California Surveyors Forums

I seem to recall action taken for a surveyor not showing encroachments on a record of survey. I may be mis remembering this. I have gone throught the bulletins I have, numbers 25-32 and I cannot find a reference for this. I would appreciate any help with this that can be offered.

Thanks for your help

Dane, maybe you're thinking of a court case where this was done relative to a subdivision map and the surveyor bought it for failing to show a utility easement or some such thing.

Otherwise, wouldn't it boil down to what was contractully agreed upon? The PLS Act as it pertains to Records of Surveys Act only requires that to be shown which is "applicable consistent with the purpose of the survey", paraphrased from the opening sentence of section 8764.

This is a good case for providing a note on the survey indicating the purpose or the focus of the survey, or conversely what it's not intended to represent. I think once you open up that can of worms and start showing easements, when maybe the client didn't even request it, you may be setting yourself up for needing to show all of them. It would seem good practice to state the limited purpose of the survey.

Dave Ryan

in the 70's a tract of homes were built in Orange, Ca.

After the homes were sold one homeowner opted to have a pool put in.
The pool company found a irrigation pipe, checked the title report and map and no easement so they tool out the pipe. Couple of days later the pool was filled, before it was finished.

Turned out the title company missed a old and still active irrigation easement.

Oops.

"D. Respondent's Record of Survey failed to show that any existing lines of
occupation were located or considered in evaluating the location of property lines.
The survey failed to discuss accepted property lines by means of evidence of
existing improvements. The survey specifically failed, for instance, to show and consider an existing rence between lots 18 and 19."

This is from a 2010 action, almost hot off the press.
BTW how did you find this?

"E. Respondent's Record of Survey failed to show sufficient evidence to demonstrate the conclusions arrived at and delineated therein."

E is of interest as well.

Thanks very much

I remembered reading this one for a couple of reasons.
1. The surveyor is local, although I have never met him.
And
2. I personally have an issue with
"G. Respondent's Record of Survey failed to show existing easements."

Dave

If I deliver an ALTA to my client and a Record of Survey to the County Surveyor showing my method of establishment of the boundary, I do not believe I am required to show all of the items included in the ALTA on the Record of Survey, only the boundary related items, which may or may not include the easements.

If a client requests a topographic survey, and I file a Record of Survey with the County Surveyor showing how I established the boundary, I agree that easements need to be shown on the topographic map delivered to the client, but do not agree that they need to be shown on the ROS.

A record of survey need not consist of a survey of an entire property, so where does 8764 (or elsewhere) say I have to show all easements on a map I am filing to show method of boundary establishment only?

I do not have sufficient knowledge of the above case to know that item "G" was not appropriate.

What I am saying was that at first read that statement raised issues for me.

Hypothetical ATLA

Commercial property, the one the ALTA is being done for, sits ~15ft lower than adjacent commercial prop. At the top of slope on adjoiners prop is a concrete V ditch parallel to the property line.
A section of this V ditch is blown out and has caused serious erosion on ALTA property.

Q. Would you delineate this blow out and erosion on the ALTA?

Dane,

Below is the address for "Final Disciplinary Decisions since 2006" on PELSG website.

http://www.pels.ca.gov/consumers/acc-disc_list.shtml

They also have a bunch of cases prior to June 2007 which go back as far as the 1990's on the site under: http://www.pels.ca.gov/consumers/enforc ... sciplinary

I've attached another case you may be interested in and I know I've read other cases on the site which had similar actions taken. I just don't have the time to discover them at the moment.

land butcher wrote:Hypothetical ATLA

Commercial property, the one the ALTA is being done for, sits ~15ft lower than adjacent commercial prop. At the top of slope on adjoiners prop is a concrete V ditch parallel to the property line.
A section of this V ditch is blown out and has caused serious erosion on ALTA property.

Q. Would you delineate this blow out and erosion on the ALTA?

As it affects the usefulness and the value of the property, a surveyor would be negligent or something worse to not show the problem. Especially on an ALTA, considering the basic uses of one.

LB Presented and asked:

"Hypothetical ATLA

Commercial property, the one the ALTA is being done for, sits ~15ft lower than adjacent commercial prop. At the top of slope on adjoiners prop is a concrete V ditch parallel to the property line.
A section of this V ditch is blown out and has caused serious erosion on ALTA property.

Q. Would you delineate this blow out and erosion on the ALTA?"


SJ responded:

"As it affects the usefulness and the value of the property, a surveyor would be negligent or something worse to not show the problem. Especially on an ALTA, considering the basic uses of one."


I agree with Mr. Johnson on this.