California Surveyors Forums

I feel your angst and pain.

I have heard thru the grapevine that there are more CR's for lot surveys, here in the OC, that show record and measured for the bearings and distances on these surveys. I usually don't bother with CR's any more for lot surveys, but then again, RS's are map checking free in this county. The free checking is not a valid reason for kicking back a CR for a few hundreths or a tenth or two even. BWTFDIK.

If it is any help to ya, the "Guide to the Preparation of Records of Survey and Corner Records" dated 1989 has on page 21 a definition. This was prepared by Lou Hall of San Diego County, Art Varon of Ventura County and revised by John Canas of Orange County for the County Engineers Association of California Here it is.

"Material discrepancy" would be any discrepancy in dimensions or positions occurring between the current survey and a survey or prior record such that alternate or varying conclusions or interpretations might arise between the two. Factors such as the date(s) of the survey(s), the survey methods and equipment contemporary with said date(s), land values and the requirements of the survey(s), would combine to determine the seriousness of the discrepancy, at which time a professional judgment would be rendered to dictate the subsequent course of action."

So figure out what that means in hundreths and tenths and you are "IN LIKE FLINT".

About 25 years or so, ago, A well reputed County Surveyor explained to me that "a corner record was the representation of replacing a corner of record which had been obliterated or damaged, to the position where it was most likely set, originally"

If this definition makes sense, then it certainly may be very appropriate to prorate a position between two original found monuments.

The counterpoint to this, is the argument that no one knows where an "original" error may have taken place, therfore the prorated position may actually be a discrepancy.
Of course, I beleive this argument to be weak.

Having once been in the same position that you are in now, I chose to take measurements between several found monuments which were set on the same tract. An average error ratio was determined, and it was discovered that the prorated position for replacement fit closely within that ratio.

In my case, the original tract was surveyed using transit and chain. Both angular and linear ratios were considered.

In short, a corner record was duly filed.

Not sure if this helps, but for my client, it saved a bundle of ROS checking fees.

"good"

Ken: I think the County staff has made an astute observation.
I think that a simple request to file the Corner Records as is would be the correct response.

The observation is nothing more than that... unless there is some sort of directive included. Nice to see that they are looking but not their place to refuse to file the documents that you submitted.

This is a continual difficulty we have with some people going beyond the mandated/permitted review of survey documents. Let us know the result of your interactions with them.

Ken, if you want them to record the corner records they must do so, but this will involve a note from the county survey and your response. Perhaps this is something the Board ought to weigh in on and help everyone get on the same page on this issue. On the surface, proration does not seem a reason to invalidate filing a corner record. There is an exception for a lost PLSS corner.

8773. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 8773.4,
a person authorized to practice land surveying in this state shall
complete, sign, stamp with his or her seal, and file with the county
surveyor or engineer of the county where the corners are situated, a
written record of corner establishment or restoration to be known as
a "corner record" for every corner established by the Survey of the
Public Lands of the United States, except "lost corners," as defined
by the Manual of Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands of
the United States, and every accessory to such corner which is found,
set, reset, or used as control in any survey by such authorized
person.
(b) After the establishment of a lost corner, as defined by the
Manual of Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands of the
United States, a record of survey shall be filed as set forth in
Section 8764.

In this case a corner record would not be acceptible and the local agency would NOT be overstepping their bounds by asking for a record of survey.

The use of proration in itself does not mean that a material discrepancy exists. Are you prorating out a few tenths or hundredths, or are you prorating several feet? Is the property high dollar metropolitan or relatively low value rural? What quantities of land are in the affected properties?

The answers to those questions, and your own professional judgment will determine whether or not a material discrepancy exists, or whether there may be a materially different alternate position by using a different method, like holding record distance from one mon. If the difference is insignificant, but you prorated between found mons to reset another, where's the RS trigger? I don't recall anything in §8762(b) that mentions proration.

§464 says nothing of proration either. Method of reestablishment is simply not a valid issue. The issues to consider are in §8762.

Evan,

Wow! I need to congratulate you on your 1,000th post! I really appreciate and value you insightful comments and opinions. Keep it up...

There is no mention of proration, but it is the method described in the Manual to be used when a corner is LOST. I was just pointing out that there is/are RULE/S that relate to requiring a record of survey when proration is involved.

Dane,

If you were to say that because the Manual only presribes proportionate measure when reestablishing a position of a lost corner, and that further, state law says that an RS must be filed when reestalishing a lost corner, I can see the logic, but I think it sets conditions which may not be true.

The manual does not address private corners at all. If the points reestablished are lot corners of a PM or subdivision, then you are arguably using adjacent monuments as witness corners.

§8765(d) states "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."

It says nothing of method. I don't think that because the Manual only mentions this method to reestablish lost PLSS corners, that you can make the jump that it can only be used for lost corners and that the use of proration is indicative of a lost corner and thus requires an RS, regardless of the absence of any other RS trigger.

If you have 3 positions in a row, and the mon for the middle has been destroyed, isn't propration a valid method, and one of the first that you will utilize to check the position of the missing monument, and reset it if need be? Aren't you in effect utilizing the adjacent monuments as witness points in this method?

I see nothing in CA law that requires an RS based upon methodology.

Evan, I gave a very specfic and narrow example of when a record of survey IS required under Ca. Law, where proration would be the method to re-establish a lost corner.
I disagree sort of.... The statement is that when you replace a Lost PLSS Corner. You are correct that the rules does not state "when you use proration you will file a record of survey"....It is not my point to claim that when you use proration you will file a record of survey. My point is that the ACT points to the replacing of a lost corner, as described in the MANUAL, as a specific instance where a corner record will not suffice and a record of survey is required. Since we are speaking of a lost corner as described in the manual, I would suggest careful consideration be given as to WHAT the Manual describes AS the method of re-setting LOST corners. If the corner is indeed LOST, then proration is method. One needs to be certain, that this method applies to their circumstances. There are so many factors, that a blank statement is impossible, but the ACT speaks for itself and I believe my reaing of it is fair and accurate. Again, we quibble over distinctions without a difference.

I am not addressing the broader question of what happens when the public lands are patented out to private ownership, but I am sure you would agree that there are times when the land is held by patentees and those patentees have relied on the original government survey and the monuments of that orginal survey and that equity WOULD require reliance on methods described in the manual as the proper method to re-set a LOST corner.

I am well aware that the manual is a GUIDE ONLY in terms of boundaries that are now private.

Further the corner is NOT LOST if it can be restored by someother mehtod than proration.

So again, I am speaking in the narrowest of terms.

So Ken are you restoring lost PLSS corners or is your survey just a lot and block somehwere, where you needed to prorate?

"Again, we quibble over distinctions without a difference."

Possibly so.

Thanks for your clarification.

This reminds me of a County I dealt with about 20 years ago. 1sec in bearing or 0.01ft was a material discrepancy to them and those B&Ds had to be shown on the map. At the time nobody in the map checking dept was a LS or RCE.

One case was a old line about 2600ft to a Oak Tree. IIRC I had to put 10 to 15 record B&D's on that line. DUH.

Sounds like the eastern County Recorder that refused a RS because the B&Ds were not the same as in her GIS so the field survey map had to be wrong.

Lack of educated map checkers. I used to laugh when I would go to a city for BM info and their "Engineering Asst" didn't know what a BM or C/L ties were.

I would like to see what happens. I do agree with Evan. As far as I know, there is no requirement for type of filing (record of survey/corner record)based solely upon method of establishment.

Sounds pretty basic, and seems perfectly fine to be a CR.

It sounds like he considers any difference from record to be material which is not correct. Any alternate position is totally immaterial.

Ken:
It is time for the person that you are discussing this with to consider some Continuing Education. It seems that Land Surveying as practiced in most of California is not well understood... or parhaps there is another issue we don't know of.
Have him/her me a call. This should not be all that difficult.
Peter 928-499-9540

Excellent response, Ken. I think that you explained "material discrepancy" well.

Well I thought I would put my 2 cents in on the matter and explain my way of thinking about it. I find that proration is an immaterial discrepancy since the land is distributed by a simultaneous conveyance. The way that I believe it to be is that by distributing the land proportionately to that which is own is actually not creating a discrepancy at all. Instead, you are allowing for those errors which may have occurred at the original time of survey based upon the equipment and technology available to the surveyor when the map was originally recorded. Sure, if a street has been re-aligned or things have drastically changed then I do believe a Record of Survey is in order. I think that many people out there are confusing discrepancy with disparity.

Actually, proration gets the monument closest to its original position if the errors of the original survey actually were distributed evenly. Sometimes that was the case (maybe they were working with a chain that was too long or too short), and sometimes it wasn't the case. But with a lack of sufficient evidence supporting different placement, proration is the tool of choice.

I think the key issue in a case like this, regardless of method employed, is whether or not the discrepancy (or disparity, if you prefer) between measured an record is significant (the determination of which, as Ken explained, is dependent upon several factors), or if there are one or omore reasonable alternate positions that could be determined.

Something like the road being realigned would fall under §8762(b)(1) Material evidence or physical change...

You are not prorating. You are establishing at record distance by comparing your "chain" to the original surveyor's chain.

Dave,

As Dane described it in an earlier post, "we quibble over distinctions without a difference".

By definition, a distance is the numerical description of how far apart objects are. Since no measurement is exact, some surveyors will have a different description for the same length. By calibrating our measurement to a known recorded description we are able to reset the monument at the same length as the original surveyor. It is the length that we are attempting to duplicate, not the description of that length.

If you look in the thread here: http://www.californiasurveyors.org/clsa ... 094&page=2

Mike Pallamary posted the CEAC Record of Survey and Corner Record guideline. In that PDF is the attached sample boundary corner record. You could use this to show the county you're dealing with that proportioning is allowed on CR's and in fact is used as a sample in the guidelines.

was reset in the CEAC guidelines was surrounded by what appears to be ALL of the nearest pipes at the nearest corners. Also the difference in distances to the nearest corners is but two hundredths.

It is not like this corner that is being re-established is in the middle of a 700 foot long block-where the distance from one intersection to another is "off by half a foot", which is not uncommon.

And nothing is found anywhere at the fronts or backs of the lots in this 700 foot long block, and then the proportion or proration takes place from the found centerline intersections. That would make a two or three tenths move for the position of the lot corners in the middle of the block verses the record.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with proportioning a 700 foot block and having the vehicle to record this survey being a Corner Record.
But some might and have in the past, at least here in my neck of the pavement. And I am not the County Surveyor either.

It is just that the apple that exists in the CEAC guidelines in Irvine, Ca. may not be the same type of apple in Humbolt or Foster City or wherever.

PS Just reread Kwilsons post and his survey to me doesn't seem like a big deal, that proportioning is a good way to go, unless something else is going on, and that a CR if a perfect document to record the survey with. BWTFDIK