California Surveyors Forums

I have a boundary issue involving land movement. Original map was filed in 1917 with no original monuments existing today. The block is well monumented with most of the area undisturbed, however, the NE'ly 4 lots (lots 13-16 on the attached sketch with 2 pages) have been displaced a few feet southerly due to local land creep in wet weather years. This occured in the wet years of 1982-1983 and 1995. This creep was slow and imperceptable (i.e. not a slide). Every surveyor since 1980 has held the monuments at the south end (Tide Ave) at ran record distances to the north end (to Panorama), thus ignoring the monuments and improvments at the NE end.

Question: is there any case law out there that supports this approach?

(In June of 2008, AB 2479 was intruduced to address this very issue, but I think this bill has died.)

From a surveying standpoint, its easy to say that the monuments have been "disturbed", due to the land creep and should be disregarded. However, think about the practical implications of doing this - the houses, walls and fencing have all moved southerly with the monuments. Are will really going to tell the owners of these lots that they have to keep moving there homes back up the hill every 20 years due to our new monuments???

If I were a judge, I think I'd say the homes and monuments move with the land and the poor owners in between are stuck with a lot this is 2 feet short.

Thanks, Mike Stanton, PLS 5702

Are you familiar with Andrea Joannou et al v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, filed 9/12/13? Doesn't it say that gradual or slow earth movement leaves property lines where they were? Is that a fault or a land slide scarp at the edge of the movement?
Chris

edit: should have told you to look at Landon Blake's CLSA post 5334.....

In 2009 I had a similar situation and filed the following CR with the county surveyor.

Land does not move equally or in the same direction.

In your case I would follow suit and use the stable control monuments at the south end and hold record. You have 34 years of precedence to back you up doing it this way. Take advantage of it.

http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/landrec ... 12-423.pdf

Wouldn't/shouldn't the same rules that apply to a watercourse adding or removing land apply to natural earth movement?