California Surveyors Forums

I have a situation where I may be doing a tentative parcel map for a client. As part of preparation of the tentative map I will be doing a boundary survey. From the LSA in sec. 8765(c) a Record of Survey is not required when a map is in preparation in accordance with the SMA. This is definitely a parcel where lines will need to be determined and therefore a Record of Survey would be required if the survey wasn't being performed as part of the subdivision process. In the course of preparing the tentative map I will not be setting any corners.

My question is, if the tentative map and subsequent parcel map does not go through, will I be required to file a Record of Survey? The status has now changed and 8765(c) no longer applies because now nothing is going to happen to the parcel. Does the fact that 8765(c) no longer applies mean that a ROS must be filed retroactively to when the survey was performed, even if it was several years ago? No points have been set, but lines have been determined for the purposes of the tentative map. Does it make a difference that the lines were determined for the purposes of the tentative map only? I know in my experience that when firms I have worked for have done tentative maps we never file a ROS because usually we file a parcel or sub map....but when the parcel and subs maps die....nothing happens. So ROS or no ROS?

I don't see where there is any requirement to file a survey in this instance unless something else in 8762 has triggered it, such as the discovery of a material discrepancy, etc. But the situation you describe in and of itself shouldn't trigger any filing.

Dave Ryan

PE_PLS: I do agree with Dave Ryan
just be well aware of the 8762 trigers

BTW: the reason for my comment = "...will not be setting any..."
every time I hear that it makes me nuts! are you aware that not setting monuments has Nothing to do with the requirements for filing a RoS?

rant mode off

I guess my question wasn't clear. This is a job that would certainly require a ROS to be filed, regardless of setting corners. Maybe its just me and people I've worked for but when we do a tentative map we don't file a ROS because of the exemption in the LSA. My question rephrased is this: The LSA exempts a ROS from being filed if you are moving forward with some other type of recorded map. In the tentative mapping process we are doing just that, moving forward to file a parcel or subdivision map. But then for some reason the process changes, and you no longer are going to subdivide the property. Because you did a boundary survey in preparation of the tentative map are you now obliged to file a ROS since you are no longer moving forward with the subdivision? This could be years after you did the original boundary survey. Does this question make sense?

Sorry, there is NO exemption, per se. The concept refers to the case where you perform a boundary survey AND file a Final map or a Parcel Map.

The idea here is that the boundary enters the public record in one way or another: through a Final Map, Parcel Map or a Record of Survey. The RS is not necessary if the boundary record is entered into the public record through a Final Map or a Parcel Map.

So....If y'all THINK yer gonna file a Parcel Map later and the project falls through, you ARE required to go back and file an RS to enter the data into the record.

And Peter is quite right...the requirements for filing of an RS have NOTHING to do with the setting of monuments, durable or not. That's why there are TWO subparagraphs; 4 AND 5.

I agree with Ian (don't tell anyone, okay?) Unless your survey had absolutely no discrepancies with the record you would have to file a R/S.

It's happening more now......

PE_PLS,

You stated, "Because you did a boundary survey in preparation of the tentative map are you now obliged to file a ROS since you are no longer moving forward with the subdivision?".

I've still not read anything that imposes an obligation on you to file a survey. What provision of 8762 would you point to that is requiring it?

If you haven't even done the survey yet, and are assuming you will encounter one of these triggers, I think you may be getting ahead of yourself.

Dave Ryan

a boundary survey in the field. I did shoot a couple of angles and a few distances and kinda got a plus or minus number for the boundary and the aerial topo to put on some paper for a tentative parcel map. This is just kinda plus or minus stuff.

I mean I really don't want to know how much land I will be subdividing, or even exactly where it is on the ground, just because if everything falls through, the owner is gonna have to pony up for a RS plus the checking fees.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

The parcel is a deed parcel, doesn't show up on a map, a record of survey will be required. The boundaries will need to be established to determine what can be subdivided. From the answers I've received, it looks like the answer is that if the client doesn't go through with the subdivision then I will need to file a ROS

After establishing the boundaries of a deed described parcel, you should request an extension to the 90 day filing requirement from the CS, if your not going to file a map within the required time. If your going to file a PM SM you could tell them your waiting for approval. If someone calls the CS or submits a survey in the area of your sub, it will give the CS a chance to let each of you know so you can consider the same evidence.

Personally, I like to file the ROS and monument the exterior boundary before the Tentative Map. This gives the adjoiners a chance to agree or not agree which may affect the boundary.

Maybe I'm missing something in the situation, but as Bruce suggested a Tentative Map doesn't have to be based on an accurate boundary survey per §66424.5(a), and the §8762 issues don't arise until you disclose them to another party.

You can survey the world and find all the material discrepancy you can eat, but until you disclose that information to someone outside your responsible charge (e.g., your client or a public agency) you don't owe anyone a ROS. If you want to resolve the boundary prior to preparing your tentative map, that's fine -- as long as you don't put accurate dimensions on it, you retain the option of avoiding a ROS if the development falls through.

It is easy enough to put in the contract the obligations of the client and consultant.
Some fine suggestions from Stevens and Frame....

I think the triggers for the RS are in place and remain in place in the event that the subdivision does not proceed....

Many firms do a paper boundary from record for the tentative map process and planning purposes. I am not a big fan of this and I have seen situations where lot count went down after the actually boundary....

Iif you did a boundary survey and you made a represntation(established) the boundary to anyone, then you are on the hook to file,imho...

I think we ought to do what we are supposed to do and not waste time trying to rice and dice the language and find a way out of mandates... not that your are trying to do that.
There are just lots of folks I know who seem to take the apporach of trying to get around mandates... human nature I suppose, but its just to much for me to worry about...

My preference would be to file a ROS anytime I find a situation that warrants one, but the fact is that map checking fees in many jurisdictions aren't trivial. My home county (Yolo) charged $100 when I started in business, but in 15 years it went first to $200, then $350 and now $500+ depending on sheet count. That's high enough to make the practice of not filing when not required to do so a prudent approach.

I, too, don't advise preparing a tentative map from a record boundary. However, except in extreme cases, there's nothing to stop you from drafting your tentative with field-accurate linework while annotating the lines with record or +/- text. That way you can avoid disclosing a material discrepancy in case the development falls apart prior to Final Map filing.

By extreme cases, I'm talking about feet, not tenths. If the surveyed boundary is that far from record, then you just have to get your client on the hook for a filed map -- Final Map or ROS -- regardless of the outcome.

"8762. Records of survey
(b) 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:....."

Based upon the above language, its not the disclosure to the client, but the discovery of items in section 8762 by the professional that would warrant the ROS.

If we are to protect the Safety, Health and Welfare of the public, don't we have an obligation to place other professionals on notice of discovered problems?

Way back when, a tentative map used to be very preliminary in nature. Now it is more like a Precise Development Plan. To do an approximate boundary you'd need to to have a planned open space between the exterior boundary and the proposed lots.

"Based upon the above language, its not the disclosure to the client, but the discovery of items in section 8762 by the professional that would warrant the ROS."

I disagree. In my opinion, a field survey is not complete until the results of the survey are disclosed to a party outside the responsible charge of the licensee. This can be accomplished by setting corner monuments, delivering a map, or even verbally describing the results. Until that disclosure occurs, the survey is a work-in-progress that may or may not be completed in the future, and the ROS requirement doesn't kick in.

As an example, consider the situation in which a surveyor is retained to locate some monitoring wells for the sole purpose of establishing the relative positions of the wells so that groundwater gradients can be calculated. In the course of the work, he uses a couple of street centerline monuments for traverse control. Out of curiosity, he inverses the distance between those monuments and finds that the distance is 500.67' instead of 500.00' per the subdivision map. Does the mere act of comparing his measurement to the record and finding a material discrepancy mean that he now must file a Record of Survey?

I contend that he needn't do anything with this information unless he discloses it to a party outside his control. Absent that disclosure, the information doesn't constitute a field survey, and therefore §8762 doesn't pertain.

.

"...if the field survey discloses..." = discovery... you have it Larry.

do the right thing, no shortcuts

However, I have no qualms performing a survey and at some point in the process (research, field recon, measurements, preliminary analysis) to pause and report to the client what has been found. Yes, I do have the ability to foresee that I MAY discover a trigger... I think we all do, with a clear conscience and straight face.

Stopping and giving the client the option to proceed with the knowledge of the possible time and costs is SOP in my book unless it is agreed up front that full resolution and recording is desired up front, and I am still within the anticipated budget.

There is always a danger that something may hinder a project; but we should be able to quantify those things without flipping the switch in most cases. There is nothing wrong with stopping when you think there may be a real rats nest... that is the option for the person paying for my efforts.

Jim: in your scenario Maybe.
I think my next step would be to say to myself "that control is no good, I need to do further research and/or further measurements to see if there truly is a Material Discrepancy that would require a RoS."
Then I would probably would use some other control and not spend the effort to discover if there really is an issue or just a bad measurement of mine or an overlooked record. Besides, I don't feel that (well monuments) is Material to the project at hand (monitoring wells).

I don't think we have an obligation to complete a boundary survey, if the client doesn't want us to because of money. However, I do believe that we are required to file a Record of Survey of the evidence uncovered with a note that states you are not opining on the boundary location if you havent completed your analysis but are filing the map to document the evidence uncovered on your date of survey. So much evidence gets lost or destroyed because people don't follow through with their professional obligations.

If I'm conducting a survey with the anticipation of doing a Corner Record and discover a Material Descrepancy I have a provision in my contract that I will satisfy state law and my client must pay for it. It isn't a option. I use the Standare CLSA contract with a few extra provisions. I also repeat that statement in a larger font on the work order. So far 90% of my clients understand but 100% have paid the required extra costs.

I don't get every job but I have a much better clientele.

Peter, I'm with you on the well mons. Not enough info to know what's going on and way outside of scope for Mon Well locations. Common sense should dictate.

"I think my next step would be to say to myself 'that control is no good, I need to do further research and/or further measurements to see if there truly is a Material Discrepancy that would require a RoS.'"

How can you measure between 2 centerline monuments of record in a platted subdivision, find a half-foot of discrepancy with the record, and not conclude that it's material? In my view, if you consider the discovery of a material discrepancy to be the §8762(b)(2) trigger, then you're on the hook for a ROS in that situation.

Consider another scenario: Let's say the economic downturn puts a serious dent in my workload sometime in the next year. Rather than twiddle my thumbs, I sally forth and tie in the boundary control in areas of town that have been avoided by surveyors in the past because of the sticky boundary situations. I use that control to resolve the block lines to my satisfaction, and discover a plethora of material discrepancies in the process. I maintain that I can hold that information in my back pocket until such time as I have a client willing to foot the bill for the field work and the preparation of the associated ROS, and not be in violation of §8762.

In fact, I've done something similar a couple of times in the past: extended my survey to an adjacent area in an effort to verify some evidence for the project at hand, and then pursued the boundary control in the adjacent area to resolution as a target of opportunity. I discovered §8762 issues in the process, but I did so on my own nickel and waited until a paying client came along before disclosing the matters in the form of monuments and a ROS. In my opinion, I didn't violate any statutory or ethical constraints in keeping the information private in the interim.

Protection of the public is the reason we're licensed, but we're not ER physicians -- I have yet to come across a life-and-death boundary survey. Choosing not to disclose information pertaining to property boundaries prior to being invited to do so by one of the parties at interest is a matter of no harm, no foul.

.

I've seen a 6 figure award to a buyer of real estate because the surveyor figured it wasn't warranted to disclose. Be careful.

I understand your comments, Jim, but could you please point me to the wording in §8762 that indicates that the triggers “arm” only when there’s a paying client on the hook? I don’t make the same interpretation of that language.

I think it was Curt Brown that once said of boundary that it is not a life and death situation; it is far more serious.

Evry other profession or vocation provides a mechanism for removing mistakes. Land surveyors set monuments to mark the errors and file maps and other documents to memorialize them!

Jim: We have no disagreement, just different basic assumptions… the facts change the result.
You are a Solo, hands on from start to finish every step of the way, I envy that.
For the last 15 or 20 years I have been with bigger firms with someone else doing parts of the research, field work, and/or calculations.
When I see a potential Material Discrepancy I knee-jerk to thinking that there could be an error or gap in knowledge. Since you have done it all yourself I assume you would have a different beginning comfort level.


...your first scenario and my response to it

You said “…inverses the distance between those monuments…” lead me to think since it was not direct measured that there could have been a measurement or calc error in a side tie, perhaps not a true distance error.
You also said “…the sole purpose of establishing the relative positions of the wells so that groundwater gradients…” lead me to think that a full boundary research would not have been performed; that research might have disclosed a CR, RoS, CoC, or other record map that would show that the monuments were already known to not be at 500.00’ per the original plat.


In your second scenario I suggest you could be close to bridging the gap between preliminary work and creating a requirement to file…


I do not condemn you or others for not going the full 9 yards on every little project, or claim that I always have; I am just reminding myself and others that we can stop short of creating/finding a real life conflict and sleep better at night. “know when to hold them, know when to fold them”

We always try to do our tent maps with a record boundary. I like to have a Title Report and Title Co. involved when I do a boundary and I don't see any reason to pay for one unitl the project has been approved. A Tentative Map is just that "tentative". Once the project is approved, then I use the record boundary as a starting point for a precalculation sheet composed of all the records pasted together. Alot of the time we will file a record of survey as soon as the the field work is done and the project has been approved. This means we don't have to worry about the 90 days. Most of the time there are combinations of multiple maps to be following the record of survey. It is nice to solve and show everything on the record of survey, then reference it by all subsequent maps. A common situation is a large subd with an original house site. House site is first busted out by parcel map then proceeding to the multiple final subdivision maps. I just don't see any reason to do a boundary survey for a tent map unless special cirrcumstances arise.

"could you please point me to the wording in §8762 that indicates that the triggers “armâ€￾ only when there’s a paying client on the hook? I don’t make the same interpretation of that language."

Nor do I. Having a paying client is a practical business matter, but it's immaterial to the interpretation of the statute.

What I *do* read in the statute is the concept of completion embodied by the §8762(b) phrase "after making a field survey." Just as a deed is invalid until it's been delivered to and accepted by the grantee, a survey is not "made" until its results have been disclosed to a party outside the responsible charge of the licensee. Disclosure can take the form of monuments set, a map delivered, or even an oral description of conditions found or conclusions reached. Until disclosure occurs, the survey is only an abstract concept -- however pregnant it might be -- that is invisible to everyone beyond the surveyor's responsible charge. Disclosure makes it real, renders it "made," and invokes the statutory and ethical requirements of the profession. IMHO. :)

.

I ain't done with the survey. When I am, I'll let you know and file and map, if necessary.