Scaled Map Dimensions

[MFORD]

When is scaling dimensions from a map an acceptable method in determining a property boundary location? I recently had a situation where a city building official allowed a scaled dimension from an 1890 subdivision map to determine a street right of way location for building set back determination.


In this particular case the 1890 map didn’t have sufficient information to calculate the lot dimension nor was the lot dimension shown on the map. The block has been surveyed by three different surveyors over the last 50 years who scaled the lot dimension, arriving at slightly different results (+/- 2 feet). I contend that scaling a map dimension is not an acceptable method for property boundary determination.


Has anyone run into this in the past and if so I would be interested in your opinion(s)?

[MFORD]

I didn’t pose the question to be provocative. I am curious how different surveyors resolve the property dimensions under the “no map data shown conditions.â€￾ Scaling doesn’t seem to be a viable alternative according to the reference books.

I never really gave the question of scaled map dimension too much thought until I ran up against this building official. During the course of our discussion I did some research in the different reference books we all refer to when questions like this come up. According to Brown, 5th Edition, 7-18, Principle 3, scaling is not an acceptable method of proving a true distance if the information is not indicated by writing or numbers on a map. Clark on Surveying, 7th Edition, 21-10, has similar language, as does Skelton Boundaries and Adjacent Properties, 2nd Edition, 222-B. All the references I could find discount scaling as an acceptable method of determining a boundary location.

I’m not passing judgment on any ones understanding of how to resolve boundaries. There seems to be several surveyors who have utilized the technique and find it acceptable. I’m wondering why.

[VANCE]

Well let me ask this than. I have run across many of Maps where distances have been transposed and all it took was a simple scale.

In this case does the "scaled" distance yield to the printed distance?

My take is I use it as just another tool, just like CAD or a pencil.

[LA Stevens]

I did not see any reference to scaling in section 21-10 of Clark?

Clark on Surveying and Boundaries, 7th Edition, 21-20 states the following: (Scaling from maps and plats.

Surveyors and attorney will used any form of evidence that will support their suppositions or theories. On occasion they have resorted to scaled measurements from maps to locate to “proveâ€￾ or to set the location of boundaries and corners. A Texas court disregarded a scaled distance from a map whose scale was one inch equals 800 feet and stated, “We attach no significance whatsoever to a mere scaling of the maps, and the trial court evidently took the same view.â€￾

This was reinforced by a 1959 decision when the Texas Civil Appeals court stated, “We can find nothing which gives anchorage to the plat identified thereon except the East San Jacinto River but the distance of the west line of the subdivision from the river is not given and may be only deduced by the scale of one inch to 800 feet. ….â€￾

The scale of the map was one factor for not accepting the scaled distance. Since one inch equaled 800 feet, 1/10 inch equaled eighty feet. Assuming the base map was on stable material and not paper that was subject to changes through humidity, etc., one could probably scale a distance to .05 inches, or to the nearest forty feet. This scaled distance was not sufficiently precise to add any credibility to using such a distance and relying on the same, but these measurements could possibly be used as supportive measurements with other forms of evidence.)

(Emphasis mine)


I would imagine that the Texas court had more reliable evidence that steered them away from accepting the scaled distance and the inaccuracies associated with the scaling of the map.

Brown E & P, 5th edition, Section 7-18 states: (…. Principle 3. A distance that is not indicated by writing or numbers on a map cannot by scaled to prove its true distance.
A line on a map or plat that has no distance indicated cannot by scaled to determine the true distance. Any scaled distance is a result of two elements: the scale of the map and the refinement of the measurement. In most instances a person can scale to approximately 1/50 of an inch. Thus the final distance calculated is only as close as the ability to measure. One must also consider the base material on which the plat is drawn. Many materials are not stable and change with the moisture conditions, either shrinking or expanding.)

The scaling of the map may help prove the location of the boundary, but you certainly would not use it when better evidence exists that is contrary to the scaled dimension.

[dewardkb]

I agree with Lawrence Stevens.

[dmi]

My opinion is that you need evidence of how the lots in this ancient subdivision were developed. What do the creation deeds say? Do they convey rights by reference to the plat alone? Do they mention the dimensions of the lots conveyed? In addition to considering the "best available evidence", consider where a preponderance of the evidence leads you.

[MFORD]

Vance,
In your example you verified that the written distance on the map was reasonable by comparing its length to the scale of the map. The situation I’m addressing is when the information presented is obviously a mistake or is omitted altogether and there are no means of determining the true length (or bearing) using the data on the map.

Scaling distances and/or bearings from a map to corroborate other elements is one way of verifying that the computations to determine the true length are reasonable. However, as I said in my original post, scaling by itself is not an acceptable method to determine boundary locations. As Larry correctly pointed out, the references cited all say the same thing, “scaling” by itself is not acceptable. Logic dictates the inaccuracy of scaling. No two people can consistently scale dimensions to the accuracy needed to set a boundary location. That alone should dissuade us all from employing the technique.

Dane,
In the case I mentioned, three surveyors showed different dimensions for the same line and noted the length was “scaled” from the recorded map. The problem arises when a non surveyor bureaucrat doesn’t recognize the “scaled” dimension as invalid. All he sees is that three reputable (his words), professional surveyors scaled the dimension so it must be accurate. Never mind that they used an unacceptable method to determine the distance and the distances are different on each map. (The bureaucrat decided the most recent survey was the most accurate.)

I pose my original question, why would anyone use a scaled dimension from a map as the “best” evidence? My guess is that it’s convenient. A better solution would be to note the absence of evidence to locate the boundary from the map information.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

I think it is incorrect to say scaling is absolutely never acceptable. Absolutes don't fly we'll in legal matters, it's not an engineering project.

It is an issue of credibility, usually there is better, more credible evidence available.

Our job is to determine boundary location using the best evidence available which is almost always something better than scaling. If nothing else is available then scaling may be it. If the best that can be done is +/-40' then obviously getting the client and adjoiner to agree would be better.

So far I haven't had to scale a map but if I did I would determine the true scale by checking several dimensioned lines on the map and maybe doing a weighted mean. If a prior surveyor has already done it then I may use that because we really need to stop changing the damned answer without a very good reason other than to satisfy our own ego.

Townsite Plats often are not dimensioned but you have resort to the townsite notes which govern.

[dmi]

Did you or anyone else make any search of records to determine what the platted widths and depths were suppose to be? Back in the day, subdivisions were advertised in the local newspapers? " View lots,50' x 100', in Mt Geyser Addition now selling". Would it not help to put an end to the question, if someone produced a deed(s) for similarly configured lots that referenced their widths and depths. Your view is that the short coming is "convenience" and mine is that there seems to be a lack of a full appreciation of the impact of evidence on the question.

[LA Stevens]

I do not go along with E & P, 5th Edition, Section 7-18, Principle 3 stated above. The principle did not exist in the second edition and appears to be something the present day authors came up with based upon the Texas case.

My point of posting the specific language is that it supports scaling a dimension when you read that Robillard knows a line can be scaled to approximately 1/50 of an inch. Also his statement that attorneys and surveyors have scaled lines in the past. With such little case law to rely upon, it appears that it has been a possible prudent thing to do in the past, if you have no other evidence to the contrary.

Skelton went on to apply the remnant rule may be appropriate when the last series of lots is not dimensioned and the record should not be scaled to determine a proportion (another last resort method for retracement).

I concur with Mr. Karoly that plus or minus forty feet would be the appropriate time to consider a line of agreement between the parties.


Is your building official a surveyor? Your building official may not have the credentials to weigh in on what the width is.

[MFORD]

Dane,
In this particular case the deeds call for the lots and portions of lots. The original map showed the lot widths but had numerous errors for the side line lot dimensions. Using the map dimensions few of the lots closed mathematically and it is not possible to close the block because of the omitted or incorrect information.

I posed the scaling question because three surveyors over the years had arrived at three different scaled lengths for the same line. Even if you could consistently scale to 0.02 inches (1/50th), which IMO is not possible, at 1”= 100’ that’s 2 feet. Thank you again Larry for reinforcing my point that scaling is not an acceptable method of determining a boundary location.

There are too many variables to accept a scaled distance as a definitive value. Was the original map used and the age and condition of the map, is it a reproduction or a copy of a reproduction, what type of scale was used (all scales aren’t created equal), the list is endless. As Larry pointed out in the Texas case the judge didn’t allow the scaled dimension.

[dmi]

The parcel you are working on is made up of parts and pieces. I would look at deeds in other parts of the subdivision where the lots had similar configurations....I would look anywhere I could to find evidence to confirm or refute the scaled distances. Some one else asked what better evidence do you have? I think you need more evidence than the book say's the other guy is wrong.

[D Ryan]

Mike, you stated in your first post: “I contend that scaling a map dimension is not an acceptable method for property boundary determination.â€￾

Although I generally agree, I would offer the caveat that in any boundary determination, delineating methods tried and rejected provides value to the retracing surveyor as much as delineating that which was ultimately used. One would assume a surveyor used a scaled distance after all other avenues were exhausted. I don’t know what the 3 surveyors show on their maps, or how much detail they go into in relating their boundary determinations. I’m not sure why so many surveyors seem reluctant to employ the English language as a communication tool and provide complete sentences on their surveys as to what they did and why. Yes, that was a temporary digression to sneak in an editorial comment on the general state of Records of Surveys. In retracing an 1890 boundary that lacks sufficient mapped information, the players are not around to ask, so you must therefore find other pieces of evidence. One of these pieces of evidence may entail scaling a dimension from the map to test it against additional information that needs taken into account (this essentially starts repeating what others have said). If it’s a street dimension that’s lacking, I may scale it and compare that with the legislature’s declaration regarding minimum widths for public roads (40’ after 1883). Private records, City or County field books of the era, old deeds, surveys that followed shortly in the intervening time period, old fences, then eventually testimony or occupation, etc. need to be considered, and noted as having been considered on one’s survey. Without stating this outright, does it mean scaling was used as a “first resortâ€￾? I would hope not.

Maybe the building official should go with the first surveyor to scale it, not the most recent (as Karoly says, stop changing the gosh darned answer...).

In summary I would agree if your comment was modified to read “I contend that scaling a map dimension is not an acceptable method for property boundary determination - (my addition to follow) if other sufficient evidence exists to determine the boundary.â€￾

Dave Ryan,
Humboldt County

[E_Page]

Mike,

Are you an investigator or an advocate. Your last post reads more like that from an advocate as you have taken bits of Larry's posts, tossed the rest and asserted that he said almost the opposite of what he actually said.

You've gotten a lot of good guidance here. The consensus appearing to be that scaling is acceptable as nothing more than supporting evidence unless that's the best you've got. But you have to use the best evidence available to you. If scaling is the best you've got, then you're left using what you normally would not use.

No argument from anyone, there is a lot more uncertainty with scaling than any of us are comfortable with, but it is evidence. It can be evidence that verifies mapped information and recent field measurements to distant monuments or nearby features. It can be evidence which indicates a mapping error and it may facilitate identifying the location and magnitude of that error (Vance's verifying a transposed dimension being a good example).

An example of a not so rare use of scaling to determine boundary locations:

One boundary of a parcel is riparian or littoral. The bank of the waterbody has been altered by artificial means. There is no mapping, descriptions, or field notes available that give a precise location of the last natural location of the bank, but because of the artificial influence, by law, the boundary is at the last natural location. If there is detailed topo mapping of the bank prior to it having been artificially altered, we will use it to scale in that mapped last recorded natural location. If we can find any physical evidence of the last natural bank, it will control over scaling, but scaling may also be used to determine locations between sparse points of physical evidence.

It depends upon the detail of the mapping being referred to, the reliability of that mapping, the scale, and the existence of features that can be used to correlate the mapping to currently existing monumentation and features. The result may be reliable +/- 2 feet, but that's pretty rare. Or it may only be reliable to +/- 80'.

If it's that far off, is it still useful? In most cases, not by a long shot, but as with practically all boundary survey questions, the actual answer is it depends.

You have to define "useful for what?",
"what is the magnitude of the uncertainty as compared to the magnitude of the disputed area, or length of an otherwise unknown distance?",
"What level of uncertainty is reasonable for this type of boundary?", and of course "do I have any evidence that affords greater certainty."

For almost any water boundary or other natural boundary, +/- 2' is usually more than sufficient. +/- 80' rarely is. But if the disputed or otherwise unknown length is over several times as long as that uncertainty, +/- 80' may be quite sufficient, for some uses. We go back to "useful for what?"

It may be useful only to demonstrate that there is a real dispute that needs settling (that may be true whother the scaled uncertainty is 2' or 80'), and to provide a starting point for negotiations for a title/boundary settlement. Lacking any superior evidence, as uncomfortable as relying on weak evidence may be, it would be the best available evidence that your stuck with using.

Larry pointed out what the TX court stated, in that case, about the limitation and applicability of scaling to the problem. In the circumstances of that case (old map drawn at 1"=800', and probably more reliable evidence available), scaling was not acceptable.

If scaling gives you an uncertainty of +/- 2', but measurements from distant monuments which are not directly related to your boundary yield an uncertainty of +/- 5', which evidence is the better evidence? Ceretainly your measurements are more precise, but as the evidence is indirectly related there is uncertainties in how one relates one record to another, to another, ... including any potential errors within each of the connected records.

If the matter were before a judge to decide the boundary location and he were given one boundary based on scaling with an uncertainty of +/- 2' from Party "A", and nothing more from Party "B" than an assertion that "A" is wrong because his method is unacceptable, the judge would have to rule on the location given the best evidence provided to the court. In this case, he would rule for Party "A" because he provided some evidence and because Party "B" provided none to show a different location.

It's not enough to say "the other guy is wrong", you also need to provide a better answer, which means better evidence along with the ability to show how and why that evidence and your answer is better.

You stated that the three prior surveys occurred over the course of 50 years and that they agreed with each other to +/- 2'. Whether that's good or poor agreement depends upon the conditions of the site at the time of each survey, but given your consternation over the differences and methods, let's assume it's not very good.

As Dave K said, and Dave R reiterated: "[W]e really need to stop changing the damned answer without a very good reason."

The only real "very good reasons" would be based on more reliable evidence than the scaled dimensions.

Since the two subsequent surveyors also scaled, there presumably is no more reliable evidence. They each used the same evidence to locate that line but got into not only the ego battle of "I'm a better measurer than the last guy", but carried to "... and I can scale better too!"

Another point that Larry made, and with which I agree is that the later versions of BCLP and E&P include principles that seem to be more based upon the primary author's opinions of what priniples should exist rather than fleshing them out from existing law. That fleshing out should include the limitations of the applicability of the apparent principle gleaned from the case or cases reviewed to other situations which may be likely to occur which are similar in regard to the method employed, but significantly different with regard to the circumstances.

Ultimately, we are licensed to apply professional judgment to the boundary situations we encounter. If we go to our standard references looking for, and supposedly finding a principle that we then apply as an absolute rule, we are not practicing as professionals but applying the principle, given as guidance, as if it were direction from some authority who has no knowledge of the circumstances of the situation at hand. Such application distorts these principles from general guidance given to professionals in making their own independent judgments to inflexible and arbitrary rules with little relationship to the applicable law governing boundary locations in the local jurisdiction.

In exercising that independent professional judgment, you need to ask, and answer "how does this principle apply to this situation, if it applies at all?", and "what other overriding principles might be applicable under these circumstances?"

[MFORD]

Thank you all for your comments and responses to this post. There were over 4600 people who viewed this string, which is surprising for a seemingly mundane subject. I found a lot of the responses interesting and informative. I would also hope that the next time you think about using a scaled line from a map as the best evidence, exercise you best professional judgment and think again before forging ahead. If scaling is all the evidence you have, you don’t have any evidence at all.

[David Lanphear]

There were over 4600 people who viewed this string, which is surprising for a seemingly mundane subject.

OT- I venture to guess the majority of those views were email bots looking for addresses in posts. Look at the list of who's online now. Lots of bot-looking names.

[E_Page]

Thank you all for your comments and responses to this post.

You're welcome.

There were over 4600 people who viewed this string, which is surprising for a seemingly mundane subject.

Perhaps that's an indication of a far higher number of surveyors who would consider such evidence, in proper context, than you had imagined.

I found a lot of the responses interesting and informative. I would also hope that the next time you think about using a scaled line from a map as the best evidence, exercise you best professional judgment and think again before forging ahead.

I always use my best professional judgment, regardless of the strength or weakness of the full body of evidence. But of course I recognize your statement to be an admonition to not use a scaled distance as boundary evidence under any circumstances. I have to say that the admnition is misguided, especially in light of the many opinions from the several knowledgable surveyors who have replied to this thread explaining that under certain circumstances, when there is no better evidence, a scaled distance may be used. You should probably also take notice of the fact that these several surveyors, who often disagree on other points, all seem to agree on this point, and all with similar qualifications/caveats on application.

Perhaps next time you find yourself with only a scaled distance and sundry other weak evidence, you should exercise very careful judgment to determine which, by logical analysis rather than personal bias, which of that weak evidence represents the most reliable body of evidence of the original location of the boundary, and use it for what it is suited for (best estimate of original boundary location, or to demonstrate objective uncertainty of the boundary location so as to advise a boundary line agreement).

BTW, are there times when you find it appropriate to not use your best judgment when considering evidence for a boundary location?

If scaling is all the evidence you have, you don’t have any evidence at all.

I think it unfortunate, and potentially harmful to a landowner who would hire a surveyor who does not recognize valid and potentially pertinent evidence, and who rejects evidence out of hand, not because of solid legal principle, but because of personal bias and arbitrarily applying an author's analysis and opinion based upon an obsure case case from another jurisdiction with outlyer circumstances.

A surveyor who intentionally ignores evidence, either because of some personal bias against that type of evidence, because of the blind application of (questionable) general guidance as if it were a set and inflexible rule of law, or for dishonest intent is violating the trust placed upon him or her by virtue of the license granted.

A professional boundary surveyor must be able to recognize all types of evidence, place it in proper context within the whole body of evidence, and place reasonable weight on each piece according to the context of the whole. The development of this ability is obviously a soft spot in the education and training of surveyors.

As more and more boundary surveying is retracement of existing boundaries and correspondingly less is the original establishment of boundaries, this developed skill has been becoming increasingly important.

I highly recommend Forensic Procedures for Boundary and Title Investigation by Don Wilson if you are challenged by this topic, or any other similar discussion of the use of evidence in boundary surveying. Heck, I highly recommend it even for those who are well experienced in identifying valid evidence and comfortable with their ability to do so. It's a great reference, regardless of your experience level in boundary surveying.

[MFORD]

Do you feel better Evan now that you got that off your chest? Did you have a bad day and need to vent? If this post served no other purpose than afford you to opportunity to defuse your pent up frustrations then it was worth enduring your unprofessional, insulting, judgmental diatribe over such a mundane topic. I think I know what axe you have to grind with me, but this forum isn’t the place for that conversation. Personal attacks on my professional integrity and judgment because you have a different opinion than I do, please. Get over yourself and behave.

[Lee Hixson]

He behaved. Rather well, in fact. I appreciated Evan's thoughts and favor his conclusions. (I did not take it as an "attack.")

[Peter Ehlert]

He behaved. Rather well, in fact. I appreciated Evan's thoughts and favor his conclusions. (I did not take it as an "attack.")

I agree Lee, on all counts.
Evan has a tendency to be verbose and beat things to death so I usually just scan what he writes... this time I did read it all and agree on his bottom line.

We are all free to disagree, and I often do. ;-)

[David Lanphear]

Perhaps that's an indication of a far higher number of surveyors who would consider such evidence, in proper context, than you had imagined.

More likely it's indicative of the number of email bots viewing the forums looking for embedded email addresses. :-(

[E_Page]

No ax to grind Mike. No attack on your personal integrity. Just a (verbose) counterpoint to your point on this topic.

Perhaps discussing what is or is not valid boundary evidence is mundane to you, and to some others as well. But I think that it is important to address a topic when surveyors take a position that demonstrates either a misunderstanding of the role of the surveyor in boundary retracement, or a wanton disregard for valid evidence and/or methods.

I'll admit to a little pushback to your admonition that the form of evidence being discussed is not valid under any circumstances, and your implication that those who consider such evidence are not using good judgment. But any personal attack you infer is a matter of mistaken perception.

[E_Page]

Peter,

Thanks, I guess.


David,

You're probably right. I noticed a whole lot of nonsense user names in the "who is logged in" box on the main screen over the past few days.

[MFORD]

Evan,
Thank for the explanation. I’m admittedly thin skinned if I perceive someone is questioning my professional integrity or ability. For the record I agree with the overall flavor of your posts. I’m not advocating ignoring evidence. IMO, there is always better evidence than scaling, which is to say scaling is the lack of evidence. Without corroborating elements, scaling shouldn’t be considered as definitive to a boundary location. If that’s all you have then a BLA is a much better solution.

BTW, I do a have a copy of Wislon’s Forensic Procedures and refer to it often. If you know of a section that talks about this subject please let me know. I looked before my original posting and didn’t see anything specific.

I suppose mundane was a bad choice of words. I am surprised at the level of discussion this topic generated. For the reasons I’ve stated I didn’t consider other people would feel so strongly about it.

All's well that ends well.

[Stephen Johnson]

Mike Ford,

I have read several of your posts I know a Texas Surveyor who's thin skin would make yours look like RHINO hide.

I will have to look up that Forensic Procedures book. Sounds Interesting.