Corner Records - LSA 8765 (d)

[PE_PLS]

LSA Sec 8765 (d) reads:

A record of survey is not required of any survey:

"When the survey is a retracement of lines shown on a subdivision map, official map, or a record of survey, where no material discrepancies with those records are found and sufficient monumentation is found to establish the precise location of property corners thereon, provided that a corner record is filed for any property corners which are set or reset or found to be of a different character than indicated by prior records. For purposes of this subdivision, a "material discrepancy" is limited to a material discrepancy in the position of points or lines, or in dimensions."

I have always understood this to mean that if you find monumentation of the character as shown on the original map, and there are no material discrepancies that you can file a corner record instead of a ROS if/when you set new corners.

I come across many, many corner records that use found monumentation that is not shown on the original map that is being retraced. Most of the time this is the only monumentation they use for the corner record, with nothing found per the original map. Example: I am looking at a corner record today that is a rectangular lot. Existing iron pipes were found at 2 corners. The surveyor who filed the corner record set the other 2 corners. Problem is, the two iron pipes are not shown on the original survey. The surveyor who filed the corner record does not indicate the origin of the found iron pipes, but does state "found iron pipes per sub map XXX". Is this permissible? Can you file a corner record based upon zero found original monumentation, or at least some traceable perpetuation of the original monumentation? I have experience in 2 counties where probably half the corner records I see are based upon this method.

My question is also towards County Surveyor's/map checkers. Is this something you permit? If so why/why not?

[PLS7393]

A corner record is a valid document when you are retracing a lot of record, even if corners were not originally set. This is my interpretation.
A lot of the old subdivision maps didn't show set monuments of record at various corners.

Old surveyors use to do lot surveys, and not file any document of how thier pipes were set; thence the found pipe is "Unknown Origin". Is it a valid point to hold as an existing lot corner to use as your basis of bearings? that's a question you, the surveyor have to answer. How does it fit with and to other found points (record or non-record). Shall you do a record of survey rather than a corner record? It is your license and you have to make that decision. If a surveyor comes in prior to submittal, I will give my two cents, but they still can go the other route.

I see a lot of record of surveys when potentially a corner record would suffiece, but the corner record does not allow enough room, so they submit a record of survey. That might be the conviencing issue, . . . clarity of the map.

I'd suggest talking to the County Surveyor and you can sell your point on why you want to do a corner record.

[E_Page]

§8762(b)(1).

The answer seems clear.

[PE_PLS]

The answer seems clear to me too Evan, but given that I am seeing alot of these cases, it really makes me wonder. Any other County Surveyors or map checkers want to weigh in?

Greg - I don't think that the surveyors preparing the CR like this are demanding them to be filed....I think the CS is readily accepting them without question, that is what I don't understand.

[7702]

I once read on a filed CR that it was prepared because of "a material discrepancy". I'm still wondering how that one got past the county map checker.

[goodgps]

I'm wondering why there is such sediment about the NEED to review every little detail on corner records and even records of survey for that matter ?

Do we have that many unscrupulous incompetent Liscensed surveyors out there ?

There are two kinds of Corner records out there. One that serves the client for personal reasons (fences, dispute remodel etc.) and two, that serves the general surveying community (disclosure of a found position which was once lost or ties to difficult position etc.) Youall get the picture.
The second one (two) is out of discovery and kindness towards the fellowship of Land Surveyors. For that one (two) Other Surveyors can take it or leave it as they see fit.
Now the (One) one . . . this corner record is FOR REAL. Just by filing a corner record, it doesnt excuse YOU the Surveyor, from a lawsuit should the contrary be found - - - in Court. Corner records may be a way to cut costs for your client ie: no $1000 checking fee. . . . But they dont really do a dang thing to "Simplize" your survey techniques. I'm certainly hope that competent Surveyors are preparing these corner records and checking them thoroughly before they are filed.

We sincerely need the "corner record" process as a way for ordinary folks to simply get their lines right and continue being good neighbors without going broke on a ROS. AND we do need to have access to them !!!

"the best monument locator in your truck is the shovel . . . now dig boy"
credit . . .My Dad

[Gary O]

In the end, the surveyor chooses the avenue (ROS or CR) which best suits their desired outcome.

And what do you do when they make the wrong decision? I have had experiences where the surveyor, in order to sell a cheap job, has given their client the cost for a CR when a ROS is required.

I put a note on the CR to that effect. Legal? Don't know but I just extended the ability to do so on a ROS.

[goodgps]

Yup,

'what I'm saying is exactly NOT to do just such a thing ! (sloppy surveys)
I feel your note is justified. If a Surveyor wants to sell his liscense like a Jr Whopper for a "buck" I s'pose we can let him/her do it, but the survey itself, must still be of a lasting quality.

I've done plenty of corner records on olde lot/blocks. The effort into these surveys parallels that of a Record of Survey. In Fact, I'm doing a Record of Survey on an old block and NOT a corner record, right now, simply because the survey requires extensive extrapulation and a bit of savvy speculation.
No candidate for a corner record on this one, although the law allows for it.

I still believe that excessive review fees and in some cases, Public agency "hassel" causes surveyors to seek other options.

SOME map checkers tend to place themselves into the survey.
I've experienced some agencies adding information to my survey, [unauthorized], on the mylar just prior to recording.

Perhaps a quality set of guidelines needs to be formulated and adhered to.
DONT get me wrong, I welcome and enjoy the map review process, and that "other" set of eyes taking a look at my maps.
It's really NOT about the process in particular, it more of a financial and time issue with clients.


"Good" and broke

[Gary O]

[quote="Greg Sebourn"] If several attempts failed, the matter was forwarded to BPELS.
QUOTE]

Greg,

Just to make sure I wasn't missing something I brought it up at a CLSA meeting as an anonymous submittal. When the tide turned against the surveyor he piped up and tried to defend his position by saying my office had allowed that type of record before (we hadn't) but he still didn't change his solution.

It's not my job to be a survey cop...if I disagreed with a ROS why wouldn't I turn THAT over to BORPELS? Instead a note is placed on the map.

It gets frustrating when we train LS candidates how to do 'lot and block' re-establishments but when 'we' do them in the real world those rules go out the window because they cost more.

[bruce hall]

the first step in such disagreements between the Land Surveyor and the CS should be a letter to the BORPELS. If the LS "mandates" the filing of the CR, so be it. That's his hook. But it really is the prudent thing to have these matters addressed at the "local" level. A lot of time and grief can be saved if the matter is sent to the local Joint Professional Practices Committee, if there is one. Luckily I work in the OC and we have one. Just like Greg said.

Good GPS stated "In Fact, I'm doing a Record of Survey on an old block and NOT a corner record, right now, simply because the survey requires extensive extrapulation and a bit of savvy speculation. No candidate for a corner record on this one, although the law allows for it."

I don't know how the law would allow a CR to be filed if the survey that you are doing requires "extensive extrapulation and a bit of savvy speculation." But I'm sure that you or someone else will let me know.

Greg, when did we take the J out of the JPPC? I we trying to be PC or what?

[Ian Wilson]

Bruce: It used to be called JPPC when the J implied a Joint committee between CLSA and the old CELSOC.

The Joint nature of the committee was intended to emphasis the fact that the two organizations that supported land surveyors were acting Jointly to policy our profession.

CELSOC rarely provided candidates from their organization to the JPPC. When they removed reference to Land Surveyors from their name, it became rather silly to continue calling the committees JPPCs. The J was dropped and the committees are now known as Professional Practices Committees.