California Surveyors Forums

Client owns land in Lot 3 Sec 2 with north line on township line.
As discussed in my earlier thread, I determined that the North cors of Sec 2 are common to the south cors of Sec 35 of township to the north according to original GLO notes and surveys.

In 1969 Surveyor A does work in Sec 2 and files ROS. He finds no record tagged pipes next to granite stone in rock mounds that match GLO notes for both north Sec corners and accepts them. He finds same tagged pipe at midpoint (no mention of GLO rock mounds) and accepts as quarter cor. A few hundred feet east of both of the Sec corners, he finds a pipe with a different tag number, indicates no record, and shows brg & dis to both. They are close to township line. Nothing shown relating to Sec 35

In 1971 Surveyor B does work in Sec 35. He finds the same 4 no record (except for the 1969 ROS) pipes. He finds the 2 pipes in rock mounds and accepts them as north cors of Sec 2 as per the 1969 ROS. He also finds the other 2 no record pipes to the east and accepts them as the south corners of 35 and uses them for Sec 35 break down. He did not set or find anything midway at 1/4 cor. There are now double section corners of record where common corners were originally set.

Evidence suggests the 1971 Sec 35 survey procedure is faulty since it created double corners using no record pipes, whereas the 1969 Sec 2 survey appears to be correct since it found pipes in rock mounds consistent with GLO notes.

In 2013 Surveyor C (that's me) surveys client property in Sec 2. It abuts the line between Lot 3 and Lot 4 on north line of section (1/16 cor). I find 2 additional somewhat odd looking 3/4" open pipes. They are a little rusty but not decayed, and have very thin walls. No marking or tags. No records found. No knowledge of their origin from local residents. I find them on line at the quarter and midpoint between the 2 south corners of Sec 35 per 1971 survey. They appear to be set as 1/4 and 1/16 corners of sec 35 according to faulty 1971 survey that I had intended to reject. My survey is in Sec 2.

There is an existing chain link (10-20 yrs old)fence running south from the odd looking pipe that encloses the adjacent parcel and appears to be dividing line between my client and his neighbor.

If I use survey monuments and procedure from the 1969 survey that I accept as being correct, the line between client and neighbor (at 1/16 cor) will shift the apparent line with existing dividing fence more than 100'. That means the fence, along with mobile home and a shed would be shown as encroaching. Big problem, especially client wants fence removed.

If I use the bogus pipe on principle of intent, relied upon, and exist fences built to it and accept it as 1/16 cor. it will have a negative ripple effect on all the other aliquot parts along the section line that are supposed to be equal, not to mention possible future surveys of Sec 35 above that are supposed to have common corners. Someone's likely to get screwed and end up with something way different than what they thought they owned. Also a big problem.

What a mess! Help! Any helpful ideas, thoughts or opinions?
TIB

Bite the bullet and explain to the land owners the previous mistakes and what it will take to correct them.

You do have a mess!!

I don't understand that if in fact the corners are common for both townships, why the double corners that were set by somebody?

Seems to me that you have to bite the bullet, as Stephen states above and do your survey as you have to.

If you do anything else, like accept the bogus corner monuments, you will be helping in creating a bigger mess and other land owners are going to be affected.

Whoever set the newer monuments, that the chain link fence is connected to, did the bogus part.

You cannot establish double set of section corners where common corners were set by the GLO and any attempt to do so, will create erroneous boundaries now.

A fence that is built to erroneous corners does not create a boundary.

At least, the mobile home and shed is easier to move than a house!

Good luck!

Keith

is all of the ownersip in each section private or is there any federal ownership? could affect what you hold.

TIB
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 77
Woodcutter was correct
I probably made thing more confusing with my incorrect usage of the term "closing corner". Per GLO: The south township line (not on Standard Parallel) was run in 1856 and the south 1/4 and both south section corners of Sec 35 were set at that time. A different surveyor subdivided the township to the south in 1881. The east and west lines of section 2 were run north to township line and temporary points were set. (I incorrectly called these out as closing corners). The 1881 surveyor finds the original corners set in 1856 for Sec 35 reasonably close to his temporary points and enters distances in notes.
He then corrected east and west lines of Sec 2 to match south corners of Sec 35. then placed E & W 1/4 cors on corrected line. No mention of N 1/4 cor.
In this case, the south corners of Sec 35 are common to the north corners of Sec 2 No original double corners

Like Keith says, the bogus dude is whoever set the new pipes connected to the fence using 1971 ROS. Keith warns not to create double corners that were supposed to be common corners or accept any bogus pipes. Agreed. I did not create double corners, Mr. 1971 surveyor did even though he found previous corners for Sec 2, accepted them as Sec 2 corners, then used other monuments for corners of Sec 35. At least he filed ROS.

Some dork used them as as controlling for breakdown of Sec. Could have been either 2 or 35.Then fences were built. It is rugged and undeveloped and the only one to talk to in the area is neighbor of client. Nice Guy. He took me right to the bogus points, double Section cors and even showed me some other ones. I didn't even have to look. He said the fence and pipes have always been there since he bought the place 25+ years ago, and was unaware of their origin.
After I told him (in jest) the correct line was now in the middle of his yard and he might have to move fence and yard, he smiled wryly and said "yea, try it, I wish you luck with that, you'll need it.
Although I can't accept them as to where I believe they should be, I not so sure I want to cut his fenced yard in half and ignore the wacky pipes that were used for fencing and have been relied upon on and unchallenged for 25 years or more.

I am also wondering if I was correct in assuming that since sec cors were common that 1/4 cors have to be common also. Sec 35 to north is "normal".
Sec 2 has protracted lots with varying acreage shown. Not so sure now.
TIB

must have thought there were two sets of corners and proceeded to subdivide in sec. 2 based on the opinion that there was a double set of corners?

that there is only one set of corners set by the GLO?

again any govnt ownership and protect the Bona Fide Rights.

2 sets of cors. Mr 1971 survey filed ROS indicating as such with new cors for Sec 2. Actually Dork did a good job. They are really close to being on-line at midpt. Maybe the fence builder is the bigger dork. It's a big mess. My client just wanted a permit from county to be able to move into trailer on small pad he built. Inspector won't issue permit sine he is landlocked until he gets esmt for a few hundred feet of dirt road. Now the trailer is not even on his property and pad site is gone since everything shifts more tnam 300'

Sounds to me like your work has just begun TIB. This GLO survey stuff is interesting and all, but when did these, assuming government, "lots" pass into private ownership and how were they grouped? And then after they passed into private ownership, how were they surveyed or broken down?

Sounds to me like 25 years of occupation and belief in a line location by the property owner doesn't necessarily fix the location of the line. If you have evidence pointing to the original line locations, then there you have it.

Good time to start thinking about lot line adjustments to clean things up.

Maybe dumb question here, but if I read this correctly only a portion of sec 2 has been recovered in this survey and nothing north of the twnshp line. Would searching for and recovering the section and any 1/4 cors of both sections help? sections east and west?

Any indication on sec 35s survey why he set non common corners?

Gonna get expensive. That's the problem with lot surveys, the property does not substantiate the amount of survey required in situations like this.