California Surveyors Forums

I did not read anywhere in 66498 that states the owner (present or former) is responsible for the setting of the monument. It does say the legislative body may direct a replacement. Isn't that the purpose of a "Monument Bond", to protect the public from this situation. I read and interpret the City needs to arrange for this monument to be set. The City took the Monument Bond, they have the money and by 66498 they are given the authority to direct a replacement to set said monument. I guess the new owner can take the lead and contract you to set and Amend the map or submit a Certificate of Correction, but he certainly should not be forced to. And he better get the Monument Bond if he does decide to take the lead.

The previous owner did pay for it in the form of a bond to the City. If his surveyor had set the monuments and been paid for doing so, the City should have released the bond. Having retained the bond, it is now the City's responsibility to set the monument or hire someone to do it.

In our jurisdiction, in addition to the monument security (which is cash, not a bond), we require the subdivider to enter into a contract (part of the subdivision improvement agreement). Does this City? If so, they should enforce their contract and have the subdivider hire a new surveyor, set the monument, file CL ties notes and file the Certificate of Correction to reflect the new PLS's tag on the monument. Owner should ask the City Building Official to show him under what authority in the Building Code they can ask for a survey monument on a building permit.

So many laws, so few educated govt employees.

Time to educate the City involved. I like starting at the top, like City Manager or at a City Council meeting.

City council meetings are nice because there is almost always a local newspaper reporter there. :)

Have your client tell the City to do whatever they want with the building permit, but just leave him out of it.

If there is one, look at any documents that may have been signed by the previous owner with the city in which the "developer, his successors or assigns" is on the hook for improvements. Perhaps that is what the city is relying on. If so, it seems like this should of been disclosed to the buyer. Perhaps it was?

I'd be contacting the RE agent if one was involved and the title company.