California Surveyors Forums

This has been somewhat perplexing to me:

I'm looking at this old road description going back to 1888. My client's parcel fronts the road for about 1500 feet, a county maintained country road.

Evidence was compiled as follows:

1. ROS from 1963 re-traced the 1888 survey and set a pipe in the road centerline extended from an old fence line occupying the boundary of a deed from 1866, as was called out in the 1888 survey. Later, a 1994 ROS finds a nail in this general location and holds it as the 1963 pipe based on a spike he found further up the road where a pipe was supposed to be set in 1963, mathmatical fit. I found the nail from the 1994 survey, another nail three feet away, dug them both up and lo and behold no pipe.

2. Two deeds from 1950s call out pipes on the edge of the road, tag numbers too, opposite my side. I found them.

3. ROS from 1974 calls these 1950s deed pipes off by 3 feet and sets spikes at then (and now) centerline of road showing slight changes in bearing every few hundred feet. The 1888 survey called for a straight bearing through this region. I cannot find any evidence pointing to the reason why the 1974 ROS called off the 1950s deed pipes.

4. There is no way based on the evidence found to reconcile the monuments found with the 1888 survey.


I am thinking as follows:

1. The nails found are not the pipe set in the 1963 ROS. Period.
2. The 1950s deed pipes fit each other well and occupy their true position, that being the edge of the road as called out per the deeds.
3. The road cannot meander like a water boundary. The road is fixed. The 1950s deed pipes (edge of road in the 1950s and presumably the 1880s) hold senior to the 1974 spikes and the bearing holds singular in the spirit of the 1888 survey instead of being broken up per the 1974 spikes.
4. Everything fits better when I call both nails off, hold the 1950s deed pipes, and maintain as close as possible the angular relationships and distance calls from the 1888 survey. I call the nails off by 3' and 1' respectively, and call the spikes off by 0.5' at the most. This solution also fits occupation.


So. Provided all possible evidence has been gathered, are there holes in my logic?


I will be filing a Record of Survey for this.

I have always found that the older the monument, the better it fits.

FYI, a section of PCH the c/l was remonumented with punched spikes in the 80's and the ties set in the 50's and 60's were, according to the results of my field work, ignored. A Caltrans employee at their district office in white shirt and tie stated, "well the spike is over a 1/2 in dia so anywhere on the spike is close enough for any surveyor".
I held the spks for CL as they fit the perpendicular distance to the ties but called their c/l BC off by about a tenth along c/l and held the ties.
insert bang head emicon here.

Found something similar, but worse in Long Beach.

Clark, This would be an excellent opportunity to enlist the advice of your Chapter PPC. Give them something to look at over their pizza! Another reason for Chapters to have a PPC.

what do the deeds and adjoining deeds convey? Just because someone filed a RS, doesn't mean they did their homework.

As one of my mentors said to me, "Your work has just begun."

.

I had that coming Ian. Thanks!

And Rob, I know what a PC is, a PCC is, a POC, a PT, a PRC, but what the hell is a PPC?

"The road cannot meander like a water boundary. The road is fixed."

Well, that depends somewhat, IMO. What exactly does the deed say about the road? Is it a boundary? if so, at what point did it first appear in the deed work as a boundary?

Was the RW defined in 1888 by map and/or by actual survey? Was the road monumented in 1888 and are any of those monuments still existing or reliably perpetuated? How often has the road been rebuilt/resurfaced?

You say that you have a road description from 1888. How is it described; does it have specific dimensions, calls for bounds, specific width?

Sometimes throughout the years, a road tends to move a little this way or that each time it's resurfaced, or in some parts of this state, each time the earth shakes. If not otherwise reliably monumented, the road itself, regardless of how it may have shifted a few tenths this way or that, as it exists when you find it, is the best evidence of where it was originally (subject to any old road improvement plans which may have been created and show otherwise over the intervening years).

In that way, a road may "meander", or actually be somewhat ambulatory, like a water boundary. In your case, it seems like the pipes you found from the 50s may be the best evidence of the road's original location. If the 1974 provides no foundation for rejecting them, I'd put more credence in the older points until and unless evidence to the contrary is found.

But, it doesn't seem like you've got enough of anything at this point to hang your opinion on, so like Ian said, "Your work has just begun."

Have fun.

PPC = Pizza Party Cabal


or

Professional Practices Committee

These comments are most welcome and appreciated.


As for the road, it was surveyed in 1888 and there were calls to trees, building corners, fences, etc. The Board of Supervisors then adopted the road at 40 feet wide. Along our stretch of road, there was the lone fence corner call that the 1963 ROS noted and set a pipe in that location, pipe now gone.


The deed pipes I referred to earlier are actually called out in the westerly adjoiner to the 1974 map. The parent deeds to this westerly adjoiner call to the edge of the road.

Interestingly, the parent deeds to the 1974 map call to the centerline of the road. Aha.

Both the 1974 map and parent deed and the adjoiner deeds originate from the same parent parcel. The adjoiner deeds with my pipes are senior to the 1974 map and its parent deed.

Interesting.

Right now 75% hold deed pipes to 25% hold 1974 map.

Per CC 831 and CCP 2077(4) the call for the edge of the road is a call to the centerline, exceptions as noted.

831. An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to
own to the center of the way, but the contrary may be shown.

2077. Section Two Thousand and Seventy-seven. . . . .
Four--When a road, or stream of water not navigable, is the
boundary, the rights of the grantor to the middle of the road or the
thread of the stream are included in the conveyance, except where the
road or thread of the stream is held under another title.

Propst, I am digging up just that. One parcel calls to the edge of the road. The adjoining parcel calls to the center of the road.

The parent parcel to all called to the center of the road, then broke off one portion calling to the edge of the road, and then broke off another leaving the call to the center of the road.

My retracement sees a conflict between the adjoiners about prior surveyors' opinions as to where the road was.

Still digging.

LOL And your bid was how much.

Ha, the fee never seems enough. Dammit!

I'm lucky the parcels only changed hands a few times since the original rancho subdivision. I'm more stuck wrestling with it in my head than actually working on it.

Cheers.

There is a rebutable presumption that descriptions which call to the edge of a dedicated road convey to the center of the street. It is not reasonable to assume that the subdivider would actively work to retain fee ownership of a completely encumbered & unusable strip of land.

Well, turns out the old 1974 ROS was done by a mentor of mine, and this mentor chained for the 1963 ROS. I paid him a visit today.

It's all resolved. I'm holding my solution, the deed pipes, rejecting the nail, and filing it away.