conversations pertaining to Crownholm situation while lurking amongst the "atom splitters"?

[DWoolley]

Dave - off topic but...have you heard any scuttlebutt conversations pertaining to Crownholm situation while lurking amongst the "atom splitters"?

I have not heard anything yet. When I was in Boise for a URISA conference last fall it was a hot topic. Another topic that convinced me to be in Boise was the proposed modifications to the model law that allows those folks to survey by California's definition.

I am hoping to run into Bruce Joffee while I am here. We are long time professional acquaintance. I will report back if I hear anything.

DWoolley

[Ric7308]

Interesting...wonder how URISA plans to convince an NCEES Member licensing Board to present that kind of motion.

[DWoolley]

Specifically, the URISA proposal was:

Proposed New Exclusion
B.9. Non-licensed people who hold a GISP certification from the GIS Certification Institute, a Certified Mapping Scientist certification from the American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, or substantially similar certification as approved by the (State's licensing department), or people working under the direction of such a certified person, may provide the services and products described in Model Law Section 110.20(B)(4)(b) with the exception of items (4)(b) iii, iv, v, and vi, provided such services and products include disclaimers of use clearly indicating that they:

a. Are NOT intended to be used as a survey product.

b. Are NOT suitable for legal and cadastral purposes.

c. Can NOT be presumed to have sufficient accuracy and precision to be relied upon for the provision of architectural and engineering services related to fixed works.

d. Do contain metadata including the method of compilation, geographic reference frame (i.e., coordinate or linear reference system), data source(s), and creation date(s), accuracy, precision, creator, owner, and point of contact, for the services or products. Such metadata must be in a digital format that is easily accessible and readable by users of the digital geographic data, and clearly affixed to the printed copies of such data.

[Nobody reads the disclaimers. Allowed to move forward their work will consume surveyors work.]

The section referenced Model Law Section 110.20(B)(4)(b) with the exception of items (4)(b) iii, iv, v, and vi:

Section 4(b), when such services and their resulting products are represented as fit for any of the following intended purposes:

i. They determine, demark or record the location and extent of real property and governmental administrative boundaries for legal or title ownership purposes.

ii. They determine, demark or record the geographic relationship between designated boundaries, fixed works, geodetic or survey control points, natural features, or the terrain [configuration or contour] of the Earth, for legally mandated purposes.

iii. They impart sufficient accuracy and precision to be relied upon for the provision of architectural and engineering services related to the design, construction or repair of fixed works.

iv. They furnish evidence and basis for authoritative opinion in the courts on questions arising from the provision of land surveying services or the interpretation of land surveying products.

(b) The professional services offered within the practice of land surveying use such sciences as mathematics, geodesy, and photogrammetry, and involve both.

(1) the making of geometric measurements and gathering related information pertaining to the physical or legal features of the earth, improvements on the earth, the space above, on, or below the earth and

(2) providing, utilizing, or developing the same into survey products such as graphics, data, maps, plans, reports, descriptions, or projects. Professional services include acts of consultation, investigation, testimony evaluation, expert technical testimony, planning, mapping, assembling, and interpreting gathered measurements and information related to any one or more of the following:

i. Determining by measurement the configuration or contour of the earth’s surface or the position of fixed objects thereon.

ii. Determining by performing geodetic surveys the size and shape of the earth or the position of any point on the earth.

[iii., iv., v, and vi., excluded]

vii. Creating, preparing, or modifying electronic or computerized or other data, relative to the performance of the activities in the above described items i. through vii.

[This is precisely their approach. Keep in mind, land surveying definition varies by state. These activities, legal or not, are being carried out in several jurisdictions by unlicensed "surveyors" - this includes large swaths of work in California.

At the conference, I spoke with a person that performs large scale "survey" projects in several east coast states - Florida to New York. Their company was confused by one of the Carolina's requiring a licensee in the request for proposal on a statewide contract to locate and map utilities. Their company uses GNSS GPS to collect and map data. Ultimately, they did not propose on the project after being unsuccessful in relaxing the requirements.

The fact land surveyors do not prefer to survey will not preclude others from filling the void. Long shot, but maybe some readers will see the reason Orange County was proposing accuracy statements on work product. It is the Achilles heel of the atom splitters. Of course, collectively, we do not want to be bothered with such requirements. Excuse me, I am going to stare at a shiny object on a wall.]

DWoolley

[Ric7308]

First of all, whomever was proposing this doesn't understand that NCEES Model Law/Rules doesn't have the power of actual state legislation unless adopted by licensing board in a jurisdiction. And second, knowing the NCEES members like I do, I would seriously doubt this proposal would gain the required support they would expect should it ever be presented to NCEES for consideration. (I've already confirmed that NCEES has not received any such proposal at this time)

[Mike Mueller]

[Nobody reads the disclaimers. Allowed to move forward their work will consume surveyors work.]

Long shot, but maybe some readers will see the reason Orange County was proposing accuracy statements on work product. It is the Achilles heel of the atom splitters. Of course, collectively, we do not want to be bothered with such requirements. Excuse me, I am going to stare at a shiny object on a wall.]

This sums up why I think there is hesitancy to support the accuracy statement as a solution. It is adding another statement which is treated the same as disclaimers. The accuracy statement would be raising that middle bar for folks who actually understand what is meant by the statement, and do nothing to raise the lowest bar(think ALTA accuracy statement) unless we can convince the permitting agencies to require such a statement on application materials. If we as a group have the power to convince a permitting agency to require something, lets first get them to require a stamp by a LS for anything that shows a boundary? Or perhaps a setback verification for all buildings that are shown within 1' of the minimum setback?

One of the reasons I continue to post about this Dave is that I respect and appreciate your knowledge and dedication to helping our profession. You have fought long and hard for us, and I see your frustration and pessimism growing as you are treated like Cassandra, doomed to always give accurate prophesies that are ignored. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra) I am not trying to stop all laws, or obstruct for the sake of obstruction. I am genuinely trying to help find improvements that would be effective and supported by our profession, however camel/needle that job may be. I believe it is one of the best functions of a forum such as this, as it lets ideas be discussed, critiqued, improved and then hopefully implemented by a real world effort like the Leg Com, or BEPELSG changing enforcement rules or just slowly convincing folks to self improve.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[CBarrett]

Caution: Off topic

Speaking of accuracy - recently I expressed some opinions regarding us possibly needing to define some sort of accuracy standards. Something that has enough latitude to accommodate California's regional diversity in practices and economic needs (open space, agriculture, forestry, suburban, urban centers) and some of the crossover, INCLUDING accuracy standards for very low precision work (AKA GIS today).

If GIS people are to show anything boundary related, they need to have a surveyor, at the minimum consulting and explaining what the low precision and it's accuracy is good for.

I am not a believer that every time a surveyor touches the boundary, it has to be done at high precision. This attitude has caused us to lose GIS market share. We dug our heels into "high precision work only" and others, outside of surveying have built an entire industry around low precision work.
I've never understood this, maybe having come from european educational background, it's all a form a surveying, just different precisions were used for different purposes. Land cadasters don't need 0.1' accuracy on boundaries to run a cadastral office. When you need better accuracy, you do additional fieldwork.

Having this be under our oversight allows us to monitor its use AND to protect the public from it's misuse. Right now we have our head in the sand by the fact that we are ignoring that low precision property line representations exist and are being used by businesses and public at large. I think we are better off accepting this fact and providing guidance, than trying to fight it the way we have been - by ... I'm not sure what to call it. It's not a precise boundary therefor it shouldn't exist.

Well, the fact is it exists, and we lost oversight, and we failed at protecting the public, and people like Crownholm, and random unguided GIS applications filled that gap. Why do we have so many surveyors who act like one trick ponies - surveying is ONLY one kind of surveying, the kind that *I* ever did ... says the guy who, well, grew into a local boundary guy by doing the same things for 47 years, and never bothered to look into the breadth of the profession. "I am licensed therefor I know everything there is".

Obviously, I an venting to a degree and don't care if that bruises a few egos - but we have many licenses in our ranks who have a marginal understanding of the profession. Maybe we need to add a few test questions regarding this as well. I was flabbergasted just last month when I saw people not understanding the meaning of "General level" of work as defined by caltrans, allowing for precision as low as 1:1000. "That's not surveying" .... yeah, well, that's how GIS people took the market share away from surveying.

Cartography and small scale mapping of topography and boundaries used to be part of surveying. Look at the sity maps from 200 and 300 years ago where available. Done by survey offices. now, it's GIS, because suddenly it's not surveying. How did so many people get so ignorant about the profession in the last 100 years, in the US and a small handful of other countries?????

I am glad that we now do have thriving county surveyor's offices who re-appropriated the fugitive market shares under the survey office oversight, as is the example in the Orange County surveyor's office. This is a good trend. We need to start working WITH GIS people more. We'd all benefit. If we provided that industry segment what they need, maybe the deregulation pressure would be lower. They are trying to deregulate us, because we are not understanding the needs or low precision work. We have our heads stuck in "precise boundary resolutions for legal purposes" is the only form of surveying.

to close the circle on this thought, if we had accuracy requirements we could easily classify what kind of accuracy is required for - whatever you want to call it "legal boundary resolution" or one suitable for a building permit, vs a graphic representation suitable of traffic monitoring, or cadastral operations. This would also give us a much greater opportunity to educate the public at large about different types of products and what they are good for - this would include the permitting agencies - whom today require a site plan, but nooone can agree on what site plan is or what should be on it. Maybe there are different levels of site plans - defined in I don't know PRC code. Give everyone a slot they within which they can operate, and install surveyors as part of the oversight structure.

Especially if we are looking at having the influx of college educated people in surveying, the industry needs to offer roles which are more interesting to the educational level and personality development that tends to come along. They are not going to, in large numbers, be highly interested in sledgehammer swinging contrests, beer drinking and tailgating.
If they are interested in sweat equity, they are more likely to take "the engineering path" and want to make enough money to buy an expensive bicycle, a wet suit and custom fitted running shoes and train for Iron Man triathlons, then go on a wine tasting tour.

Anyhow, sorry about run on sentences and marginally coherent through, this is not meant as a clearly formulated proposal or a solution, this is a stream of consciousness dump I want to share, as I am pondering things - on an off chance this resonates with someone else too.

[Mike Mueller]

on an off chance this resonates with someone else too.

It resonates with me. Quite a bit. In the mindset of quickly fail a lot in the beginning to sift out the good ideas, here are my first thoughts on a system that might actually gain traction with GIS folks. I think it is important that GIS folks need to be recognized as equals in the "mapping" world. Please note that I did not say boundary world. Trying to enforce some sort of system that forces them to always be 2nd class citizens is prolly not gonna work as there are more of them then us. Also, more people want what they sell than what we sell.

I think the idea of using the PRC is awesome, but only if we could get agreement and help from the GIS side. Without a united front it would just be another example of our "surveyors are a herd of cats" where we cannot present a united front.

For the actual accuracy statement, I don't think it should be a statement per se, but rather a table or graphic, like the chemical hazard signs, so there are 4 numbers in a square or diamond etc that have different levels of accuracy.
1. Boundary
2. Topographic
3. Site Features
4. Imagery

Accuracy Grade 1 = All data shown is based on actual measurements made in the field under and are within a set accuracy. Actual number to be dickered over, but idea is to set a threshold for "small tolerance" jobs that require good gear and knowledge to actually achieve.

Accuracy Grade 2 = All data shown is based on actual measurements made in the field that is less than Grade 1.

Accuracy Grade 3 = Data shown is based on level 1 or 2 work of others. (idea here is to document the Xerox effect, and prioritize fieldwork)

Accuracy Grade 4 = Data shown is based on publicly available information that has a published accuracy within the metadata

Accuracy Grade 5 = Data shown is based on publicly available information that does not have any accuracy standards. (like County GIS, or Google Earth)

Sketch-Accuracy Table-V1.JPG

To me the most important aspect is if the measurements are accurate, IE actually made in the field. This also allows GIS folks to go out in the field and locate stuff and publish it at the highest accuracy grade if they are competent enough to do so. Acknowledging that others can measure pretty well is key to being able to truthfully defend boundary work as outside their expertise. It would also let enforcement considerations easily seperate out work that is a trigger for 8762 IE after a field survey. It would make it very easy for other professions to understand and utilize in their requirements/bids. Any plan checker can look at the table and check the map's number to the number required in the checklist.
It would be easier to enforce, and educate people to not claim level 1 or 2 for boundary unless they have a LS number(or old RCE)

This sort of system allows for the addition of a google earth image or the contour map under my very accurate RoS without having to lower my published standards for the boundary work. (discussion aside about how it would make folks think the fence is not on the boundary line...)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS If you haven't tried publishing the contour map under your PLSS RoS, give it a try. It is awesome for understanding at a glace the nature of the section and if the topo calls are worth a darn. At least for those of us in the hills/mountains :)
PPS I know the handwriting is bad....

[CBarrett]

Mikey, I like where you are going with this so far.
I just got home from a veterinary appointment, so I am not able to focus on detail a lot, but scanning through what you are saying makes sense - as a seed of a process. I'll revisit it gain in a few days when the dust here settles a bit.

[LS_8750]

I have this job where multiple surveyors are weaving through pincushion corners like a Navajo rug.
Parcel maps, record of surveys, corner records, non-record monuments, differing reference docs, etc. found, held, not found, called off, held again, called off again.
Very mysterious.
Life in the Bullz Eye.

Everybody sues everybody.
The lawyers can't make any sense of it.
It is all so silly.

Title lines blurred because of surveyors playing reindeer games.
A few tenths here, a foot or so there...
Now improvements are constructed, drainage courses altered, and hundreds of thousands of dollars on the table.

The lawyers think that because the surveys don't match one another that one survey is better than the rest, etc.
Truth is, somehow, the surveys are not all that different, more in agreement than not in the areas of dispute.
Their Voodoo somehow works sometimes....

BLA or LLA. Which line to use for the LLA? Doesn't really matter anymore...

Life in the Bullz Eye.

[DWoolley]

Clark's reference to the Bullz Eye while I was using AI, well, for fun I asked the paid version of ChatGPT 4o the following:

How do we explain the gap in knowledge and practice between Northern California and Southern California land surveyors?

1. Historical Development Patterns Northern California:

Older, fragmented rural parcels (from Spanish/Mexican land grants, mining claims, early subdivisions).

Patchwork of poorly-documented private surveys from the 1800s and early 1900s.

More reliance on "record of survey" interpretations and unwritten land rights.

Legacy of John Benson’s fraudulent practices created lingering distrust and inconsistencies in practice.

Southern California:

More modern development based on standardized subdivision maps post-1920s.

Cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, and Orange County grew with consistent platting, municipal standards, and retracement expectations.

Public agencies maintained tighter oversight of survey records and mapping standards.

2. Regulatory Oversight and Enforcement Northern California:

Historically weaker or more fragmented local enforcement of survey standards.

Some counties did not require rigorous monument preservation or map filing until recently.

Cultural tolerance for "creative" survey retracements in rural areas.

Southern California:

Larger counties (Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego) developed strong Surveyor Offices with strict review processes.

Agencies expect rigid compliance with monumentation laws, record filing, and ALTA/NSPS standards.

3. Cultural and Professional Legacy Northern California:

Older survey firms sometimes passed down informal or undocumented methods.

Smaller, more isolated surveyor communities led to "local practices" diverging from state standards.

Cultural lag from past fraudulent activity (e.g., John Benson era).

Southern California:

Surveying evolved alongside large construction and infrastructure projects (freeways, airports, ports).

Professional expectations aligned more closely with engineering-grade accuracy and documentation.

Surveyors are often required to collaborate with major engineering firms and government agencies.

4. Market and Client Differences Northern California:

More private land disputes, rural boundary surveys, and forest/agricultural work.

Clients sometimes prioritize cost over strict legal accuracy.

Southern California:

Higher prevalence of litigation, infrastructure development, and commercial real estate requiring airtight boundary evidence.

Clients demand ALTA/NSPS surveys, subsurface utility engineering (SUE) compliance, and tight geospatial tolerances.

[There was Summary Table, but the formatting didn't paste well. My fellow surveyors have scoffed at my Benson Bullseye theory, ChatGPT is either spying on me or picked up something logical. Not one, but TWO, references to Benson.]

DWoolley