California Surveyors Forums

Consider the following: a Record of Survey is filed in 2006 that establishes the corners of some city blocks shown on a 1933 Official Map. The ROS doesn't show the lots, it only shows the block exterior dimensions, both record and measured. The blocks are pretty regular in the sense that they're nominally rectangular and the lot lines run parallel with the block lines. The measured dimensions are close to record: 4 minutes out of square and 0.24 foot long in a 430-foot block. Establishing lot lines within the blocks will -- in my opinion -- involve prorating the excess between block corners as established by the 2006 ROS.

Question: Does the establishment of the block exterior lines by the 2006 ROS effectively imply the prorated lot locations, such that a new ROS isn't required when marking the lot corners? Or do the as-surveyed lot dimensions still constitute material discrepancies with the original record, thus requiring a new ROS instead of a Corner Record?

As one who generally favors more record mapping rather than less, I can see this going either way. I plan to ask the County Surveyor what he thinks, but I'd be interested in hearing other opinions.

Thanks.

P.S. Not that it matters, but I filed the 2006 ROS. I didn't show lot dimensions because the ROS covers 8 city blocks, and I used up 5 sheets as it was. Adding lot dimensions would have added at least a couple more sheets.

It would depend upon the purpose of the '06 RS, Jim. I'd contact the surveyor who did the '06 survey and ask him (and I want to see that schizophrenic conversation).

If the '06 survey was to show collective maps on the same survey for purposes of mapping a down-town area, I'd say that the current survey would not be better served with an RS than it would with a simple CR.

If the '06 survey was to redefine a few blocks due to significant material discrepancies, then an RS may well be in order.

If the differences from record were more significant, I'd say RS. As you describe it, I would lean toward saving the client a little $ and file the CR.

Yes and no. If the corners you set are a line from the 2006 RS then no. If the corners you set are not on a line shown on the 2006 RS, then file another RS. But overall since you thought there was reason to file the first RS, then you probably ought to file a second RS. I assume you have everything in CAD and so it would not be to difficult to put the pieces together for a secnond RS. Also how likley is it that someone could miss the 2006 RS? Even if you did a corner record that could be missed in someone else's research. I think it is a lot harder to miss the RS filed on an adjoiner. Filing the second RS will really help the next surveyor stay out of trouble.

The County Surveyor has spoken: he thinks a Corner Record will suffice. Assuming I don't run into any occupation issues when I conduct the survey, I think I'll go along with him.

I would also say CR on that example. With the original ROS I would also put in more lines to rectify that in the future so you can do CRs off the "master" ROS.

If it is not clear if I need a CR or RS that sways me to file an RS, then there is no question.