California Surveyors Forums

Two lines called out along the northern line of a two lot tract map that recorded in 1970.

I see this as a surveyor created gap.

I don't see a gap, I see a surveyor who thinks there's a gap.

No Gap?

Enlighten me, how do you explain the two lines?

Just because one guy accepted the fence as the ROW line doesn't mean anyone else has to accept the fence as the ROW line. It looks to me like the fence is very close to, but not on, the ROW line, which is coincident with the northerly line of D-3225 page 585.

(If I were doing the survey I'd want to look into all of the details, but for now I'm just pointing out that there's no gap unless someone chooses to see one.)

P.S. To me a Caltrans fence is boundary evidence of a very low order. Maybe not quite last resort, but pretty close to it.

I'd have to agree with Jim. The fence is evidence, but not absolute. The deed and monuments are far more substantial. I see the map as misinterpretation of the evidence.

There is no gap, but that's how that surveyor did his map.

In this area there are three maps dating from 1965 to 1970. All three maps run along the San Diego Freeway, yet not one of the signers of those maps went to the effort to run the freeway line based on monuments.

I located the freeway fence, shot every post. The fence is quite old looking and I found it to be 2' + north of the tract line, not the 0.3' on the west and 0.5' on the east like the tract shows. I also found two original tract monuments south of the fence.

Maybe Cal Trans replaced or moved the fence, I just cannot see Cal Trans doing much of anything when it comes to fences once they are up. That's from experience

Paul, just out of curiosity, did Caltrans set those concrete "C" monuments at that time? Up here I have not ever seen someone accept a highway fence as property line, and there are usually some other forms of monumentation to compare things to.

btaylor wrote:Paul, just out of curiosity, did Caltrans set those concrete "C" monuments at that time? Up here I have not ever seen someone accept a highway fence as property line, and there are usually some other forms of monumentation to compare things to.

I do not know Brian if there are Cal Trans monuments in or not Brian. My scope of work does not need the right of way line of the freeway to be established.

... and there are usually some other forms of monumentation to compare things to.

I agree, but none of the previous surveyors/engineers seemed to feel that a monument re establishment of the line was needed. An RS filed in 1965 that had a sloppy loose establishment of the freeway line and the other guys just accepted what the RS had done.

so glad to know that there is one surveyor who is so much better than all the other surveyors ever. I could not offer an opinion on the situation without all the relevant evidence, but I do not see any issue with identifying a use in some other location than a deed line. Nothing prevents Caltrans from conveniently fencing freeways and holding the fences inside the limits of their property lines.
I do not see a gap real or imagined

It is noteworthy that CT's standard is to locate fences inside access-control R/W, not along the line itself. I believe the reason was/is to retain full ownership and control of the fence. Non-access control fences are often just the opposite, in that they are placed on the private side of the line.

The current CT standard construction detail contains notation for the fence to veer even farther away from the line when near corners.

The ROW acquisition process may be based on an engineering alignment with a result of boundaries which are not necessarily coincident with other boundaries in close proximity.

It is not unheard of for a ROW acquisition to either leave remnant slivers or to bisect single parcels with small slivers of the parent parcel being left on one side.

The ROW fence construction may not necessisarily have been the most precise of operations. For example, an original 1960's freeway fence was recently found to have been constructed significantly inside of the actual R/W boundary. A large chain hotel was constructed afterwards, and review of those improvement plans found that the engineers and surveyors for that project assumed that the fence represented both the R/W and hotel's rear lot line when in reality it didn't.
Long story short, the hotel's rear parking lot access way and giant sign were found to be within the freeway's true bounds. As I recall it was close to a 20-feet "OOPS" of an assumption.

CDH/CalTrans NEVER puts their fences on PL. If they did the fence guys would dig out the angle point PCs set by CDH to set their corner fence posts. And a lot of the time the fence is not on the CalTrans property it's on the adjoiner.
I had a property abut a fwy and had Caltrans set R/w 3 mons along their r/w since it was in a curve, they were close enough to the fence that we could locate them without entering the state r/w. Their fence was roughly within a half foot of the r/w line.
We are not allowed in fwy r/w so unless they changed the law CalTrans has to set points so we can establish their r/w.
Another issue was the CDH map did not fit the private maps in the area. A knowledgeable County map checker noticed a ~900 ft line to the nearest foot (900.00). He said the odds are they scaled that distance and did their calcs from that scaled distance. Since we had caltrans r/w points we were ok.
Then there was the CalTrans cadistral employee that told me that if the record distance fell anywhere on the gear spike AND washer in CL PCH that was close enough.

Looks like someone needs a better understanding of the continuous discussion pertaining a fence line verses a boundary line?

I agree with Land Butcher on this. I don't think I have ever seen a CT RW fence that falls on the RW line described in the deed to the state.

My experience is similar to Land Butcher's - never seen a fence on the actual line.

Let me continue and add what I learned while employed at Caltrans. When we were to go search for property corners (angle points), I was informed that the fences were constructed 0.5' inside of the right of way line.

This makes sense so that the edge of the 1' diameter concrete supporting the post was completely within state property and the property corner was preserved. Fences are good accessories to the property line, but one shall have a clear understanding what they represent.