California Surveyors Forums

Scenario:

-presented with an ALTA (2007) of a site with no topo
-asked to provide topo for the site so civil dept can do some grading (no boundary determination)

Problem:

-ALTA surveyor should have done a Record of Survey
-civil department is planning to use a combination of ALTA and my topo for grading plans

Moral Dilemma:

-The procedure on the ALTA is weak at best and should require a ROS
-The contract is purely civil but I am doing the field work (no boundary determination)
-I know that a proper boundary will need to be performed prior to construction staking, probably by me, but there is no boundary resolution necessary for my scope as of this date

My Idea:

-Do the topo and include a full boundary determination in the construction staking contract. This would appease my client and allow for the proper filing of a ROS in the end. I am hesitant, however, to knowingly allow the civil department to use a poor boundary for the design of the project. I am also aware of the potential problems down the road if my boundary resolution doesn’t reasonably match the ALTA. I’m stuck.

Any ideas?

I would tell the client that the boundary determination was poor and that if they use your topographic data with the previous boundary determination there could be costly redesign down the road. The decision is in the hands of the client. If they want to cut corners now and not get an adequate boundary survey that is their own decision to make. Just make sure that its perfectly clear to them that when you do the boundary down the road there could be a substantially different boundary resolution. Usually when my clients understand that possibility, they want to order the boundary now, no one wants surprises down the road.

I agree with Dylan. Letting the client of know of possible problems would be considered informed consent. It would be the same as staking a line for a property owner who you know is going to build a wall but not telling them that the footings for the wall must also be on their property. If you do not tell them and something goes bad, you could be blamed for knowing such a thing but not revealing it. Especially since it is now on this forum.

For some reason, this thread restarted with the opening post of another thread with identical name which has several responses already.

Dylan's and Bryan's responses fit in with the consensus on the other thread.

Well, back in the day (I mean WAY BACK...70's-80's), that was always a problem I had (with ALTA's that is). For some reason, because it was an "ALTA", more than a few were of the opinion, that all bets were off with respect to LS Act requirements. Glad to here CA. is so stable in it's ideology....lol