California Surveyors Forums

Since you guys seem to enjoy these the most.

Property is a M&B desc of a portion of a lot of a of a tract done ~1900. Map covers 5-6 sections drawn at 1000 scale on one sheet. ~10 ac lots.
These 2 R-1 lots (90x150) surveyed and mons set per RS late 1950s
Due to the massive growth in the area I am 99% sure none of the original mons from the RS exist.
Client wants lot corners. Without any other triggers exc setting mons would a CR suffice or RS be required.
Survey would probably require (to get to streets that are shown on 1900 map) surveying a block of ~120 acres area.

Are the nearest controlling Section corner and Quater Corner, or other monuments controlling the 1900 survey in, or would you need to re-establish those positions from other monumentation before re-establishing the corners of the 90x150 lots?

Would have to reestablish the ~120 acre block first. Streets are shown as gaps between the blocks and not named. So have to use whatever mons are there (if any) now. And you know nothing will be 90 or parallel like the maps/deeds.
LOL

If you have to go beyond the controlling monuments shown on the 1900 map, then IMO, you're going to have to file a RS.

8762(b) (1) Are you going to find material evidence or physical change that does not appear on a record map? If the controlling elements you find are shown on a record map file a CR. If not, RS.

(2) Are the position of points, lines, or dimensions found materially different from record? If yes, RS. If no, CR.

(3) Any evidence that might result in materially alternate positions of lines or points? I think this is where Evan is saying if you need to re-establish points by using math and other far away points (outside the 1900 survey) you are probably going to be in the situation where multiple opinions/solutions would create materially alternate positions. What do you do if there really is only one solution for re-establishment? Not sure what to do then.

(4) If all points and lines of the M&B are shown on the RS then CR is ok, otherwise RS.

(5) If controlling elements match and can be relied upon to be witness monuments to re-establish and set a missing monument, isn't a CR ok?

IMHO the right thing is to file a RS.

As I have posted before, if you have to question CR vs RS, file a RS.

I agree with Evan & RAM. This situation as described calls for an RS.

Are the position of points, lines, or dimensions found materially different from record?

What is materially different?

"Material" means it matters. It is a matter of judgment.

If you can't recover any monuments from the 1950s R/S then you should file an R/S. if you can, then it is defendant on if you can meet the requirements in 8765(d).

"Material" means it matters. It is a matter of judgment.

What might "matter" to one surveyor might not "matter" to another. So where is the legal line between having prepared the proper record and not?

I am trying to get you people to realize that with laws governing surveying like this and our unlimited liability the true cost of doing a property survey could be a lot of zeros. In what has become a Country of litigation It's time to get laws enacted to protect ourselves and legally define what constitutes a proper survey and what doesn't.

Land Butcher,
It does seem like land surveyor liability is out of control compared to other professions. Maybe this is so because there is no policing of surveyors and really no way to know when a land surveyor is acting negligently without an expert’s opinion. To add a little fuel to the fire, it seems there would be a situation where what might NOT be materially different now may be materially different 10 years from now.

“Are the position of points, lines, or dimensions found materially different from record?”

“What is materially different?”

Great question and certainly the answer is subjective but I would say not arbitrary. Considering just 8762(b)(2) only, I would make sure I could answer the following questions:

How close do the witness monuments correlate to record dimensions? I don’t believe you have to use only witness monuments shown on one record as long as there is a strong correlation between records and the record dimensions correlate to field measurements. If the correlation between records is non-existent then going outside the original record would probably trigger the need to file a Record of Survey.

How many witness monuments correlate with one another? A correlation between 4 or more witness monuments is a lot stronger than 2 witness monuments. At least with 2 witness monuments you have a basis of bearing. Are 2 witness monuments enough for a CR? I’m not sure but I’ve seen a ton of them.

Do your legally viable boundary solutions fall within the error ellipse of the original survey precision? Legally viable solutions could include distance distance intersect, holding angle, proration, line only, etc. What kind of error in precision are you dealing with in regards to the original surveys? If the original survey is locating corners within 0.1’ precision and your legally viable solutions vary by 1.0’, I would file a Record of Survey. This is kind of saying the same thing as “Do the witness monuments correlate?”.

Generally, you will have to be comfortable showing record, measured, and established positions on a corner record.

If you have to daisy chain information of several records to re-establish the boundaries of the parcel you are surveying, a RS would be required.

The relationship between the first points you begin from to the last points you re-establish is material evidence not shown on a previous record map - §8762(b)(1).

But RAM gave the most basic answer - if there is any real question, file the RS.

Lots of judgmental answers here. Using the rule "When in doubt do ...." is that in the best interest of the client assuming you charge more for a RS than a CR. To me that is similar to a mechanic charging for a major tuneup when all you need is a set of spark plugs.

FWIW had I accepted a survey like this I would have done a RS mostly because it's on a bigger format and lots of data would have to be shown. I would have priced it accordingly, which probably would have cost me the job initially to a surveyor who "Oh yea, we discovered a issue and have to add XXXX to file a RS", maybe even making his final price higher than mine. I guess that's called planning ahead.

Not sure what you're seeing as judgmental. The "when in doubt..." answers are simply an acknowledgement that there is not always a clear answer. If you file a RS where you could have arguably gotten by with a CR, you will not be in violation of your obligations under the PLSA.

If you file a CR, but a RS was required, you will be in violation, will be issued a citation if for some reason it goes to the Board, and will then have to file the RS anyway.

If a RS is clearly not required, then don't do one unless your client specifically requests it, for exactly the reason you state.

My mechanic has the skill to know when a tuneup is required vs just new plugs, but let's say the brakes are right on the edge. The pads need replacing, but the rotors are right on the edge - might be able to get by machining them one more time, but it would be safer to replace them. I would prefer the mechanic who would make the decision based on safety and adherence to legal specifications than the one whose primary consideration is giving me a cheap price.

In this case, you said that you would have included the cost of a RS in your scope of services. After receiving an explanation as to why it would be required, if I were a potential client, I would prefer you to the surveyor who would cut this corner. As I have with mechanics, I would wonder what other corners that cheaper one (surveyor or mechanic) would be cutting that I'm not aware of.

I have been advised that BLM cadastral surveyors still consider the 1:5000 closure the acceptable standard for determining if a monument is at "record" position. :)