California Surveyors Forums

Thanks for the contributions, Mike. Since Curt is now dead, perhaps you can offer your own opinion on the specifics of this particular case. Given Curt's contention that the junior would receive the excess, the primary issue in my mind is whether the junior parcel has clear title to this excess and whether the surveyor, on his own, can make this determination and allocate ownership without participation of the adjoining property owner or the courts? If so, would they have this authority with any magnitude of excess? This hypothetical has a 1' +/- excess, would the answer change if it were 2', 3' or 4' in this 50' wide lot? And aside from what you may deem as the technically correct answer under your understanding of the law, would it be a prudent approach to put your client in a situation that may expose them to potential lawsuits keeping in mind that you may be up against Dave Woolley in court and his research has shown that a citation cannot be found to support this resolution?

Thanks in advance for your response.

Will review when time permits. As you know, I have testified more than 100 times on boundary issues and even though there may be good law, the contrary can be shown. Dave and I would have a lot of fun with this.

It is sort of like the old joke. What do you get when two attorneys argue?

Answer: Three opinions.

I tossed Curt's thoughts in as they were readily available. If I have time I can reply more substantively.

I can tell you this. I have dealt with this issue before and the discrepancy was about ten feet. I recorded a Record of Survey showing this situation and I advised my client to go to the assessor and show him the survey and to pay the taxes on the strip of land and be assessed for it.

Problem solved.

In my world, half a foot is the same as a hundred feet.

The problem with surveyors is they think like surveyors. They do not exercise their quasi-judicial functions. Indeed, the art of surveying is lost on many. Too many measuring people rely on numbers and fancy equipment.

Look forward to your response. When responding, it would be helpful if you could consider that the typical surveyor's client may be much different than your typical client in that they may not have unlimited funds to take things to court. While it may be temporarily fun for the attorneys and surveyors, to the client, there may be nothing fun about it at all. The fact that surveyors and lawyers are coming up with different opinions would be no joking matter. In fact, it could be financially devastating.

I agree. That is what motivates me the most. it took no effort or any lawyers for my client to discuss taxes with the assessor and to fix that.

At all times - every time - every day - every project - the surveyor needs to look out for him/herself and do the right thing.

I think your comment about the quasi-judicial functions of surveyors strikes to the heart of this particular case being discussed. Where is the line between those functions that would be considered quasi-judicial and those that are judicial? My initial take would be that quasi-judicial actions would be those in which we can confidently predict how a court would interpret a given situation, whether through basic common sense and logical reasoning or through relevant and clear case law and that everything outside of this realm would be strictly judicial. I'm interested to hear your take on where you think this particular situation falls.

well, I guess if there is no "citation" for a method of establishing a boundary, then it must be wrong. Even if it "doesn't make sense to some degree.But maybe not. depends on how far up the court chain the land owner wants to go. Might end up with a new citation. Survey books can only take me so far, I guess.

its been a great discussion. I like what I read on both sides of the issue. thank you all. and you don't have to respond with a "your welcome" or "no problem".

Proud7191 wrote:Calling J.B. Stahl. Haven’t heard from him in a while, this topic is right up his alley. Jp

Leave it to a room full of surveyors to reason that 3-50-foot wide parcels don't equate to a 150-foot wide parcel. Even in the simple mind of the court 50+50+50=150. Along comes a gaggle of surveyors claiming to imagine a 0.9-foot gap in title in spite of the simple math. Once the surveyors have sufficiently convinced themselves that the owners intentionally created a 0.9-foot problem, they now seek a remedy to the problem that, in reality, the owners never intended to create.

A fundamental truth realized with Jr/Sr rights is that the Junior is always +/-. Equity allows the Jr to sometimes win (excess) and sometimes lose (deficiency). It's not fair if the Jr always loses and never wins.

Let's make it a difference of 1.5 feet, 6.9 feet and 10.6 feet.

In both scenarios, we are in downtown San Francisco where presently residential land is valued at $1,155 a square foot. To all, does this make a difference? Do the rules vary based on location, use, and value?

mpallamary wrote:Do the rules vary based on location, use, and value?

Yes

JBStahl wrote:

Proud7191 wrote:Calling J.B. Stahl. Haven’t heard from him in a while, this topic is right up his alley. Jp

Leave it to a room full of surveyors to reason that 3-50-foot wide parcels don't equate to a 150-foot wide parcel. Even in the simple mind of the court 50+50+50=150. Along comes a gaggle of surveyors claiming to imagine a 0.9-foot gap in title in spite of the simple math. Once the surveyors have sufficiently convinced themselves that the owners intentionally created a 0.9-foot problem, they now seek a remedy to the problem that, in reality, the owners never intended to create.

A fundamental truth realized with Jr/Sr rights is that the Junior is always +/-. Equity allows the Jr to sometimes win (excess) and sometimes lose (deficiency). It's not fair if the Jr always loses and never wins.

Thanks for the words of reason John.

mpallamary wrote:Do the rules vary based on location, use, and value?

No. The rules don't vary. However, when the evidence supports a different set of facts, there may be a reason which favors the application of a different rule. Occupation may very well change the location of the extra 0.9 feet.

Visitation by a surveyor who violates the principle and distributes the 0.9 feet equally between the three parcels (followed by reliance resulting in the occupation) may very well establish the boundaries under the theory of estoppel to name only one possibility. Any boundary, once established under a rule of law, requires that the surveyor put on his retracement hat so he can repeat the same mistake and perpetuate the same wrong location as lawfully established. The reason for the rules is to promote stability in boundaries and title. The visitation of the surveyor should not result in public calamity (as Cooley put it). The math goes out the window along with all of the "well they should have" arguments.

Thanks for stopping by JBStahl. I appreciate you clear responses to this case. While you're here, perhaps you would be kind enough to expand a little on the concept you mentioned of established boundaries "once established under rule of law". What are these particular laws that could be referenced. I know you're not in California, but any general guidance would be appreciated.

The reason why I am asking is because I have a particular survey underway where I think this is coming into play. This is a classic Cooley situation, a pretty interesting survey. For a brief overview, if you're interested, there is an entire city block created by metes and bounds descriptions starting in the early 1900's Initially many parcels ran street to street, for say a 50'x200' lot, then over time were broken down into more typical 50'x100' lots. All deeds clearly call for specific frontage, rear and sideline distances, and I have a very consistence pattern of an abundance of old occupation lines throughout the entire block, fencing, historic structures, walls old concrete pours, etc. running from street to street, all in patern and in harmony with these basic lot dimension called for in the various deeds. Most of it is still in existence today, then I also have some old unrecorded survey maps going back to the 1940's that has documented fence and building positions. This pattern gives all of the parcels their basic lot configuration, being a 50' frontage and rear width and 100' depth. But the bearing of these side line coming across from street to street by the pattern of occupation established on the ground is at a variance with the bearings called for in all of the deeds by a significant amount, a couple of degrees which makes about 3.5' on the rear of the lots, then 7' across width to other street. There have been at least a half of dozen retracement surveys done over the years. All start on one street, run record bearing away from the street, miss occupation on back line by 3.5' then miss stationing by 7' on the other street. It happens every time. I believe they are all wrong. Their erroneous work has caused other weirdness including the assessor "creating" a phantom 7' wide triangle parcel (that never and doesn't exist) because a surveyor drafted this "gap" on a recorded map, then followed up by a quitclaim deed for this triangle from a previous owner of the land to the current owner who thought they had all of the sudden miraculously found a free extra 7' feet of frontage, missing for 100 years, then followed up by a surveyor a few years ago who gave them this non-existant quitclaim "parcel" and staked it on ground.

In my mind, I have an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting my opinion, and can see very little on the other side. There are no monuments called for in the deeds and no old monuments have been recovered by anyone, everything out there now is more modern. My lot does not have any usage issues, there are old fence in place, right in the historic pattern throughout the block. The earliest survey on record was performed in 1961 by an old, respected and reputable firm in town, they brought control in from another block across the street, laid their lot on the ground, and the numerous other surveys have basically followed step, creating encroachments on every one of their surveys, missing fencing and running lines through historic buildings, none looking at the big picture. To a large extent many of these modern surveys have been ignored, fencing still out there where it has always been. There is no known survey of my parcel or any old "original" survey. For all I know someone just struck an initial line out there, then as lots were sold, took a tape out, measured along the frontages, connected a fence between them, developed their property and moved on with life. I have never quite been in type of situation where I am in disagreement with basically every other surveyor, it would be nice if I were able to provide some reference to specific law to substantiate my opinion, and I'm particularly concerned about the attorney getting this right. If you have even some general guidance to where I might begin to look that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

How did the 1940’s surveys handle this?

If you establish the sidelines by holding the frontages on the front and rear streets, as if surveying the older large ‘thru’ lots, does that fit occupation? If so, then the sidelines of the current smaller lots, being cut out of those larger lots lots, should perhaps conform to those older lines, since they originated from them.

If all the lots are put in by record bearing it sounds like the sidelines of the lots won’t meet in the rear, but will be offset by 7’. This, especially if not matching occupation, is problematic. Also, if the sidelines are put in by record bearing, are they parallel with the streets at the ends of the block? If not, what is the bearing called for on the streets at the end of the block? If it is the same as the bearings called for on the sidelines, this would seem to be a basis for using the side street as located as a reference for the angle of the sidelines.

It sounds like the block was developed as if it were a subdivision, with the occupation matching the lot dimensions, but not so much the bearings. If so, it would seem reasonable to use the sidelines as established on the ground, evidenced by occupation, to control the bearings of the sidelines, especially if this results in the property lines in the entire block agreeing with occupation, and not creating jogs, gaps, wedge-shaped areas of uncertainty, etc.

But perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation...

I’d be curious as to others thoughts too...

Olin Edmundson wrote:Thanks for stopping by JBStahl. I appreciate you clear responses to this case. While you're here, perhaps you would be kind enough to expand a little on the concept you mentioned of established boundaries "once established under rule of law". What are these particular laws that could be referenced. I know you're not in California, but any general guidance would be appreciated.

The fundamental establishment doctrines aren't many and most are readily accepted and followed by the surveying profession; others are rejected offhandedly because "we're just surveyors" or "only the courts can determine those boundaries." Boundary laws are designed to be used by surveyors every time we execute a survey. The boundary is where it has been legally established. It's the surveyor's job to determine it.

Every surveyor wears two hats. The first hat is as an original surveyor laying out a boundary which has never before been run out on the ground or which has never been legally established. The duty of the original surveyor is to take the instructions of the landowner and to physically run them out on the ground, placing monuments at the directed locations. The surveyor then documents the positions in the form of surveys and descriptions leaving footsteps for the next surveyor to follow. The actions of the original surveyor alone do not legally establish the boundary. The surveyor's work is relied upon by the landowners either to convey the property or to physically establish the locations of the boundaries. Once that reliance is complete, the boundary is physically established.

The evidence recovered during the retracement process is found in the physical improvements the surveyor is expected to gather during the course of the retracement survey. Ergo, the second hat. The duty of the retracing surveyor is to gather the physical evidence of prior surveys, landowner actions, historical documents in the form of deeds, maps, plats, and to gather evidence of the activities of former landowners. The surveyor then weighs the evidence recovered to determine the facts. Once the facts are determined, the retracing surveyor can choose the appropriate rule of law which governs the position of the boundary. If an error is discovered during the retracement process, the retracing surveyor is required by law to repeat the same error in order to end up in the same wrong location as the original surveyor.

There are only five basic doctrines, at least one of which will always apply:

1) Parol Agreement You have direct evidence that both adjoining landowners have settled an uncertainty or dispute by fixing the location of the boundary with physical improvements. The agreement legally establishes the boundary at the moment the terms of the agreement are fulfilled.
2) Implied Agreement (Acquiescence) You have evidence of physical improvements that have been in place and mutually recognized and acquiesced for the prescribed period (varies by jurisdiction). The boundary is legally established after the passage of time.
3) Equitable Estoppel Requires actions by one owner based upon the representations (silent or active) of the adjoiner resulting in substantial expenditure such that the owner in reliance is damaged by a change in the representation made. The boundary is legally established when it becomes too costly to correct the improvements.
4) Practical Location The physical improvements of several parcels are discovered to substantially conform with the record dimensions, however, they are either shifted or rotated out of position. The uniformity of the parcels give the appearance of having been surveyed at some time in the past but none of the original monuments remain and the survey cannot be retraced based upon direct evidence. The improvements stand as the best available evidence of the former monuments and legally establish the boundaries of the multiple parcels.
5) Adverse Possession This doctrine (statute of limitations actually) is quite often misunderstood as it is primarily a title doctrine used for the purpose of clearing up conflicting claims of ownership. It's not designed as a boundary establishment doctrine except in the rare circumstance where a trespasser openly, continuously, exclusively, actually, and notoriously occupies property by erecting an enclosure and ousting the true owner for the statutory period of time wihout color of title (no deed). The moment all of the statutory requirements are fulfilled, they become the rightful owner (title law) and legally establish the boundaries as enclosed (boundary law). Such occupation is quite rare and nearly impossible these days.

Getting back to Olin's situation. The doctrine of Practical Location is the likely doctrine most applicable for the entire group of boundaries. The doctrine of acquiescence would apply to individual boundaries while the doctrine of practical location applies to all of the boundaries established under similar actions and circumstances. If the sideline bearings are all off consistently, treat it as an error, place the error where it occurs and survey the boundaries as they have been established. The retracing surveyor has no authority to fix mistakes. I would determine the positions of the boundaries and show the record and measured bearings on the sidelines and the title record will conform to the established boundaries. Don't worry about the math. Mathematics has very little to do with boundary retracement. When you really consider it, all of the bearings and distances are "off" by some degree. It should come as no surprise to the surveyor to have a record and measured value for any established boundary.

The above isn't intended to be anything aside from a really basic primer. The laws governing the boundaries vary with jurisdictions, especially in CA. There are some unique intricacies with the doctrines. There are a number of highly skilled CA surveyors on this forum whose opinions I have come to respect greatly who may be able to answer these questions better than I.

JB

" If an error is discovered during the retracement process, the retracing surveyor is required by law to repeat the same error in order to end up in the same wrong location as the original surveyor."
source?

Peter Ehlert wrote:" If an error is discovered during the retracement process, the retracing surveyor is required by law to repeat the same error in order to end up in the same wrong location as the original surveyor."
source?

Just another way of stating the old axiom:

“Under California law, the location of a disputed boundary line is proven by retracing, as nearly as possible based upon existing evidence, the footsteps of the original surveyor whose survey fixed the boundaries. (See Pauley v. Brodnax (1910) 157 Cal. 386, 396-397... [‘ “The survey as made in the field and the lines actually run on the surface of the earth... must control.” [Citation.]']; Kimball v. McKee (1906) 149 Cal. 435, 462 [Kimball] [Trial court correctly instructed that ‘ “.... any surveyor, who for private parties thereafter undertakes to re-establish or relocate lines or corners, should endeavor as nearly as possible to follow in the footsteps of the surveyor who made the last-accepted government survey and place the corners and lines where they were placed by him.” ']; Yolo County v. Nolan (1904) 144 Cal. 445, 448-449 [“[A later surveyor] should endeavor to retrace the steps of the man who made the original survey. If by so doing the line can be located, it must be done, and, when so located, it must control.”]; Harrington v. Boehmer (1901) 134 Cal. 196, 199, ... [“The question in all cases similar to this is, where were the lines run in the field by the government surveyor? A government township lies just where the government surveyor lines it out on the face of the earth.' ”].) (Bloxham v. Saldinger (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729, 736-737, as modified on denial of reh'g (Aug. 27, 2014) (Bloxham).)

Bertolli Properties, LLC v. Headwaters Ranch, Inc., A146577

JBStahl wrote: There are only five basic doctrines, at least one of which will always apply:

1) Parol Agreement
2) Implied Agreement (Acquiescence)
3) Equitable Estoppel
4) Practical Location
5) Adverse Possession

...The moment all of the statutory requirements are fulfilled, they become the rightful owner (title law) and legally establish the boundaries as enclosed (boundary law). Such occupation is quite rare and nearly impossible these days.

...The above isn't intended to be anything aside from a really basic primer. The laws governing the boundaries vary with jurisdictions, especially in CA. There are some unique intricacies with the doctrines. There are a number of highly skilled CA surveyors on this forum whose opinions I have come to respect greatly who may be able to answer these questions better than I.

JB

Welcome to the discussion, John Stahl.

A land surveyor is required to be familiar with the five legal theories outlined and more particularly, the evidence required to prove the elements of each theory. However, in the event the parties become adverse each is entitled to due process and adjudication. On the other hand, in the event the parties are in agreement as to the boundary location there is no need to apply a legal theory and/or adjudication. The land surveyor has an obligation to offer to legally correlate the amenable parties title to the occupation to the ownership. Again, the land surveyor cannot compell the owners to remedy the situation. The land surveyor can mediate between the parties as a natural neutral, but cannot adjudicate the solution between adverse parties that have legal rights outside the training and education of a land surveyor.

Still enjoying the conversation.

Simply saying it so does not make it so.

DWoolley

GLO retracement Is different than a private subdivision with no evidence of an "original" survey I believe

If there is no map of an original survey found, or perhaps no original survey at all, then it would seem that a clear pattern in the lines of possession in the block, conforming to the deed distances, would be the best evidence of the direction of the sidelines of the lots.

If we assume there was no original survey upon which the deeds were based, which is debatable, then we must attribute the drafting of the deeds to the owners themselves. If the owners wrote the deeds themselves, and the owners built the improvements themselves, without benefit of a survey, and those improvements evidence a clear pattern, which pattern conforms to the deed dimensions, and dates back 80 years, is that occupation not the best evidence of the intent of those owners? The error in the deed is placed where it exists, in the bearing of the sidelines.

Are we to rather argue that we should hold a record angle from a street as per the deed, in conflict with all the above? Would we thus compel all landowners in the block to go to court, and hire attorneys, more surveyors, etc., to clear title to lands they have owned and occupied peaceably for decades?

And if they do go to court, few or several of them, to have the issue of location settled by the judicial process, isn’t it the job of the surveyor to have provided them an opinion on the boundary location as it would be located by the decision of the court, according to the controlling legal principles? And do we really think the judge would unsettle the peaceable possession of an entire city block in favor of a record deed call, of unknown provenance, that conflicts with the entire remainder of they body of evidence uncovered by this apparently quite diligent survey?

Elias French wrote:If there is no map of an original survey found, or perhaps no original survey at all, then it would seem that a clear pattern in the lines of possession in the block, conforming to the deed distances, would be the best evidence of the direction of the sidelines of the lots.

If we assume there was no original survey upon which the deeds were based, which is debatable, then we must attribute the drafting of the deeds to the owners themselves. If the owners wrote the deeds themselves, and the owners built the improvements themselves, without benefit of a survey, and those improvements evidence a clear pattern, which pattern conforms to the deed dimensions, and dates back 80 years, is that occupation not the best evidence of the intent of those owners? The error in the deed is placed where it exists, in the bearing of the sidelines.

Are we to rather argue that we should hold a record angle from a street as per the deed, in conflict with all the above? Would we thus compel all landowners in the block to go to court, and hire attorneys, more surveyors, etc., to clear title to lands they have owned and occupied peaceably for decades?

And if they do go to court, few or several of them, to have the issue of location settled by the judicial process, isn’t it the job of the surveyor to have provided them an opinion on the boundary location as it would be located by the decision of the court, according to the controlling legal principles? And do we really think the judge would unsettle the peaceable possession of an entire city block in favor of a record deed call, of unknown provenance, that conflicts with the entire remainder of they body of evidence uncovered by this apparently quite diligent survey?

[Emphasis added]

Elias French,

The parties have no reason to go to court if everything is peaceable, as described.

In the event the entire block fits together as described, imagining a faulty point of beginning in the hypothetical provided, the applicable contract law states the interpretation cannot create an absurdity. This is a much different scenario than was described in the original post concerning a Title Gap.

There is a reason none of the textbooks say the junior grant gets the land in the Title Gap. This was not an oversight...in.every.single.textbook. As time permits, I will provide the textbook language. Clark citation was provided previously.

I caution against the broad application of case law to resolve boundaries. The case law is very fact specific. The boundary litigation has many technical issues unique to the specific case, most of which is not published in the case, that may or may not be applicable to any individual survey. An awareness is mandatory, but wholesale application is foolish.

DWoolley

The hypothetical of the parties going to court was posed to solicit opinions as to where folks think the courts would find the lines. Although it would seem that if adjacent owners received conflicting surveys, one with the line per record as in the previous recorded maps, and another with the line rotated to fit possession, as some have favored, that could result in them seeking adjudication.

DWoolley, if the entire block fits together, and holding of record bearings produces an absurdity in the form of disagreement with possession, if that is what you mean, would that be sufficient reason to locate the lines as the OP has suggested, adjusted to be in conformance with possession?

This case is different that the original gap/jr. sr. question, but similar in that they both involve the question of when is it appropriate for the surveyor to locate the lines other than as strictly per the deed calls. It seems this question arises often, usually due to a conflict between the strict ‘record’ location of the lines, and the evidence recovered by the survey, in these cases being 1) a parcel being found larger than record, and 2) the lines of possession within a city block being rotated vs record.

“2-30 Practical Location
Principle. Evidence of practical location , when appropriate, may be received to clarify ambiguity of writings.
…
Evidence of practical location may only be received to clarify ambiguity; it may never be used to overcome clear, concise, unambiguous words in a deed; it may not be used to create an ambiguity.

2-34 Evidence That Determines the Intent of the Conveyance
Principle. The intentions of the parties to a conveyance, as expressed by evidence of the writings, are paramount considerations of the court in interpreting the meaning of a deed, and that intent is gathered exclusively from the written words of the deed, except where the written words have extrinsic ambiguities or where explanations of conditions existing as of the date of the deed are necessary.

2-63 Duties of Surveyors in Finding Evidence Needed to Locate Deed Writings
…
The fact a valid written deed has a location on the ground is not to be disputed; the surveyor is charged with finding the ground location in conformity with the law of evidence.

Ownership of land can be obtained by either of the two methods: (1) a lawful written title and (2) an unwritten possession right (called in unwritten title) as discussed in Chapter 3. An unwritten right to land ownership can never by transformed into a written right without either a court decree or a written agreement between adjoiners. In title insurance offices, written titles are classified as marketable title, and unwritten titles, as nonmarketable…For this reason, surveyors are obligated to distinguish between each type of ownership right [showing the Title Gap].
[emphasis added]

3-51 Principle. If adjoiners agree that the line or lines of possession between them are or should be the boundary line and if possession is not in agreement with the writings, the surveyor should attempt to transform the agreement to writings.

…In other words, lands claimed by occupancy alone have low value. The client is entitled to know on what basis his claim of ownership rests. It is misleading to allow a client to believe that his occupancy is in agreement with his writings when in fact they are not in agreement. It is the obligation of the surveyor to inform the client about the status of his occupancy or encroachments on other land, and in those states where the surveyor is liable to third parties [yes, this includes California], the information must be presented so that third parties would also be aware (see Chapter 4). This leads to the following:

Principle. The surveyor should differentiate between lands in agreement with a written title and lands claimed by some form of unwritten title [Title Gaps].

Principle. If there is possession that is not in agreement with the client’s written deed, the surveyor should inform the client of its possible significance.

Although the surveyor does not necessarily come to a conclusion about who owns the occupied lands that are not in agreement with the writings, he should certainly inform the client of possible transfer of title by occupancy rights and do so in such a manner to avoid liability, the subject of the next chapter.

4-8 Avoiding Liability
…
Liability can result from improperly locating the written document, from failure to inform the client of the possibility of unwritten title rights, and from errors in computations...This makes it necessary that the surveyor present the results of his survey in such a fashion so that all third parties are appraised of possible title problems such as an unwritten rights as a result of prolonged occupancy.
…
In the event of an encroachment on the client’s written deed, the surveyor should be certain that the client understands the significance of the encroachment and that the information presented in a manner that third parties are appraised of it. This means the surveyor should present a plat clearly showing all encroachments and noting the possibility of occupancy rights in relation to deed or title lines. If an unwritten title right or the probability exists, it is foolish to include the occupied area in the acreage of the client shown by his writings. …The day of privity of contract between the surveyor and the client is over [written in 1981]; the surveyor is obligated to disclose, for the possible benefit of third parties, all information that may lead to damages.
[emphasis added]

8-2 Boundaries Defined by Written Documents

The Technical Standards for Property Surveys [relating to 1946 ACSM] does not intend to exclude possession lines from being used to indicate where the original writings were located; it merely means that if the possession lines are not in agreement with the writings, the surveyor should disclose the situation, not hide it by setting monuments in a line based solely on possession. An obligation exists to reveal these discrepancies.

8-4 Definition of Location Surveys
…
Overlaps and gaps: when discussing defects found in title, the terms “hiatus,” “compound hiatus,” “confusion,” “point of confusion,” “area of confusion,” and “gore” are used to express overlaps, gaps, and indefinite ownership areas between adjoiners."

Everything shown above is from the cited text. For the complete text with citations: Brown, Curtis M., Robillard, Walter G. and Wilson, Donald A., (1981) Evidence and Procedures for Boundary Location (2nd Ed.) Ancient Survey Plats and Documents (pp.32, 34, 77-78,116-118, 130-131, 218, 221)

Again, in the instant case, the East 50.00’ can be located on the ground and is unambiguous. As a surveyor, offer to fix it for the owners.

For those requesting references, citations etc., there you have it. I encourage the readers to read the entire chapters referenced. Obviously, it would have been much easier for the authors to have simply said “The senior grant gets full measure and the junior gets the remainder” in every instance. However, this is simply not the case. The referenced book goes so far as to provide definitions for describing the Title Gaps.

Next, Wattles.

Dwoolley

[Inadvertently left this principle out]

"8-14 Ownership and Location of Land

Principle. The property surveyors does not decide who owns land or rights in land; he merely locates land; and, except for special agreements with respect to unwritten rights, he only locates land in accordance with the written descriptions.

Ownership of land is complex and falls within legal concepts. To determine true ownership, investigations are made into mortgages, trust deeds, valid signatures, fraud, insanity, payment of taxes, special assessments, heirs, possession, and numerous other things. In America the property surveyor has never been given the authority to decide who has ownership to land and in all probability will never be given that authority….unless there is an obvious error, the surveyor usually accepts the description at its face value." Page 229 of the above referenced citation.

DWoolley

CA B&P Code:
“8726. A person, including any person employed by the state or by a city, county, or city and county within the state, practices land surveying within the meaning of this chapter who, either in a public or private capacity, does or offers to do any one or more of the following:
.......
(c) Locates, relocates, establishes, reestablishes, or retraces any property line or boundary of any parcel of land, right-of-way, easement, or alignment of those lines or boundaries.”

Simply for the sake of argument, the quote above is the statutory entitlement empowering those California surveyors who practice within the limits of their competency.
Where within this statute, or elsewhere, is a surveyor limited in his or her ability to mark a boundary in accordance with adjudicated precedence?