California Surveyors Forums

Sec 8727 of the Business and Professions Code, Chapter 15 states: "Survey made exclusively for geological or landscaping purposes, which do not involve the determination of any property line, do not constitute surveying within the meaning of this chapter."

http://www.asbuiltservices.com/asbuilt/index.jsp

The above link is to a company that got into some heat for providing "site surveys". They do have samples of hotels done in California, so CA law does apply. Now he has a disclaimer about how it's a "Landscape survey". Yet, if you look at one of the site maps it shows that he froze the line work for PL but kept the label "PL" on. He also shows the center of the street.

He claims not to be showing contours but the law states (Sec 8726(b)): Determines the configuration or contour of the earth's surface, or the position of fixed objects above, on, or below the surface of the earth by applying the principles of mathematics or photogrammetry."

Three questions here:

1. Although the website claims not to show contours, they do show elevations. I'm pretty sure they use math to do it too! Is it still surveying? Is simply showing tax assessors lines a violation of the Business Code? GIS persons do this all the time.

2. What is the difference between GIS persons showing assessors parcels lines in relation to physical features like storm drains, sewers, light posts and so forth and a landscape survey showing the same? At what point does GIS cross the line into surveying? I've had several clients use GIS to see where their "property lines" are. It is perceived by the public as very accurate.


3. Can a photogrammetrist contract work without being under the supervision of the Licensed Land Surveyor? If not, how does (or should) Section 8729 apply to businesses offering photogrammetric services that aren't owned or employ as an officer a PLS?

§8727 of the PLS Act does state unequivocally that surveys made for geological of landscaping purposes do not constitute surveying. As you aptly point out, Eric, these surveys must not involve the determination of any boundary.

What constitute determination of a boundary?

If the monuments for the parcel are in the ground and of record, isn’t the boundary already determined? Yes, it is…by the surveyor who set the monuments and filed the map. However, if an unlicensed person comes along, looks at a monument and says, “That is the corner of your parcel.”, they have determined the boundary. We can all agree that if we were to resurvey the same parcel, our definition of the boundary would be from record, undisturbed monument to record, undisturbed monument. After checking the positional relationship between these monuments and the local controlling monuments with reference to the record map, we would be quite comfortable making the statement, “That is the corner of your parcel.” Under §8726 of the PLS Act, we have the authority and responsibility to make that statement. Unlicensed people do not.

So, if the geologist or landscaper does not have the authority to determine what is a corner and what is not a corner, how can that person show a fixed work of topographic feature relative to a boundary line? The answer is rather simple. They cannot. End of story…

So, what is the point of §8727 if they can’t show a boundary? To prevent unlicensed people from confusing the land net and harming the public. I have seen MANY landscape plans where boundaries are not shown but the client fully understands the landscape architect’s plan. I have seen many geological maps where geological features are shown but no boundaries are.

I have also worked for a couple of PEs not authorized to practice land surveying who get a kick out of doing their own topos. They will set two points in the ground and use those points as the basis of bearings for their topo survey. They will then hire me to perform a boundary survey and relate those control points to that boundary. In this way, they are NOT performing a boundary survey but they ARE performing a topo survey.

Unless as-built services can prove that the boundaries were determined by licensed professional land surveyors, I would suggest that they are violating §8762 and §8727 of the California PLS Act. Perhaps Ric Moore is already aware of this. If not, perhaps a letter to stop is in order.

As far as the photogrammetrist working with a net…er…PLS, the above arguments still apply.

I have done work for one who was awarded the contract to perform the photogrammetry by the client. The photogrammeterist then hired me to set the targets, provide coordinates for the targets and tie them into the land net. The photogrammetrist did not do any surveying; I did.

The law says that photogrammetry is practicing Land Surveying. With that in view, it would seem that the work a photogrammetrist does is surveying and in order to contract for surveying services, they would need to hold a valid Land Surveying License.

What happens now is we contract with the photogrammetrist to do photogrammetry and we provide the control to them. We then take the contours and throw in a boundary or other survey data.

Carrying that logic to another scenario: Could a person who is unlicensed, open up a "crew-chief" layout company, and then contract with a licensed Land Surveyor to do layout? He could not do layout himself. Why can a photogrammetrist contract with a client to do the contours using photogrammetry? If you’re the surveyor providing the control and boundary, do you supervise his work? Is that stated in your contract that you take responsibility for his work that he contracted with a client that you don’t have a contract with? He has the contract with the client, and you have it with the Photo company. I always have a contract with the client, and then hire the photogrammetrist myself.

The reason I bring this up is some of these new technologies coming out fall outside the norm of the surveying community, but they are really surveying, regardless of whether they are showing boundaries or not. There is more to land surveying that determining boundaries. These companies get hired to do the work of “locatingâ€￾ buildings, utilities and so forth. You get hired to do the boundary and take their data and show it on a map. You don’t have a contract with them, nor did you supervise their work. Is the only thing you need a license for the boundary lines and not all the graphic representation like walls, walks, buildings and buildings heights?

It could be we need to legally define why photogrammetrists can contract for their work, separate from a Land Surveyor, even though the Law defines their activity as Land Surveying. Is scanning Land Surveying? If so, shouldn't those companies that offer that service have LS on staff? If they don't show boundaries, then is their product simply a "picture" of what is there, so long as they don't show contour lines? What if they don't show contours, but "elevations" shown; are they not surveying?

There is an exemption for Law enforcement regarding licensure. They don’t typically show boundaries in their investigation sketches, but their activity is really surveying, despite only showing curbs, streets, signs and so forth. That exemption is proof that if I go out and locate fixed works and show there geometric relationship with actual geometry or graphically, then I’m surveying and should be licensed. The technology use is irrelevant, so long as “mathematicsâ€￾ was used. Obviously a painter can paint, or a photographer can shoot but if someone is trying to convey data of the earth using mathematics, then it surveying isn’t it?

Here is where GIS comes in. GIS is supposed to be more about “inventoryâ€￾. Showing parcels lines, utilities and other geo-reference data ………… falls under surveying, right? If not, why not? I suppose cartographers are exempt from being licensed. Why? Many of those companies actually have surveyors on staff so maybe this has been address already. If I pick up a map of the United States, it shows the boundary. What if a GIS person wants to zoom in to one lot and show the power poles in relation to a tax assessor’s map? Why is that any different that a surveyor provided the same thing?

I noticed on www.asbuiltservices.com that they are looking for employees. Maybe a surveyor should apply, after showing them they need one on staff.

You may want to review a recent thread:

http://www.californiasurveyors.org/clsa ... ostcount=9

I'm aware of that citation, but what he has done is response to that is put "Landscape Survey" in bold type and explain that "This is not a Boundary Survey". However, he is still going to show "Tax Assessors Lines". Is that enough?

So the question I'm really getting at is: Can an unlicensed person go out, and by some means locate buildings, show diagrams of them in relationship to Tax Assessors lines? What are those "Tax Assessors Lines"? Aren't they supposed to reflect record boundary lines? Although they cannot be relied upon, showing Tax Assessors line is showing boundary lines.

Maybe I'm wrong and this is why people can practice GIS and locate power poles and plot them in relation to Tax Assessors lines?

YIKES !!

I have two neighbors who wish to rebuild their common fenceline in the exact place. BUT first for some reason, they want a surveyor to come out to locate the fence to be sure it was placed close enough to the property line to be correct in the first place.

These are deed parcels but can be calculated from existing centerline monuments. So, my thought is to "shoot" the monumnets 'round the block, "topo" the fenceline, calculate the whole thing and tell them verbally if or if not the fenceline is within say. . . 2 inches (no closure report added) ha ha.
Now, I've given myself the weekend to say whether or not I'll do this for these guys. (need money bad) If I wont, they will try other surveyors OR, their febce builder says HE can measure from the centerline monuments himself and tell them.

I've been toild by Many PA guys that fence builders can do whatever they want because its "landscaping"

If I "landscape" under my license, then I'm surveying. right ! My opinion is professional. When did we "expert measurers" get cut out of the picture allowing these amatures to go do our job.


I'm bummed.

Darin "Toby" Freeman

Is PA "Public Agency"?

Landscapers cannot do any surveying that has anything to do with boundaries. That includes attempting to place a fence on a property line.

Once any relationship to a boundary is claimed, you're into territory covered by 8726.

Ah, but the trick is...to define what a "Geologic" or "Landscape" survey actually is!

Can anyone provide an official reference that defines these definitions?

Ric

It doesn't really matter, Ric. They can label their surveys as "Geological" or "Landscape" to their heart's desire as far as I'm concerned.

In my opinion, §8727 was well written and easy to understand, even by those of limited language skills.

“Surveys made exclusively for geological or landscaping purposes, WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE THE DETERMINATION OF ANY PROPERTY LINE do not constitute surveying within the meaning of this chapter.” (Emphasis, mine)

ANY determination of property lines, from ANY source, field OR record, clearly remove a "Geological" or "Landscape" survey prevent reliance on this section for exemption under the law.

As we well know, just because a person finds a monument in the ground does not imply that they can state with any certainty that the monument represents a particular corner unless they resort to actions which fall under §8726(c), (e), (f), (g) or (m). Then, by definition under §8762 AND §8727, they are engaging in the practice of land surveying.

Heck, I’ll even support the Geologists right to locate fault lines and fault trenches and state the positions relative to SPC values, as long as they stay within the confines of the PRC to do so.

Oh, wait a minute, if they do that, they have to make a statement as to the positional tolerance for the data collected and the positions shown…Hmmm…potential violation of §8726(n)…

Man! These guys just can’t catch a break hedging into the realm of land surveying, can they?

Ian,

I concur with your assessment that 8727 (by the way, how do you get that little section symbol in there) is clear...with regards to the language about determination of any property line.

However for the sake of discussion, I suggest that you consider putting the emphasis on "Surveys made EXCLUSIVELY for geological or landscaping purposes,...". Assuming that property lines are not represented, how does:

1. A Land Surveyor differentiate a Topographic survey from a "landscape" survey?

2. How does a general consumer differentiate between the two maps?

3. How do other disciplines (architects, engineers, contractors, etc.) differentiate between the two maps?

ALT-0167 = §

1) The topographic map also has boundary lines shown relating the topography to the boundary. The presence of boundary indicates a relationship between the topography and the boundary, even record boundary, and indicates that the survey is NOT an exclusive landscape survey.

If the plat does not show any boundary lines or references to them, then there we must assume that the function is to show the topography and not its relationship to a boundary. Intention is one of the hardest things to prove in either a criminal or civil setting.

Incidentally, I have no problems with a “boundary-less” topographic plat.

2) The general consumer is NOT likely to distinguish between the two on sight. That’s one of the reasons you are at the Board and that the case against As Built Services is an important one to follow.

3) Other professionals, such as architects, engineers, contractors, should know better than to accept a topographic map showing any boundary lines from someone who is not authorized to practice land surveying. To do so would be an example of aiding and abetting. Again, this is another reason to press hard on the case against As Built Services.


Other disciplines press hard against us when we encroach upon their practice area. We should apply the same diligence and standards to them when they encroach into our practice areas.

Yikes again !!

Okay, I have two neighbors who are rebuilding their common fence. The current fence is very bad, ie; leaning, patchworked etc. They wish to hire me to run a line of "straightness" based upon the best and straightest existing posts. I will set offsets. They will demolish the existing debris and reconstruct the fence. In conversation, they ask me to check to see if the fenceline is truely "close" to their common line. (very easy to do with a chain, as there are centerline monuments available)
I discover that the fence is 4 feet off the property line. This is where I walk (run) away. Has this "freindly fence survey" of sorts become a Record of survey action ? No monuments were ever set formally for these two deeded lots. No offset stakes were set by me . . . .No siree.

But really I need the work and money ????

Depends, Good...

Is the line between the two parcels shown on a record map? If it is, no RS is needed. If it is not, then an RS WOULD be required under §8762(b)(4) "...ESTABLISHMENT of...lines not shown..."

As I counseled a potential pair of clients doing exactly the same thing a few months ago, why bother hiring me? Are you happy with where the fence is even if it is NOT on the boundary line? Why not save the money and have the fencing contractor build the fence in the same place? Unless there is a question as to the boundary location, the fence will not likely ripen into an ownership line as long as the two parties draw up their own agreement indicating that the fence is NOT the boundary and the agreement is binding on all future heirs and assigns.

Good,

You stated "...two deeded lots."

When you discovered the fence "...4 feet off the property line...", did you inform the neighbors of this fact? Or represent to them in any manner where, in your opinion, the property was in relation to the current fence?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, you have demonstrated your professional opinion. Setting monuments or stakes or drawing the boundary on a sketch are other examples of demonstrating your opinion. You have a professional responsibility to follow through.

Ian's suggestion may be one of the paths to consider in resolving the situation.

Ric

Ian,

So you have a topographic map before you that doesn't show any property boundaries...that's fine. What differentiates that from a "landscape survey"?

I am just trying to get your opinion on the difference.

Ric

Ric:
If it doesn't show a boundary and doesn't purport to be anything other than a landscape survey or geological survey, I fine with the plat and the work.

To answer your direct question, though, the intent of the person preparing the plat determines whether it is a landscape survey a geological survey or something else.

Now, intent is the big sticker.

The difference between Murder 1 and a lesser charge is based on intent. (No...before you get started down THAT road, I am not equating practiceing landf surveying without a license to murder!!!) Intent is the difficult thing to prove.

That gave me a good laugh. From some of the complainants I have talked with, they may compare it!

Take care Ian

tHEY'RE BOTH HANGIN' OFFENSES!

I wonder how much ground truthing they get in for that $500. They must be darn fast at boundary surveying as well.

I also wonder if any LSs would want to admit to working with them.

Hmmm, I didn't see that note about the licensed land surveyors when I sent an inquiry to them last night. It was for an address that I know is a deed lot. They told me I would hear from them in 72 hours...now about 48 hours and counting.

Ric

Ric,
I've left the site . . . days ago, and left the situation up to the Owners to discuss and decide. I told them I would need to prepare a record of survey and monument the line.

Since I've done no staking for them, I chalked this up as a "free estimate"

Are these guys practicing GIS or Land Surveying? Ian thinks than when you "locate" a monument and purport it to be the boundary, then it's surveying. If you not going out in the field and "surveying" then your just using data available to you to show the tax assessor's lines and other data that it's really just GIS or a Landscape Survey. Ian, is this what your where saying? Correct me if I'm wrong.

So is NVD Mapping violating any laws if they never do a site visit? They are using the word "survey" which is a violation (unless it's for landscaping and then they have every right to say "Landscape or Geological Survey"), but otherwise? Let's say they change the wording like "As-Built Services" did and start saying "We are providing GIS data and Landscape Surveys only". Is everything o.k. now? If they are taking a GeoTracker and locating monuments then they are surveying, but if they don't do that, then they are not surveying? How does the Public view their services? Do they only need a LS as a consultant to oversee the work (under contract) or does he need to be an employee? Are they in direct supervision of the work being done? Is a contract good enough to cover the requirements of State Law regarding offering Surveying Services? If they say: "1) Coordinated aerial images with property boundary." it sounds like they need an LS as an officer of their company to me.

Eric,

Are you looking to get an internet spanking? Challenge Ian by putting meaning to his words that weren't there and you're likely to get one.

Review §8726 and count the violations. I count 11, assuming that they do not have an LS overseeing their work. If they do have an LS, there might be an area of competence issue if they are claiming info from satellites to be more accurate than conventional photogrammetry or LIDAR with ground control.

One need not go into the field to violate the PLSA.

If they don't have a CE in responsible charge of some of that work, I'll bet that some violations of §6731.x can be identified as well.