California Surveyors Forums

A while back I posted about a property that someone wanted me to survey. I check the county GIS and saw major problems. I told the prospective client to just dump the site and look elsewhere. Naturally I was slammed on this board for telling the guy that..

So, he closes escrow. Calls me to do the survey. I up my price, he says do it..

Here is a picture of that pig of a property..


This is probably the worse case I have seen. My question is two fold.

1. Has anyone come across a similar situation and not shown the improvements of ad-joiners on an RS?

2. Do you think that I have shown enough? What I mean to say is, is how I have represented the scene sufficient to make the buyer beware or do you think that some labeling of features is needed?

PS Finding that old 2 inch IP at 5:30 PM yesterday really made my day.

Hey Paul.

Looks like a mess of a property. I tend to show adjoiner encroachments. I have shown them on a separate map before that's just for the client. It kind of depends.

I always label stuff like that, so it's clear. Maybe details are in order.

I see stuff like this all the time. Don't assume the lay person will understand your perfectly eloquented depiction. Detail it out on a second sheet.

Holding a deed angle down to 8"? How close to the middle of the razor's edge is that? ;)

Remember you are representing at this point buyer, seller, adjoiners, lenders, title companies, et al in this situation.

Looks like you have awarded yourself a small LLA project.

Holding a deed angle down to 8"?

If the deed angle was just 1 second, that would be on the map :)

Looks like you have awarded yourself a small LA project.

Not in Glendale. Unfortunately, the person who supervises an LLA has an interpretation all his own for LLA's. He believes that shifting a line to another
position has 'created a new lot'. Current zoning also prohibits an LLA, same guy, same interpretation.

Hi Paul,

Your map looks good. I would probably show the max encroachment distance for each area of crossings.

Ryan.

LS 4722 wrote:Looks like you have awarded yourself a small LA project.

Not in Glendale. Unfortunately, the person who supervises an LLA has an interpretation all his own for LLA's. He believes that shifting a line to another
position has 'created a new lot'. Current zoning also prohibits an LLA, same guy, same interpretation.

Kind of defeats the purpose for LLA's, doesn't it? Dude must be a moonbeammer. :)

Or perhaps it's a communal arrangement kind of thing? Perhaps, in that area, the norm is everyone has 20% of their improvements on their neighbor's parcel?

They should all share the tax fees as well!

Whenever I have run into a similar situation with such "massive" encroachment, ya gotta show the stuff. Also a generic lableling of the improvements is in order. Existing gazebo and walkway or something to that effect would be appropriate. Also a nominal distance of the encroachment should be shown.

MikeTurnrose wrote:Hey Paul.

Looks like a mess of a property. I tend to show adjoiner encroachments. I have shown them on a separate map before that's just for the client. It kind of depends.

I always label stuff like that, so it's clear. Maybe details are in order.

Yep. A separate non filed map will be presented to the client. I have attached my final presentation. I will not show distances from the overlapping improvements since I would have to uncover footings for a gazebo in one area and footings for a concrete screen wall in another area to have correct distances from items to title lines.

Just showing and noting the overlapping improvements is sufficient notice. My responsibility is solely to the client and I see no need to baby sit the understanding of others in reading my map, be it adjoiners, title company, etc etc.

I know who placed the improvements over line on the southeast line, the current owner did, he told me so. He followed and old wood fence assuming it was the title line.

Those improvements are less than 10 years old. That property was purchased by the current owner in 2004, the improvements added later.

There was a survey done on that southeast line since 2004 by persons unknown, that is evident from the found scribed cross I found on the top of the overlapping wall on the north

[quote="DWoolley"]LS 4722 states in post #8 “My responsibility is solely to the client and I see no need to baby sit the understanding of others in reading my map, be it adjoiners, title company, etc etc.â€￾

LS 4722, do you have a basis or reference that states the land surveyor’s “…responsibility is solely to the client…

Fishing for an argument Wooley? Your bait died..re bait and try again. Possible the fish wont bite though, I think they have seen that lure many many times.

Footings: Good point. But I would, at least on the map you provide to your client, dimension the extent of surface encroachment, and include a note that subsurface portions of the improvements may extend further onto the subject parcel.

Your final presentation for the RS is good for that purpose. It is sufficiently detailed to put all interested parties on notice that there are significant encroachment issues. Providing your client with a map providing additional detail is a good move.

When the parties enter negotiations, or move to litigation, or wherever it goes, your client can request that you provide additional copies for the neighbor. If the neighbor is not inclined to deal with the matter forthrightly, then they are probably also not all that concerned with just how much encroachment is involved either.

Regardless of the bait tossed in front of your previous comment, I believe that what you've done, or propose to do sufficiently serves the interests of both affected landowners and any title companies & lenders involved. They can each look at your map and clearly see the significant overlap of the improvements. If or when they need more detail, they can request copies of your detail map from you through your client.

Good solution Paul.

10 surveyors all practice in a certain region. 9 of these surveyors map improvements that they find near near property lines on ANY mapping they produce. As part of that mapping, these 9 surveyors identify the features located,i.e. fence,wall, patio, etc along with a tie to the nearest property line. The practice of the 9 surveyors is a key factor in determining what the standard of practice is.

Nothing wrong with being the tenth and ONLY surveyor to practice outside the standard. But you had better have a damned good reason for doing so.

....."My responsibility is solely to the client and I see no need to baby sit the understanding of others in reading my map, be it adjoiners, title company, etc etc."......

I enjoy reading your posts and your comments Paul,(although it doesn't really matter) BUT, just because you make a statement like this one above, and believe it, doesn't make it is true.

Some other guy, let's say an administrative law judge, or some superior court judge might just say that you are full of #$%@ or something similar.

You may in fact have responsiblities to third parties (ie the general public), and more than likely you do.


After all, it's my way or the highway!!!!!!

I don't see that what Paul did was short of std practice, and he does provide a dimensional tie to the SW'ly patio (or whatever it is). He also appears to have them drawn in to true scale. That is more than a great many would have shown.

How many surveys have you followed where encroachments, or improvements that may constitute solid evidence of the boundary weren't shown or noted at all? I've seen quite a few of those. Probably enough that some might try to call it the "local" standard of care.

It looks to me as if a number of folks responded and suggested adding lables and dimensional ties.

attached

I haven't had my daily fix of playing map checker today, so I'm a bit curious as to the following:

Taking note of the direction of the north arrow, I see that there is a "wood rail screen fence" running northwesterly from the location of the newly monumented most southerly corner. Your map indicates what appears to be a found iron pipe at bearing of S 89 W from your newly monumented position at the corner N 46-10 W, 72.99 feet, from said southerly corner. The distance for the tie to said found iron pipe is not visible due to the nature of a partial copy being shown, and I don't know if the origin is known, but I'm curious as to how an extension of said wood rail screen fence falls in relation to the found iron pipe.

I'm still a little fuzzy on the "deed line" versus "surveyed line" basis of bearing debate from the other thread. I noticed on the thumbnail you provided of the partial ROS, that you set a lead/tag in the top of a wall that encroaches along the southerly portion of the easterly boundary. Said ROS indicates you set it on line between two "deed" corners, at a distance of 67.5' from the most southerly corner. In your detail drawing of said encroachment area, you show a distance of 67.3' to said lead/tag, while calling it "0.26' SE of deed line".

I won't be offended if your reply is along the lines of "get a life, it's none of your business!" : )

My responsibility is solely to the client and I see no need to baby sit the understanding of others in reading my map, be it adjoiners, title company, etc etc.

With all due respect, I think the above statement is actually the "bait". Dangle a juicy tidbit like that in the water, and you KNOW that a big fish like Mr. Woolley is going to inhale it. He's like a 500 pound grouper in a sea of minnows when it comes to reminding us of our of professional responsibilities.

And although I don't always agree with his comments and have never met him, I sure have a lot of respect for the man.

7702 wrote:....Taking note of the direction of the north arrow, I see that there is a "wood rail screen fence" running northwesterly from the location of the newly monumented most southerly corner. Your map indicates what appears to be a found iron pipe at bearing of S 89 W from your newly monumented position at the corner N 46-10 W, 72.99 feet, from said southerly corner. The distance for the tie to said found iron pipe is not visible due to the nature of a partial copy being shown, and I don't know if the origin is known, but I'm curious as to how an extension of said wood rail screen fence falls in relation to the found iron pipe.

First off, my apologies for not answering sooner. New girl friend , new life has kept me a busy boy.

The attached JPG shows the wood fence line produced to the pipe I call off from the deed corner I monumented. The fence prod lands about 2.6' west of the pipe.

The line bearing N 81° 53' 51" E, 37.00', is a closing call for the adjoiners. Most likely the errant pipe was based upon record calcs instead of running a survey through enough existing street control monuments to get a good position for all of the deeds concerned in the area.

The pipe is also just 96 feet away from the street control with a decent field of view and few obstructions. I generally accept previous survey monuments but this one just did not have enough history nor did it stand up to scrutiny of it's peers, so I rejected it.

.... I noticed on the thumbnail you provided of the partial ROS, that you set a lead/tag in the top of a wall that encroaches along the southerly portion of the easterly boundary. Said ROS indicates you set it on line between two "deed" corners, at a distance of 67.5' from the most southerly corner. In your detail drawing of said encroachment area, you show a distance of 67.3' to said lead/tag, while calling it "0.26' SE of deed line".

I busted a calc and access into that deck/wall area was by permission. I was not sure if I would be allowed back in the area to reposition the tag, so I just made a calling from the tag to the line. It turns out that I will have another access soon, so I will just move the tag onto line when I have the opportunity.

I am aware of right of tresspass but that is never a forced item with me..it's better to keep the peace in the area..

on the new gf! Hope she treats you right.

Thanks for your polite and professional responses to my unsolicited map review comments. : )