Automatic Record of Survey Trigger - Unmapped Parcels

[hellsangle]

You don't need to "check the map"! Look at the Detail . . . showing the monument off!!!!!

The surveyor rejected the nearest monument that controls the subject parcel!!!!!

Regardless of the surveyor's opinion - the County Surveyor is required to record the survey, save, he/she may place a note on the survey.

The latter, (a note by County Surveyor), is the only difference between what is present law and Surveyor to Recorder . . . hopefully future law when map review fees become exorbitant. (I'm all for County Surveyor review - the fees and sometimes the drafting-techniques-minutiae are ridiculous.)

Crazy Phil . . . who would have held the monument !

[LS_8750]

The pain is real Mr. Danskin.
I feel ya.

[Ian Wilson]

Wow! Phil! Holding the monument over the math?!? Note I know why you’re called Crazy Phil.

<Tongue firmly planted in cheek>

[CBarrett]

Ok, he's calling a monument off, I'll trust you that that is an original monument meant to be held, even though I can't read anything on the map, like I said, one out of 10 maps I see usually has something hairbrained on it, you are not the only one to witness crappy surveying.

How is that an argument in favor of recording fewer maps? I don't follow? Because every 10th one might have a screwup or something ignorant on it???
At least with recording there is some oversight. I understand mileage will vary in different counties with different county surveyor philosophies.

Like I said, usually you harp about how you want to see 'surveyor to recorder'. If you are in agreement that there is too much shitty work out there, would that not result in more shitty maps being recorded? Having no oversight?

Is there a point to this, other than to say, oh, look, I found one, let's all go, oooh, ahh, sheesh, tsk, that's awful, surveying is going to hell with a handbasket, better sweep that shite under the rug.

What county is this, how old is the map? Maybe you can file a certificate of correction :P or write a report to the board? Might be more constructive than public shaming.

[LS_8750]

The professional land surveyor's plat of boundary resolution should be unimpeachable, recorded or not, reviewed by County Surveyor prior to recording or not.

"Put away your clown shoes. Pack up your minibike."

Here's Dave!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEReajK ... ny&index=5

[hellsangle]

Well said, Davey! Well said.

[CBarrett]

The professional land surveyor's plat of boundary resolution should be unimpeachable, recorded or not, reviewed by County Surveyor prior to recording or not.

How do you propose to achieve that?
Talking about ideals is easy, implementing structure to get closer to ideals and getting people to follow is hard.

This group never moves past the easy parts.

Are you mentoring people? Teaching them? Helping along?
I just saw a complaint about the CLSA newsletter, by a long time supposedly successful editor. Where are the mentees to pick up the torch?

You feel there are too many surveyors putting out deficient product. What are you doing about it beyond picking up the easiest one liners from Dave's videos? Parroting funny lines and waxing about ideals is easy.

Why don't you record a few videos on how to do it right, or something else constructive, instead of sitting on the sidelines judging. We can all do that very easily, usually takes just the reptile part of the brain to do this, especially with those you already seem to think are lesser than you. Maybe engage a bit of the frontal lobe and take it to the next cognitive phase.

[Mike Mueller]

That map Phil posted has a guy tieing 3 CL mons, two out in the main road which are the BoB, then a record line turned from those two CL mons to call the found CL mon in the court off by 0.43 feet. He then proceeds to hold record and monument all corners of the lot, and some line points. All of which are off by at least the aforesaid 0.43', likely more since he is monumenting an exterior line of a subdivision by holding CL mons rather than the monuments on the senior line.

Long story short, this is a perfect candidate for pulling out someone's pipes when you do a RoS in the area.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Mike Mueller]

I am curious about the frequency of unrecorded map collections. I have assumed that unrecorded maps were common everywhere. I am quite curious if Dave is correct that I am living in an outlier in regards to that practice.

I know that Mendocino, Lake, Sonoma, Marin, Napa, and Humboldt all have a fairly extensive history of unrecorded maps being very important. I personally am the co chair of historical records for the Sonoma Chapter of CLSA and we have roughly 10 surveyors records that we provide for free. 3-4 of those records collections are very important, without which it would be very hard to survey in portions of Sonoma County. One of those important records collections is for George Abbott who was widely considered a moral good man who loved surveying more than almost anyone I know. I do not think he was doing it maliciously and I have read through 100's of his letters and writings. For context Abbott resurveyed an entire township and the adjoining 3-4 rancho lines that bounded it, put them all on a single coordinate system based on astronomical bearings, and reset all or most of the PLSS positions, and did this all for free on his own time over the course of 20 odd years. Attached is page 1 of his 16 page report that he prepared about that township. For context on his character I have attached some of Abbott's musings.

It is my belief that Abbott assumed that all surveyors in an area would be working together well enough that they would share. He himself shared many of his maps and I have found his tracings of many other surveyors in his files.

In regards to the original post:

The trigger for deed parcels goes back to least the 1941 PLS, "(d) The establishment of one or more lines not shown on any such map(see below), the positions of which are not ascertainable from an inspection of such map without trigonometric calculations." it lists the maps in section (a) material evidence as being "previously recorded or filed in the office of the county recorder, county clerk, municipal or county surveying department or in the records of the General Land Office"

That trigger has not changed much in its verbiage. What has changed is the words before "shall" in 8762. For example:

Per the 1941PLSA: ( I think its the right date, I have only sections of this one, with a date hand written on top)
Within 90 days after the establishment of points or lines the licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer shall file with the county surveyor in the county in which the survey was made, a record of such surveying relating to land boundaries of property lines which discloses:[/i] (bolding mine)

Per 1981 PLSA:
Within 90 days after the establishment of points or lines the licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer shall file with the county surveyor in the county in which the survey was made, a record of such surveying relating to land boundaries of property lines which discloses: (bolding mine)

Per 1986 PLSA:
After making a survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying, the licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer SHALL file with the county surveyor in the county in which the survey was made a record of the survey relating to land boundaries or property lines, if the survey discloses any of the following: (bolding mine)

Per 2008 PLSA:
Notwithstanding subdivision (a), after making a field survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying, the licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer shall file with the county surveyor in the county in which the field survey was made a record of the survey relating to land boundaries or property lines, if the field survey discloses any of the following: (bolding mine)

It seems pretty obvious that the law keeps getting clearer and more specific that if a surveyor measures something in the field, there better be a map that shows those measurements, either theirs, or someone else's.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[CBarrett]

That map Phil posted has a guy tieing 3 CL mons, two out in the main road which are the BoB, then a record line turned from those two CL mons to call the found CL mon in the court off by 0.43 feet. He then proceeds to hold record and monument all corners of the lot, and some line points. All of which are off by at least the aforesaid 0.43', likely more since he is monumenting an exterior line of a subdivision by holding CL mons rather than the monuments on the senior line.

Long story short, this is a perfect candidate for pulling out someone's pipes when you do a RoS in the area.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Or pulling the license....

I encountered similar with some surveys I've done recently in central valley area. Then I learned that the surveyor in question quickly sold the company and retired, with (hearsay info) "the board action pending".
I gave his monuments their "due consideration" and expanded my search to see how they check in with additional surroundings. Thankfully I didn't charge rock bottom prices, so I was still able to make the budget.

[CBarrett]

I am curious about the frequency of unrecorded map collections. I have assumed that unrecorded maps were common everywhere. I am quite curious if Dave is correct that I am living in an outlier in regards to that practice.

In OC, there were, I believe two historic collections of unrecorded notes which were given to the county in the 1970's, and made a part of the "Quasi Public Records". There are three other survey firms that I have interacted in the past with unrecorded field note collections. Usually you see occasional references to those in two (wealthy) cities around here.

Bulk of my surveying being in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, I seldom have to deal with map collections which are not in some fashion housed at the county or a city. I encounter one every few years, maybe. This is 1987 through today.

[Mike Mueller]

After thinking about this more, I think there are a couple factors that come into play with regards to unrecorded map collections.

1. When the area was originally developed/settled.

Consider the City of Sonoma Pop 10K https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoma,_California
The City of Sonoma was laid out and sold by General Vallejo from am unrecorded map. Inserted here:

Map of Sonoma-Ex Puebla of Sonoma.TIF

There are several different copies floating around, some have minor notes added by folks unknown etc. All subsequent ownership is based on the Lot, or Outlot per that map. Many of the parcels in Sonoma were split up by deed over 100 years ago. It is hard to do a boundary survey in the City of Sonoma without relying on unrecorded maps or documents, or at least unrecorded pipes set by surveyors unknown. The town square is still defined by original adobe walls.

VS

the Town of Windsor Pop 26K (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor,_California).
The Town of Windsor was a whistle stop in the 1950s. This is a nifty then and now aerial set. https://www.sonomavegmap.org/1942/ Almost all of the development of Windsor was done post SMA, so there is almost zero need for historical records. Even if a parcel is a deeded remnant, there is sufficient survey work all around the site locating senior lines and positions that locating the deed is relatively easy.

VS

The town of Guerneville https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerneville,_California
It was laid out in 1879, and most of the deeds still reference these same lots. See the letter from Abbott circa 1960 about how difficult it is to survey in this town. I did a survey there 5 odd years ago and needed 3 unrecorded Abbott Maps just to get close to being right.

04m16.tif

2. Frequency of survey in the area.
If you consider surveying to be like archeologic layers, where the stratigraphic layers of stuff is laid down sequentially with the youngest stuff is on top. Some places have lots of layers, others not so much. I am still coming across places in Sonoma County where no one appears to have surveyed it since the GLO were there circa 1880( if it wasn't fraudulent...) In many areas, the only survey work was done 90-60 years ago in the post WW2 boom with a deeded description for a 4 parcel subdivision. The survey record is pretty thin on the ground in places like that, which means the era of unrecorded work is the often the topmost layer.

Once a decent survey is done in an area and recorded, then its like a concrete seal that lets you build up from there without needing to worry too much about the stuff below it, IE the unrecorded work. So if you are working in areas that were developed and built out from decent work that was recorded, then needing to rely on unrecorded maps is pretty rare.

What is the history of the development in Orange County? What is the frequency of surveys in that area? I took a glance at a couple historic photos available here https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/ and it looks like most of development was done post 1930's and the ownership in the 1930's-1940's was mostly large squarish fields in flat ground. I would not expect to see that much reliance on unrecorded work there, just like there is not much need for unrecorded work in Windsor.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Jim Frame]

and made a part of the "Quasi Public Records"

Slightly off-topic, but interesting nonetheless: I'm working on a Parcel Map subdividing an LLA parcel in a nearby city. The surveyor who did the LLA about 6 years ago has moved out of the area, but his work is generally above-board and reliable. Thus I was surprised to find his capped rebars at all but one of the parcel corners, yet no ROS to go with them. I asked the CS if I had overlooked something, he said no, we don't have a ROS for that parcel.

I managed to track down the surveyor in his new location (Cincinnati), and he swears he filed a ROS. He even sent me a PDF of his final submittal. I forwarded that to the CS, and after awhile he got back to me and said that the last submittal apparently came in during a change in CSes, and it got lost in the shuffle and was never finalized. The CS suggested that I reference it on my PM as an unrecorded ROS on file in the CS office, which I plan to do.

[DWoolley]

Take this theory for a spin:

In the 1880s, John A. Benson and his 40 indicted co-conspirators were headquartered in San Francisco. They employed more than 100 "land surveyors" that worked throughout the state. When the boss fled to Europe to live the fugitive life and the co-conspirators scattered like rats, what do we think became of the hundreds of rank and file "surveyors"? Like surveyors today, they probably didn't have transferable skills and didn't want to drive the Amazon truck of the day. Again, like surveyors today, they found someone licensed or recruited the smart guy in the bunch to take the test so as to continue on with their (mis)deeds. Statistically, the general population is more literate than folks in the 1880s and yet, the written word of the law today is taken "in the spirit". The 1880 folks didn't have the internet and possibly, the literacy to read the law - now couple that with their criminal history and a picture begins to form.

Overlay that glimpse of land surveying history onto the geography - placing San Francisco at the center of the bullseye and extrapolate it over the state. The hue of the bullseye red gets less as you travel further from the center, like a heat map. Looking at it generationally, my grandfather was born in 1912 - my daddy's daddy could have worked directly for Benson, possibly have been an indicated co-conspirator. Lastly, overlay the inbreeding and nepotism in land surveying and a compelling yarn is spun.

Sonoma, Marin, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara tend to have, shall we say, their own means and methods of compliance. It was a geographic luck of the draw - the red of the bullseye.

I happened to know a little something about fraud and the fraud triangle. Two legs of the triangle are opportunity and rationalization. The opportunities are unquestionable.
Rationalization can take various forms. For instance, I didn't set monuments, RTN is accurate enough for urban boundaries, offering a "record boundary", ah, memory lane.

As for good deeds, especially in the later years of life....amends for past sins are not uncommon.

Our very existence as California licensed land surveyors is because of John A. Benson. For better or worse, we are the spawn of fraud. Like a bootlegger's son, we're not going to shake that in a couple of generations.

Where did the basis for solid, law abiding, practice come from? I believe the GLO folks initially and historically, many of the public agency folks developed and maintained standards. The City of LA was a technical land surveying powerhouse after the war - national leaders in ACSM. Their technical publications were remarkable. Caltrans, various cities, and counties have a legacy of high level technical skills, record production and land surveying knowledge.

Just a theory, sweet tea and porch talk.

DWoolley

[David Kendall]

Caltrans, various cities, and counties have a legacy of high level technical skills, record production and land surveying knowledge.

Just a theory, sweet tea and porch talk.

But the contrary may be shown…

Some caltrans districts are notorious for setting monuments and not filing maps coupled with rampant monument destruction and they all have large vaults of over 100 years of unfiled surveys that are inaccessible.

For every city and county with the legacy you triumph there are two or three with no licensed surveyor on staff.

I’d like to know what you put in that sweet tea to deliver the rose colored hue on a Friday afternoon. Or perhaps it’s the red of the bullseye bleeding out…

[Mike Mueller]

There might be an way to check our theories. The gold country was developed early, and is far from the "bullseye" so it would be interesting if anyone had personal knowledge of the unrecorded map situation of Placer County, or El Dorado, or Plumas?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

There might be an way to check our theories. The gold country was developed early, and is far from the "bullseye" so it would be interesting if anyone had personal knowledge of the unrecorded map situation of Placer County, or El Dorado, or Plumas?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

I have worked Plumas, El Dorado, Trinity and Sierra (soon), no issues, good records, monuments-o-plenty. A lot of public land is likely the basis of the practice. Also, I spent a couple of entire days reviewing record maps in Humboldt County. To my eye, they are way out of the red zone. This is not to say there aren't compliance issues, but nothing that looks like the bullseye red zone.

I welcome any information to the contrary.

DWoolley

[LS_8750]

I'll say it again: "The professional land surveyor's plat of boundary resolution should be unimpeachable, recorded or not, reviewed by County Surveyor prior to recording or not."

Some may call this approach "doing your job".

And yes, I have my mentors, and I mentor others. It is called passing it on... It is not easy to digest the idea that others may have chosen a career path as a result of my influence. I look in the mirror and wonder why the hell would anybody listen to me?

[Mike Mueller]

The idea that Benson's crew was a bad seed that flourished in the SF bay area leading to the lack of recordation of maps in the 1900-1960 period just doesn't jive with my experiences. Considering Benson, he utilized lots of cog who wouldn't have acted without someone else directing them. When it came apart, I do not think those cogs where all inspired to re-create the graft machine. They likely just started working for whoever else would pay them, and I do not think they all stayed in SF either. Travel seemed pretty common around the turn of the last century.

I have not seen malice or graft as the motivation for most of the unrecorded work I have come across. I have seen a few maps that were just straight up shenanigans, but those have been the exception rather than the rule. A 20 parcel subdivision done circa 1961 via deeds comes to mind :) Benson was knowingly breaking the law and hiding stuff. The unrecorded maps are not hiding things, they just didn't bother to record their work with the CS, since most seemed to think all the locals would come knocking for a copy of the map when they needed it. Abbott was a crusader for tagging pipes, so that it would be easier for others to know which surveyor they needed to contact, but he almost never filed a map.

In your review of maps in other locations how many of the recorded maps from the 1960-today period have a reference to an unrecorded map/field book/whatever on their RoS? The requirement of a recorded survey to justify its solution based on previously unrecorded work is I think a good litmus test for checking if that location had a history of unrecorded maps. It just takes longer for some areas to get that first good recorded map.

For example Sonoma County currently has a pretty decent culture of recordation and documentation. It is is becoming common to record the old unrecorded maps as extra sheets, and I don't see many two point tango's like Phil's example. What if the historical record issue is really just a phase of 30-50 years (working life of a surveyor) when a rural area is becoming populous? As noted above, after the first competent survey gets recorded, the historical records for that neighborhood become much less important. I know! Its gentrification! (jk)

Consider this thought. We have identified our unrecorded map situation, and are dealing with it. Evidence for that is the CA Room in Marin, the Sonoma County CLSA record collection which is provided free to all and the practice of recording those old maps as extra sheets.

OC appears to be planting the seeds to have its own unrecorded map situation in the future considering the current practice you are so often lamenting around you. If OC is a hotbed of non filing then those unrecorded maps/surveys of today will be considered "historic" in a few decades. If a fence is built to wrong pipes that were set without a map, and that fence and those pipes sit there for 30 years, and then new deeds/easements are written off of those pipes that are used for 20 years...that unrecorded "ridin dirty" survey is going to be pretty important for the surveyors of 2070.

Taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture. I think that many of the issues we debate in CLSA come down to rural vs urban and how many surveyors are within competitive distance for bidding IE a 2 hour drive. Consider the stats on 3 examples: Humboldt, SF Bay, LA Metro. If we accept 6000 active licensed surveyors and 40Mil pop of california, it gives us roughly 6660 people per surveyor:

Humboldt County: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_ ... California
Population = 136K so 20ish surveyors.
4052 sq/miles so 1 surveyor per 202 square miles.

Greater SF Bay Area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area
Population = 7.6M so 136K/6660= 1141ish surveyors.
6966 sq/miles so 1 surveyor per 6 square miles.

Greater LA Area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles)
Population =18M so 2700ish surveyors.
4850 sq/miles so 1 surveyor every 1.8 square miles.

After re-reading this I am wondering if the unrecorded map situation is really just a phase when the money spent on development is greater than that area's surveyors can support, and so bad practices flourish in the gap created? My experience with the fire recovery areas tends to agree with that thought...

Another explanation might be significantly different land values adjacent to each other that makes it easy for cheaper outfits based in cheap areas to travel into the rich areas and do work?

I know this is fairly idle speculation, but I think its worth trying to identify some patterns or trends so that we can effect changes that are addressing the real situation and not just playing whack-a-mole with whatever seems most detrimental to our profession at the moment.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County
PS Might be a little rambling, was thinking lots while I wrote :)

[CBarrett]

Where did the basis for solid, law abiding, practice come from?

We should be teaching a history class on surveying, a bit like we did 'back home', traced it as far back as the Roman Empire. I'm sure guilds and classification and regulation of skilled services was happening even before Roman empire, there are hints of it as as far back as Egypt (before the older archeological records became more mainstream).
Skilled services had a tendency to be regulated or self regulate since the beginning of civilization.

Bensen was just one of the more recent examples, deviations that shows what happens when these more complex specialized services are not regulated within human society.

Warcraft? Guild wars anyone?

[E_Page]

Have to contradict Dave on the history of unrecorded maps in the foothill counties. Since the mid 70s, recording compliance has been fairly good. From there, the farther back you go, the less compliance there was. When practicing in and around El Dorado County, I'd run across survey work not reflected on a filed map that by the standards as more widely understood today, should have been, fairly often.

If you were to take a deep dive through the recorded surveys of El Dorado County, you would find a few years prior to WW II where only 2 or 3 maps were filed. If there were actually that few surveys performed in those years, you would expect a similar year to year decrease in conveyances. But nope, just fewer maps filed.

The lack of recording is not as prevalent as the situation in Marin County, but it was probably mostly for the same reasons. While there may have been some surveyors who refrained from filing for proprietary market reasons, I believe that most noncompliance was due to ignorance of the law, or having been advised by someone from the Board contrary to the letter of the law.

During my career, I've worked in many locations around the country and all have unfiled survey records to one extent or another. Mandatory recording laws or not, all areas have similar issues with some being worse than others. IN most places where unfiled records were prevalent, it seemed that record sharing among surveyors was pretty good and considered to be common professional courtesy.

In El Dorado County, the County Museum has a fairly extensive set of records comprised of the work of several local surveyors from decades past. There were, when I was practicing there, at least a couple retired surveyors with records of other surveyors who had retired or passed on much earlier.

Yes, in the populated areas which have experienced growth since the mid 70s or so, the records are very good. Get to the edges of those areas and beyond, and you're very likely to run into survey work not reflected on any record map that should have been. Unfortunately, some of that may have been done by unlicensed people, but that's a different tangent for a different discussion.

[Mike Mueller]

Warcraft? Guild wars anyone?

Everquest
/woot

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

Have to contradict Dave on the history of unrecorded maps in the foothill counties. Since the mid 70s, recording compliance has been fairly good.

...

I was surveying public lands that abut private lands. Maybe the records adjacent to public lands were better than others.

Although different than my experience, I do not doubt Evan's experience an iota.

I like my bay area theory, Benson DNA. I have seen things there that I have not seen anywhere else. For example, holding one monument and another for "line only" as a basis of bearings and calling off the balance of the found monuments - all set from the same map. How was the one held monument to be the only one held? That procedure is not part of any accepted land surveying process the world over. I have seen lots in a subdivision put in record from a couple of moments, successive surveys continue to stack and monument record dimensions, and short the last/next lot, in the same subdivision, by feet. I am not writing about an extreme one off situation or newly minted licensees.
These are surveys performed by folks with 10, 20, 30 years of land surveying history.

It is nice to have you back Evan.

Dave

[Ric7308]

The whole point of documenting these is to add a level of certainty to geographic location of land title matters.

Based upon the attached and redacted record of survey by a late surveyor . . . it would have been a blessing if the points were not set!

The surveyor blew off 2077 CCP (Civil Code of Procedures).

Doesn't one "vet" a survey before accepting it survey blindly?'!

Crazy Phil

Phil, wasn't there an amended RS filed by the surveyor for this one? Or maybe a "new" RS? The map seems to jog a memory.

[hellsangle]

Ric

Yes, you are correct - an amended R/S was recorded four years later and showed all the previously set points off by between 0.2' to 0.7'.

Still . . . it would have been better that nothing was set in this particular case.

I hope everyone had a peaceful Thansksgiving.