California Surveyors Forums

"I can do a survey for the landowner to build a fence. No sense in setting any pipes at the corners, they'll just get knocked out anyway. And besides, it a legal lot of a subdivision. So don't really need to file a record."

"Now if he wants a "lot survey", well I can set pipes and file a record, if that's what the landowner wants."

Heard this from a couple of fellas. I can't prove anything. And I am not following them around town. (I have my own skeletons that I have to clean up and get out of the closet.) And these fellas are "senior" to me (in a way), and won't listen to me cause they know me and they know that I am wrong. Oh well.

So the answer is yes, this is still being done. Temporary corners are basically just that, usually for construction purposes, but the corners really should be monumented, and even if they are not, a record should-must be filed. BWDIK?

The reality is that ANY corners set for construction purposes are even more important when you think about it. "Just for construction" isn't an excuse! When else do people want a survey? Usually it's because they HAVE to, not just to see where the property is.

If you set temporary points, and more evidence is lost through time, that wall may not be on your "property" anymore. You may end up in court, at a greater cost than the survey. It makes sense to preserve the evidence. I think the bigger problem is a lot of surveyors don't like the review process because they would rather "hold the distance" or do a bearing-bearing intersection than pull the parent deeds and do a defendable survey. Some us the 4" rule. "Close-enough" is "good-enough".

Ken,

I don't tell them it's illegal, I ask to see the other firms proposal to see if the scope is the same. If not, and it would require a Corner Record (as in a typical subdivision) or a Record of Survey, then you have something to discuss with them or the County Surveyor. Of course, this tactic hasn't worked yet, because I think the owner knows that it's wrong.

People who put 2x2 at corners for $600 are tradesmen, and that's simply how they are going to be viewed by their actions.

Skeletons? We all make mistakes, but we all can change. I don't think you should run out to the Board as soon as someone is in violation, but you could approach them yourself. You could bring it to the attention of the County Surveyor, or if you like, bring it up to the local Principles and Practice Committee. Maybe you should just let them know you want an equal playing field.

I've lost a couple of proposals where I know I've lost because they are doing something illegal. In SB, I just keep my eyes on the planning website and when the plans are submitted, I can see who did the survey. It's only a matter of time!

So, what if no other triggers of §8762 would be tripped on the survey? What if it is a certainty that the coners or line stakes will be disturbed or destroyed when the fence is built or construction occurs? What if the setting of corner monuments would be the ONLY reason to file a CR?

Would it then be reasonable to set hubs at the corners and/or on line and suggest to the client that once the construction activity is over, you return to set permanent points and file a CR?

It's likely that most clients would decide to not spend the extra to have the permanent points set once their fence (or whatever) is built, and that the permanent points would never get set. But would that then mean that the surveyor is breaking the law?

Ideally, we would leave permanent points and file a RS or CR every time we determine a boundary. But where in the law does is that required? Should the client have to pay for irons and a map when it's not required by law?


I'm not stating an opinion either way right now, but I can see both sides of the argument.


Eric, you said "I don't tell them it's illegal, I ask to see the other firms proposal to see if the scope is the same."

You had better be very careful there. That is likely an ethics violation. Even if you are not using the competitor's scope and fee for the purpose of undermining his proposal in favor of yours, there is at least the appearance of impropriety in the asking.

The CS is not the local Survey Police, but I agree with your advice of approaching someone who may be violating the PLSA and discussing it first hand prior to sending it to BPELS. Or better yet, hand over whatever info you have to the local PPC and let them, as a group, evaluate the situation and approach the surveyor to educate him or ask him to correct his practice.

Wouldn't the action of setting any sort of marker (regardless of the durability) at the corner location or along a boundary line, knowing it would likely be disturbed or destroyed, require (at a minimum) compliance with 8771(b)?

And if in fact it is disturbed or destroyed, wouldn't a replacement marker be required to be set and (at a minimum) a CR filed to be in compliance with 8771(b)?

It's not a matter of WHAT is set, it's a matter of what was set, represents.

If you are on a block of rectangular lots in a subd, and have monuments either way, front and back from the lot, then arguably, they are sufficient for the facile reestablishment of any point or line on your survey.

I didn't read the OP as referring to public contracts but to a job for a private client, in which case, the proposal is proprietary, or at least not public info.

Ric, §8771(b) refers to the perpetuation of existent monuments. How does it apply where none exist at the time of survey? And if you set a point which is not durable, with the knowledge and intent that the point be destroyed, how is that a permanent monument in need of perpetuation w.r.t. §8771(b)?



Question for you all: If a boundary point is non-existent at the time of survey, but can easily be established/reestablished from other nearby existent points, and it is known that said point will be destroyed in the course of soon to happen construction, regardless of durability, how is the client or public being served by incurring the extra cost of setting not-so-permanent points (even if they would otherwise be considered durable) and mapping? In such a case, isn't there no lasting benefit to the client, and negligible benefit to the public?

Or, do you advocate setting the points (remember, no 8762 triggers), filing a RS or CR preconstruction, and then because the points were destroyed during construction, coming back and resetting them and filing your post-const CR?

Bearing in mind that the purpose of the laws governing the practice of LS is to protect the public, do you feel that the protection provided justifies the cost of doing it?

Put another way, if this project is performed by Joe Schmoe, PLS, and he duitfully fulfills what he perceives to be the letter of the law, having set all permanent points and filing his map, having used surrounding original corner mons to determine his positions, and then you come along a few weeks later, and find all of the same original mons, and his mons, will you use the original mons or Schmoe's mons to determine your positions? if you don't use Schmoe's, what real value did they have?

ok, im a little confused here. Set your tag with your number on the sidewalk or curb out front like every other good standing surveyor, give your clients stakes along the line or offset, file your corner record or RoS and thats it. If your afraid to set your tag anywhere on the job your hiding and avoiding a $10 CR file fee. Whats the reason not to do it?

If a potential client give me your proposal so you and I are proposing on the same thing, there's nothing wrong with that. Asking to see the competitors scope is just that. Is his scope the same? (Did he say he'd set points every 25' or 50' for instance?) Is he proposing to set temporary points while you proposed to set corners and file a RS? I'd be very curious to see someone try to turn me in to the Board because i turned them into the County Surveyor for performing an illegal survey! If someone wins a proposal because they are not in compliance with the Law, then they are the ones who need to worried, not me. If the scope is different I can certainly bring it up to the potential client if he had not signed a contract yet.

"Stealing" clients, or bad-mouthing someone is different than making sure your not being undercut by unethical practices or the more benign, scope differences.

As for the "temp" points. So what does your proposal say? That your going to stake their boundary at an offset? You'll have to retrace the parcel of land first. But wait, it's only a deed! How do you set anything without filing a Record of Survey? Temp points or not, you are "establishing" points on the ground (offsets irreverent) for a boundary line that does not show on a Record of Survey (RS) Official map, or subdivision map. Believe me, it's been tried in SB County and "an offset" to a fence line, if the intent to to put it inside the boundary, is a boundary survey. If the client doesn't want to pay for the Record of Survey it's your fault for not writing your proposal in such a way that it would cover those costs. You should know before you survey if the parcel is only a deed and there is no existing mapping for it.

What if it's "just a subdivision" and during the course of the survey you find that the tract line was laid out in error by 2.0' creating an overlap with the adjacent Parcel Map. It's hard to claim that's not a "material descrepancy". Did you write your proposal to cover such events or did you simply say you would "survey" their boundary? Believe me, I've seen proposals written with "Boundary Survey" $600. Most CELSOC agreement have the Record of Survey clause in them obligating the client to pay for it. How you handle that is a business decision.

If I find a missing monument or what looks like a material discrepancy (I carefully chose those words) the whole scope changes and I either call the client or stop work until I get the change order for a corner record or Record of Survey.

I'm under no obligation to give my clients points or even a sketch showing dimensions to a boundary line if there is something out of scope.

I do see your point if there are monuments at the ends of lines and you simply staking some POL's or points at an offset to build a fence.

Eric,

I'll start a new thread about the ethics of asking a client for a copy of a competitors proposal for the purposes of either crafting your own or pleading your case to the client about the differences.

As to the temp corners, the first thing you did to argue against the scenario I presented was to change the premise from one where NO §8762 triggers were encountered, and present two where triggers are present and an RS is obviously required in each case, whether or not anything is set. That avoids discussing the less obvious scenario I presented.

Where you did seem to address the questions I presented, you didn't present much discussion. You glossed over the cost, which could be anywhere from $150 to $2500, depending upon the type of map you prepare, it's complexity, your billing rates, and the efficiency of you and yourr draftsman. Reducing any discussion to a variation of a credit card company tag line is rather platitudinous.

So I'll bring it back to the simple lot/block survey, and the client asked for temp corners for the purpose of building a fence. These points will be destroyed once the fence is built, but could easlily be re-established from the original monuments either direction from the client's lot.

What law, if any requires you to set something considered durable? What law, if any, requires you to file a RS or CR?

And a couple other questions based upon what you wrote:

Do you file a CR for any construction staking you do that is in any way referenced to a PL?

Why would you turn someone in to the County Surveyor for performing an illegal survey? The duties of the CS as defined by law do not include any authority to compel a surveyor to adhere to any particular practice. Nor does it include any punitive powers in this regard. Why would you expect the CS to do something about it rather than filing a complaint with BPELS?


Again, let me remind you, I am not telling you (at least at this point) what I do in my own practice, what you should do in your practice, and am not advocating filing a RS/CR or not filing. I'm just raising questions and asking you to present a defense for a position. I'm also not trying to pick a fight with you, so don't get riled up. Just consider it as an academic exercise that might hone your reasoning some.

I revised my original post this morning. I get ornery the later at night it is.

Anyway, towards the end of the edited post you'll see that I did get what your point is, so long as there exist monuments in place and all your doing is setting offsets or points on line.

However, if there isn't a monument at either end of that line, I think a Corner Record should be filed since your "re-establishing" that line on the ground.

Section 8772 states: "Any monument set by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer to mark or reference a point on a property or land line (there's that "land line" again but I digress) shall be permanently and visible marked or tagged with the certificate number or the surveyor or ________ setting it............."

I'll have to take time later to make a better argument. I wonder what the opinion of the Board is on this one?

Section 464(10)(c) says "The corner record shall be filed within 90 days from the date a corner was found, set, reset, or used as control in any survey........."

Section 464(10)(d) says "may" when talking about filing a Corner Record, so Evan "may" have a point! If you set a 2x2 at a missing corner, but there are no RS tiggers, you don't "have to" file a CR, but you "may"?

Read Section 464(10)(e). "a corner record may" is also stated. Is this something that needs to chage (I'm using the 2007 version since my 2009 is at home).

As for the County Surveyor: I know that there is nothing in the law about the County Surveyor enforces the rules. There's nothing in the Law about Principles and Practice Committee either. However, I feel personally those avenues should be exhausted first before you run to the Board and turn a fellow surveyor in for a perceived infraction. Doesn't that seem reasonable to you? Maybe there are extenuating circumstances we're not aware of that the Board might not be able to take into consideration?

What if you use the PPC or the CS to "hide" behind? What if by using the PPC and the CS you get the surveyor to file that RS, or start doing a more thorough job? He wins too, because he won't have a blemish on his record.

It's one thing if some contractor is out there doing survey work without a license, go ahead and just turn them in. But if it's someone who is licensed, I prefer to deal with it "in-house" if possible first, before heading to the State. I think it works out better in the end.

Greg,

If it is known that the points will last only a matter of days, or perhaps weeks, then it is known ahead of time that the points will not be permanent, regardless of what is set. So a reasonable argument can be made that §8772 does not apply as the law presumes that the point will remain to be available for observation by others, in which case the points' recorded pedigree can be of great help to the public.

I will concede that by the letter of the law as stated in §8772, that you are correct. But is the law black and white, or is there room for interpretation?

While a very literal reading of the law would appear to require a CR, does a record of a soon to be nonexistent monument fulfill the spirit of the law and serve the public, or does it simply harm your client financially by costing him more for an arguably worthless record? (or does the record of a soon to be nonexistent point actually have value?)

I would personally argue that a monument not found does not equate to a "monument FOUND to be of a different character" because it is by definition, not found.



Eric,

I understand getting cranky. If one has read many of my posts in the past, I can be seen going of in that direction more than occasionally.

Some CSs may see it as part of their function to be persuading errant surveyors to get in line with the law. Or they may view their position as being the best to provide friendly reminders to fellow professionals w/o fear of any backlash.

If the CS willingly fills that role, then that's probably a good route to go. I am in favor of working things out locally first and then going to BPELS if other options fail. But I wouldn't burden the CS with the expectation of some level of enforcement, or even of reminding someone else to do their professional duty if the CS doesn't see it as part of what their duties, because it really isn't. We have the same level of responsibility as the CS in that regard.

If there is a local PPC, I would go to them 1st. I think that in most places there is a PPC, the CS probably is or has been on it.

If you're concerned about being perceived as hiding behind the CS or the PPC, then talk to the other surveyor yourself first. That might strain any relationship you might have with that surveyor, but then it's all out in the open between you. But I don't think that using the PPC should be viewed that way.

Doesn't matter if temp. or not, if you establish a line on the ground or reference to a line on the ground, you must consider a R/S. We as a profession need to stop taking shortcuts on the filing of R/S or CR.

That is my soap box for the day.

This brings to mind the recent large and small subdivisions I've seen certain agencies allow of which the only monumentation on the map are street CL monuments. I'm guessing all the lots were "construction staked" for the fences after lot and street grading was complete.
Odds are 10 to 1 that Murphy's law will be invoked and a future sewer or water main project will be placed on CL in these subdivisions which will wipe out the few CL monuments, leaving nothing behind. Actually very likely being that the CL is the often the best place to put new utility trenches as they are out of the wheel path and pose the least conflict with other facilities.
Which reminds me of the difficulties we have today working in subdivisions from 100 yrs ago that had no monuments of record.
Are we going backward?

I'm late to this discussion, but I'm surprised to see that some surveyors don't recognize the legitimacy of setting construction stakes on or in reference to parcel lines or corners regardless of site conditions. In Evan's example of a lot with no §8762 issues, I don't see a problem with setting temporary points on property lines without filing any documentation if their purpose is truly temporary.

§8771 isn't applicable in this case, because it only applies to Records of Survey.

§8765(d) isn't applicable, in my opinion. This section uses the unfortunate phrase "property corners which are set or reset," which I interpret to mean "property corner monuments which are set or reset." Construction stakes aren't monuments; their purpose is to temporarily reference the location of a proposed improvement, and after construction they become irrelevant. If they happen to fall on a parcel line or corner, that doesn't change their intended use or ephemeral nature. As long as they're legitimate construction stakes, and not monuments disguised as construction stakes for the purpose of evading recording laws, it seems okay to me.

.

But in effect aren't you marking the line on the ground? And isn't the fence a form of monument?

And what will your client say in the court dispute over the fence? "That is where my surveyor said the line is!"

I am lucky, my county requires monuments at all corners of a parcel/lot within a subdivision prior to filing the final map.

Last question, Why risk you business over the filing of a corner record or a record of survey?

"But in effect aren't you marking the line on the ground?"

Only incidentally to my purpose of marking the location of proposed improvements. It's a construction staking job, not a boundary marking project.


"And isn't the fence a form of monument?"

It might be, once it gets built. But if it is, it's certainly not one that I set. I installed construction stakes for use by a contractor; the manner in which he ultimately uses with them is beyond my control.


"And what will your client say in the court dispute over the fence? "That is where my surveyor said the line is!""

The location of the parcel line isn't in dispute. If someone wants to relate the installed improvements to the parcel line, they can commission a surveyor to do so. I was hired to set construction stakes, not mark the boundary.


"I am lucky, my county requires monuments at all corners of a parcel/lot within a subdivision prior to filing the final map."

That would not be relevant to the situation Evan proposed, at least as I understand it. We're not dealing with a new subdivision, but one that's been in existence long enough for some of the lot corner marks to have been obliterated. However, sufficient monumentation of record exists to allow establishment of the parcel line in question without running afoul of §8762.


"Last question, Why risk you business over the filing of a corner record or a record of survey?"

In the situation described, I perceive no significant business or professional risk.

.

are staking, but given Evans scenario, I am staking the lot line(property line), and the owner can put that fence where ever the **** he wants.

I am surveying the west line of a lot that is 60 feet wide and 180 feet long. The line runs north and south. The rear monument is not in, nor is the front. I find the front and rear pipes that are 60 feet west and 60 feet east of my corner. I know that these are the pipes at the corners of the lots cause I got a map that says LS 1069 set them with his tag in them, and that's what I find. The map also says that there were supposed to be pipes at the ends of the line that I am staking but they are gone. Has anything changed here?

Section 8762(b)(1) states in part that a RS shall be filed if the survey discloses "material evidence or PHYSICAL CHANGE which in whole or part does not appear" on a whole bunch of different maps.

The only thing that I can think of that is described physically on these maps, especially subdivision maps and records of surveys are the character of the monuments-irons pipes with diameter and length, spikes and washers, brass discs and the like. The lots aren't labled "dirt lots" the streets are not labled "asphalt paved streets". Granted there are some maps that label dirt roads, gravel roads, creeks but from my experience viewing maps, those maps are very much in the minority.

The guide to the preparation of Records of Survey and Corner records prepared by the 1989 edition of the County Engineers Association of California talks about material evidence and physical change on page 20. This is their take on this.

It reads in part "The resetting of a previously recorded monument which has become dilapidated would not in and of itself require the filing a a new Record of Survey but merely a CORNER RECORD. As long as the purpose and functional identity of the previously recorded monument is maintained by the new monument, and as long as the record (of the monument) is not abrogated(now there's a 6 bit word) by the new monument, there would be no need for a new Record of Survey."

"In regard to monuments, physical change would include discovery of any evidence pertinent to a monument(except as discussed above) which DIFFERS from the PREVIOUS EXISTING RECORD OF SAID MONUMENT."

The monuments at my corners are not dilapidated, they aren't even there. So does my survey discover any evidence pertinent to previous existing record of said monument? I think it does but I am sure that some surveyors don't think so cause they are performing construction staking and nothing else, I guess. I'll be damned if I know what they are doing. The pipes ain't there and the record says it is. Has anything changed regarding the record?

The survey that I performed in Evan's scenario disclosed physical change with the record. Whether I set anything at the corners or not, it doesn't change this fact. I can set 3 foot by 3 foot offsets-iron pipes and tags-and the pipes may stay there. I can set a 1 foot offset iron pipe and tag on the pl prod north and south of the ends of this line, and they will probably stay, who knows.

And this is not a complex survey, so the CR that would be filed would have 4 dark circles and two open circles, eveything is record and measured, take me about an hour to draw the sketch, make copies of the underlying tract map, put some stamps on the envelope. And I am not goin' back out there to set anything else. I told you guys what I found, what I set, and see ya. Good Luck, and I wonder what I have missed in this post? (if you think that surveying is expensive and the cost of preparing a record of survey map is expensive, wait till you start talking to attorneys. Those folks can eat through 100K in a heartbeat).

Nothing changes if nothing changes.

Bruce, that's my point. CR are cheap. I do not understand saving a nickel when it might cost me $100

"It's a construction staking job, not a boundary marking project."
So why survey it at all? put the fence wherever ya want.

"I installed construction stakes for use by a contractor; the manner in which he ultimately uses with them is beyond my control."
Not if you write 3.00' o/s to P/L on the lath.

"If someone wants to relate the installed improvements to the parcel line, they can commission a surveyor to do so. I was hired to set construction stakes, not mark the boundary."
If your not a surveyor, and your setting "construction stakes" for the purposes of building a fence on a property line, your practicing without a license.


I know you all are dissecting the legal literal translations of the law. But where does the business side of product value get lost? Give the client something of value for the money he spends. Even if you find 2 corners marked and your only staking one line, set your tag somewhere it will last, file the CR and give your client something of value.

Bruce, I agree 4 dots on an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet with a few notes and be done. More and more c/l monuments are being destroyed by street and infrastructure repairs. A CR is value to the client and to the rest of the surveyors.

As Evan pointed out, the discussion isn't about individual business practices, but rather what's allowed under the law. The original post stated that setting temporary corner marks is illegal under any circumstances, and my responses have been aimed at pointing out the fallacy of that statement.

.

seemed to indicate to me that the monuments at the ends of the lot line were non-existent, and the surveyor was gonna set temporary corners. The survey therefore disclosed physical change which didn't appear anywhere.

If the corners had existing monuments at them, and there was a record of them, and everything seemed to fit okay in the x and y realm, temporary corners and line stakes are fine and no record is required. I wouldn't even tag the temporary corners or line stakes. Waste of a few good tags.

If the landowner wanted to destroy the existing monuments at the corner that are "held in common" with his neighbors, let him. If he doesn't want to pay me or someone else to reset them, that's his hook, not mine.

And you folks can figure out who was the first to start the talk about money and business.

Thanks, very well said Bruce. It is all rather simple is it not?

I think what Bruce said, is what I'm saying. However, are some of you saying that if the corners aren't there (at the ends of the lot) but only the block corners (no material discrepancies), you'd still set temp points? We're assuming that the block corners show on a Official Map, Record of Survey or Subdivision Map and so do the Lot corners (I didn't say monuments!).

Danner: No a CR is not required. Nothing has changed.

Gromatici: How do I know I am at the corner if there is no monument representing that point on the land? I think that I'll just start here!!

A corner record SHALL be filed in cases where a Record of Survey is not required per 8765(d) when the survey is a retracement of lines shown on a subdivision map, official map or record of survey, where no material discrepancies with such record are found and sufficient monumentation is recovered to accurately locate the record corner positions and ANY PROPERTY CORNERS SET, reset or found to be of a different character than indicated by prior records are shown thereon. (8765(d))

I "found nothing" at the corner instead of the one inch iron pipe tagged LS 1069 as shown on the Tract Map, that would not be of a different character as the record?!!

I am editing this thing. No, "found nothing" at the corner has nothing to do with different character cause as Evan said, "It wasn't found."