Architectural plans showing Prop Lines

[LS 4722]

Someone should put a halt to this. They are not licensed or qualified to label anything on their site plans as property line..

Just did two surveys in less than a week. Both were caused by architectural plans that were just plain wrong.

The architect on one is claiming that it's the contractors problem that the garage did not fit by 18". All the contractor did was start his layout from the defined point on the architects plans..and now the poor guy has all this extra cost to deal with.

When is this blatant violation of the LS act going to stop? If an architect uses walls ( don't they all ) then dammit! label the lines on the site plans as wall lines and quit calling them out as property lines.

So...when is the Board going to do something about this???

[Ric7308]

Soon as you provide us with all the information that we need so we can contact the Architect(s) and educate them.

[btaylor]

It is a strange practice with some, how they show dimensions to property lines, when they are really showing a dimension to some place on a fence line that supports their addition in relation to setbacks. I see this on plans (in the Bay Area in San Mateo County) that are from the 80s or older, but not much anymore. They have learned to put plus/minus, or put "surveyor to verify" for the most part.

At least up here though, an architect cannot get away with this. First, most cities will demand a survey to prove existing setbacks if the situation appears to be anywhere close. Second, a contractor is not going to be able to have a foundation without a certification letter beforehand.

[LS 4722]

Soon as you provide us with all the information that we need so we can contact the Architect(s) and educate them.

I have a some PDF's of the site and an as built that I did that brought everything out in the open.

Sorry about the bold red underlined italics question...Long day yesterday.

I can email what I have.

These guys are hurting more than helping.

As an aside, for the board to call a couple of architects and tell them that making a call on a site plan for a property line is a no-no wont help much in the big picture.

[LS 4722]

....At least up here though, an architect cannot get away with this. First, most cities will demand a survey to prove existing setbacks if the situation appears to be anywhere close. Second, a contractor is not going to be able to have a foundation without a certification letter beforehand.

Bryan.. the problem I see is that the plans can go through a city check and nothing is said about an architect labeling a line as 'property line'. It's after plan check and when a project goes into construction that a survey is required and the home owner then gets impacted by the architects practice.

I wish that the board would get it across to all of the citys in the state that any architectural plan being submitted for plan check that does not have survey support for the boundary should not be accepted in the first place.

[dmi]

sounds like the perfect thing for a local PPC. The process is a continual education process. Most local agencies will correct their actions when it is brought to their attention.

[Ric7308]

Paul,

Yes, an email to Ric.moore@dca.ca.gov would be fine.

As an aside, for the board to call a couple of architects and tell them that making a call on a site plan for a property line is a no-no wont help much in the big picture.

When I mentioned "...and educate them" that implied multiple different methods :)

Earlier this year (around February I believe) I was asked to participate in a panel, along with representatives from the Contractors and Architects boards, at a conference for Building Officials from across the state. I took this opportunity to express common situations occurring across the state in regards to requests for building permits. These situations included unauthorized and improper representation of property boundaries (e.q. architect or engineer plans not based on a survey by authorized practioners, approximate corners or property lines, record property lines, etc.). Some were appreciative of the offered advice while others were less enthusastic. We were approached later by a couple of individuals that had additional questions and appreciated knowing that they had the board(s) backing when dealing with permit applications and the lack of proper boundary representation.

The Architects Board has two licensees operating as consultants (in a similar role as what I and Howard before me performed) that in my opinion are very experienced in both the actual practice and understanding the authorized practice. They are both on board with the issues that Paul has brought up in this thread and welcome assisting BPELSG with any related complaint cases.

We hope that by growing our relationship with both the Architects' and Contractors' boards, everyone will benefit.

[LS 4722]

WOW! That's a major change from the last time we talked about this, what, maybe 4 years ago?

It's really good to know that something positive is taking place..last discussion we had you spoke of the great resistance to a change.

[Stephen Johnson]

Dane,

That hasn't been my experience. Many don't think they have to obey the black letter law that is specifically targeted at a particular agency.

Ask Mike Pallamary.

[E_Page]

A few weeks ago, as I was searching for something else on the internet, I came across an article that was published in either the architect's or the contracor's Board newsletter about this very issue. Whichever Board it was, they were warning their licencees that representing property lines was outside of their practice, and advised them to hire a surveyor to do it.

I found it quite supportive of the value of surveying. Did you write that one Ric?

[E_Page]

Paul,

Obviously you got it all wrong. Can't you see in the arky plan that all the walls are parallel and perpendicular to the long property line?!? And he has all those measurements to the nearest inch on all sides of the house to the property lines and shows those other walls right on it. He must have been reeeeaaaalllllyyyy careful when he designed that site.


oh yeah... [/sarcasm]

[Ric7308]

Evan,

I am not sure exactly which one you are referring to. Here are recent CSLB publications that pertain to BPELSG:

9/27/11: http://www.cslb.ca.gov/GeneralInformation/Newsroom/IndustryBulletins/IndustryBulletins2011/IndustryBulletin20110927.asp

Summer 2012: http://www.cslb.ca.gov/Newsletter/2012-Summer/CLC%20Summer%202012.pdf

Earlier this year, The Architects Board sent out a letter to Building Officials that they asked us to review also that may have included some of what you recall.

[Ric7308]

It's really good to know that something positive is taking place..last discussion we had you spoke of the great resistance to a change.

Paul, sometimes a little dulling of the contact points help to reduce the resistance. :)

[land butcher]

I was asked to provide a fee for establishing a sideline Pl and setback certification for a existing house expansion. The min side yard setback is 5ft.

This was in a tract of homes with fences at/near the PLs.

After meeting with the arch and preparing a proposal the arch found out that if he reduced the expansion so that the sideline clearance was 6ft on the plans instead of 5ft the city did not require a sideline cert.

It didn't make sense to me or him but it saved the homeowners money.

I know of 2 houses on my street that were enlarged without the benefit of a survey.

[E_Page]

Ric,

I probably ran across both of those and melded the memory together since then - each having a similar message and talking to contractors, I must have jammed the info away into the same mental file.

[MikeTurnrose]

Myself and another guy in our CLSA chapter are trying to set up a talk at one of the local architects associations to discuss this very matter--probably not until next year. We're hoping to educate some local architects on this matter.

I'm tired of seeing these from architects and designers and engineers. I was just looking at one where the proposed ag structure was to be quite a ways (180') from the fence (or the P/L as the site plan shows.) It's a 40 acre parcel. There is no note about a survey, etc, but the PL is noted all the way around.

In defense of the preparers of site plans, if the proposed additions and/or buildings are significantly far from the min. setbacks (like the one I just noted), it would be a waste of money to have a survey done in those type of cases. However, this site plan notes a PL location. That's not right. If architects, engineers, etc. are going to draw up a site plan, they should label the fences (if any) and make no representation of the PL. They should note that a survey may be required to verify setbacks.

In Paul's case, there is a clear violation.

As Bryan noted above, you don't see too many site plans drawn without a survey in the Bay Area. I still see some, though. Most cities and counties there have requirements in place. However, I see quite a bit of site plans in the Central Valley that were not done from a survey.

[jcoffey]

I had to laugh and cry reading this thread because so many times, even AFTER the architects hire us to produce a topographic and boundary survey, and we deliver it to them in CAD, PDF, and on paper, they send us their site plan a few months later and it still has their faked-in property lines on it. Often wrong location, wrong lengths, and if there are any arcs, forget it.

Oh, and a couple of weeks ago we received a site plan from an architect who DID use our file as a background (woo-hoo!) and needed us to stake the building. We discovered they had SCALED UP our survey by 0.1% so that their designed building footprint would fit inside the setbacks on the site plan they submitted to the City. "Design encroches into the setback 2 inches? Oh we can fix that. Problem solved."

[Ric7308]

John,

Based on what you have stated in both cases, I believe that negligence may come into play on the licensed Architect's part.

Feel free to send info in on these and we will see what we can do.

[LS 4722]

Did you get Linda's Email?

PS

Ok...just read my email. Thanks Ric I told her you would steer
her in the right direction.

[geoshale]

Today I had a guy at the counter who wanted to know where his PL started. Looked up the street improvement plans to determine it is 15 feet from the curb face. From the curb, 5 feet of sidewalk then ten feet of yard. His plan showed the PL five feet from the curb at the back of walk. Plan was drawn by designer, but supposedly based on a survey. He even showed me a picture on his iphone of the surveyor placing the corner of the lot in the sidewalk. I spent 20 minutes trying to convince him his drawing was wrong, that his PL was not at the back of the sidewalk, and the stairs he wanted to build at the back of the walk would not be on his property but in the ROW. I'm not 100% sure he fully understood this when he left. He kept going back to that's what the survey shows (I didn't see the survey, just the designer's plans). I even drew on his plans where the curbface & back of walk was in relation to the PL on his plan.

PS - I even explained that the designer who drew the property lines could be in violation of the Board because of this thread here.

[Peter Ehlert]

Bill A'Hearn: Improvement Plans? maybe you need to look at some Survey Maps. I know that is more difficult because Survey Maps don't show curbs and sidewalks very often...
Maybe that guy at the counter knows more than you do.

[geoshale]

Bill A'Hearn: Improvement Plans? maybe you need to look at some Survey Maps. I know that is more difficult because Survey Maps don't show curbs and sidewalks very often...
Maybe that guy at the counter knows more than you do.

Actually, I looked at several references during my discussion with him. That street has ROW width of 70 feet, 40 feet between curbs, leaving 15 feet on either side (its an old area, with a true centerline, not offset). We have a cogo'd centerline tied into GPS'd control points that I have used with good results to update our basemap over the years. I updated that block several years ago with good results (+/- 2 feet, if not better, for the PLs). Its not survey grade, but its not a cartoon either....

[LS 4722]

Today I had a guy at the counter who wanted to know where his PL started. Looked up the street improvement plans to determine it is 15 feet from the curb face. From the curb, 5 feet of sidewalk then ten feet of yard. His plan showed the PL five feet from the curb at the back of walk. Plan was drawn by designer, but supposedly based on a survey. He even showed me a picture on his iphone of the surveyor placing the corner of the lot in the sidewalk. I spent 20 minutes trying to convince him his drawing was wrong, that his PL was not at the back of the sidewalk, and the stairs he wanted to build at the back of the walk would not be on his property but in the ROW. I'm not 100% sure he fully understood this when he left. He kept going back to that's what the survey shows (I didn't see the survey, just the designer's plans). I even drew on his plans where the curbface & back of walk was in relation to the PL on his plan.

PS - I even explained that the designer who drew the property lines could be in violation of the Board because of this thread here.

The worst situation I have come across so far was in Burbank on Jefferies Street. The designer assumed the curb was the PL and did his new porch addition and kitchen expansion from that.

Well...he was 12 feet off. 30' half street, 18' to curb face and 12' open lawn area.

He fixed the plans immediately but the new additions/expansion got substantially smaller.

[E_Page]

Looking at improvement plans to make any statements about property lines is very risky.

Are the RWs based on an actual survey, or are they based on record info together with the assumption that improvements are centered on the RW CL?

Were the surveyors who determined the RW involved in the review of improvement plans to ensure that the RWs and other existing data was shown correctly?

Were there any deviations from plan made in the field as the improvements were being built? Is there an As-built plan or Completion Certificate that states that all was built per plan?

If you are the one making statements to the public about RW locations based on data shown on improvement plans, do you have the backup data readily at your disposal to determine the reliability of the data you are making the statement about?

Are you qualified to make statements about RWs (property lines) that will be relied on by the public, are you making these statements while under the direction of someone who is qualified to make them (are you an LS or working under the direction of an LS)? If working under the direction of an LS, do you discuss these statements with that person before offering them to the public?


IMO, without having knowledge of the history of how the RWs were established for the plans, any statements made about the RW to the improvements show have to be made with great care and proper qualification of the statements made.

When a member of the general public comes in with such questions, they don't know what the actual level of knowledge or level of qualifications of the eperson behind the counter is. They assume that the person behind the counter deals with these things all the time, seems to be speaking with confidence on the subject and so must know.

If you don't have access to the data that ties the shown RWs to a survey performed for the project in which the RWs were located by boundary survey procedures, or if you haven't gotten assurance from the surveyor who performed or supervised the survey and chacked the plans to ensure the RWs got shown properly, then you don't really know and shouldn't be making statements about the RWs relative to the improvements.


Similarly, most have no idea of the reliability of GIS location data. GIS analysts, surveyors and engineers understand that property lines in an urban or suburban area is often shown a few feet off and can be several dozen feet off if based only on record data (even worse where agencies have used low paid help to digitize PLs from APMs). We understand that data located by GIS grade GPS is generally +/- 1 m or so. You may understand that you have other GPS checks nearby that indicate that your data may be a little better than typical - in the +/- 2' range. Most members of the general public lack that understanding.

When you back up a statement about location of PLs (or anything else) by saying that it's in the local jurisdictions GIS and that agrees with your statement, that seals it for most. "If it's in the Official GIS, it must be right." Not right +/- 1 m, or +/- 2', but right. To people who don't work in the mapping sciences and are not statisticians, right means it's an exact location. They will rely on it as such.


A licensed surveyor (or even an engineer) should understand these things and qualify any statements accordingly. Without the verifiable knowledge that the RWs were located by survey and shown correctly, the most important qualification to any such statements made should be "hire a surveyor to verify the location of your property boundaries."

If you are not yet an LS but are working in a position that members of the public would reasonably assume that you are in a position of knowledge and will likely rely on the statements you make, you need to have these understandings as well. And you should not be making any such statements at all until you have discussed them with the LS under whose direction you work and have received direction as to what statements you can make, what qualifications you need to put on those statements, and what level of verification you need to have looked at before making any such statements. If you do not work under the direction of an LS or CE authorized to survey (and thus make statements about) boundaries, you shouldn't be making any such statements at all, but instead referring the person asking to someone qualified to do so.

[LS 4722]

Email me the site address if you remember it. I want to find out who did the survey.

Peter/Evan...

I have known Bill for decades and he isnt going to just snag some street plans and go with that about where a curbline to PL is..