California Surveyors Forums

I just did a survey with a situation I had never encountered before.

The subject lot was created in 1905. As time went on the block the lot was a part of was sliced up by the 134 Freeway which left, in some areas, remnant portions of the original lots.

In 1981 a condo recorded that had a common boundary on the east and south of my lot. The condo also had picked up one of the remnant lots as part of it's blue border. The remnant piece was a continuation of my lots east and west line to the south, to the north line of the 134 freeway. The condo had basically prorated in all of the lines and corners. This condo was the second of three condos in the block. Proration...it's OK if you have exhausted your search for senior evidence of lines.

Now on the surface this job, an architectural survey, was a cake walk. I have the NE, SE and SW corner of my lot established and monumented by the condo. The scope of work was topo, house and garage footprint and monument the corners. Flat lot..piece of cake.

Anytime I look at a job and see it as a cake walk something happens. Naturally, this one was no different.

We get centerline up. Find a S/W that suposedly the condo set on the prod of my lots east line at centerline. Find another S/W at it's east end and start the survey. These 2 S/W's are not called out on the condo map but the tag number is the same as the subdividing engineer. This mapping oversight, not labeling that S/W's would be set on the condo prods at C/L is actually a plus to the situation described below.

Everything went OK until we go to monument the SW corner of my lot. That's where the whole job just came to a halt.

The picture shows the condo line (red) and my west line (green). The blue circle shows where the S/W on the condos west line was found. This monument is a non referenced one and is not a part of the monumentation of the condo. Only by assumption can this S/W be a part of the condo boundary. The position of that S/W measured 0.02' from the C/L int on the west, but that's just measuring and really has very little to do with retracing a boundary that was created in 1905.

Using the condos prorated position for my west line places the building of the lot which is directly west of my lot over the prorated line. Well, that's just not going to happen..so what to do?

At this point we started mapping the perimeter walls of the condo and the building on the west that was being slandered by the condos proration method.

The building on the west was built in 1954. This building has seniority to the condos establishment by 27 years. The building has a new roof that overlaps line. It also has a 1 foot wide water sill, also new, that overlaps line. There are 2 AC units protruding from the buildings east face that also overlap line. These are all add ons after the building received it's C of O in 1954, and they are what they are. The focus is on the building and the wooden stairs that lead up to the second floor landing where the three residence units are located.

Using the condo's numbers places the building itself 0.11' over line. The east edge of the wooden stairs would be 0.3' over line.

I struggled about this situation for the last couple of days and have decided to do the following:

1. Hold the building bearing, using the east edge of the building stairs as the hinge point and produce that south to the condos record bearing. The building bearing only deviates from the condo prorated bearing by 20 seconds.

2. From that point, extend the condos bearing that describes the south line of my lot to the east to where it hits the condos perimeter wall on it's west side. The area between the condos perimeter wall, west face, and any re established line has the same result...it's an area used solely by my lot and ignored completely by the condo.

3. From that point, extend the condos bearing northerly until it hits the south line of the 60 foot wide street.

4. Use a bearing-bearing intersect for my lots NW corner.

This results in the following:

The building is now clear by 0.2'.

The west face of the condos perimeter wall is on line at the SE end of my lot and 0.03' clear at the walls NW corner. The record distance of my lot is 50.00', the intersect distance is 49.99'.

The condo depth remains the same, so there is no survey overlap on the south end of my lot.

Call off the found S/W. It is not a record monument.

A search was made for the 2" iron pipes that are shown as set on the condo map, nothing was found. The best evidence all around are the lines of possession and occupation, so that's where it stands.

So..we go from a cake walk survey and corner record to a RS with details and why I decided to re establish this lot the way I did.

Be careful prorating, especially when you wrap around a lot that is not a part of your boundary.

Paul, I like it.

Thanks David..I appreciate that.

Here is the RS I just finished, or a link to it I should say..

http://freepdfhosting.com/a08d60d32a.pdf

Interesting work Paul. I like it as well and I really like how your RS looks.

Paul...

You spend a little time talking in your post above about the stairs that you're holding, but you don't really say much on the map itself. I think you should explain why you are holding the stairs....based on what, exactly? Is it per the condo map? If so, maybe you could site a detail, or a specific page in the condo map.

(And don't forget a north arrow.)

I, too, am unclear on the stairs as a way of calling to a lot line unless there is some other evidence that makes you do this. Perhaps in this area people build stairs this carefully in relation to the property lines? In general I just see stairs as something that is framed up towards the end without regards to this sort of thing.

Lee said...

You spend a little time talking in your post above about the stairs that you're holding, but you don't really say much on the map itself.

The picture is on the detail of the RS and the method, step by step, is also listed on the RS.

Byran said...

I, too, am unclear on the stairs as a way of calling to a lot line unless there is some other evidence that makes you do this.

The stairs were part of the construction for the 1954 building. The stairs are the 'property' of the owner of the adjacent lot 80. The stair line was the easternmost point of the occupation that the survey was mostly but partially based on.

If one uses occupation for establishment, it makes sense to me, to use all of the items along that line that work in a harmonious manner with the other lines of the parcel. To just use the face of the building as controlling the line and to have the stair line overlap is a job half done.

Lee..thanks for the reminder about the north arrow.

I don't have time to get into a lengthy examination of your map but I don't see any record vs. measured distances from your lot's 4 corners to the next lot corners in each direction, to either found mons at those other corners or to lines of occupation. There's no way to evaluate how your resolution of Lot 81 compares to the record distances across the adjoiner lots. Does your resolution cause any problems?

Lee Hixson wrote:... Does your resolution cause any problems?

Hmm..what do you think?