California Surveyors Forums

I would like some opinions on the following:

I have a client who needs a legal description for a 10' wide hiking trail across his lot. Approximately 1200' in length and about 20 courses along the centerline of the trail. I drafted the legal/plat by describing the centerline and 5' on each side thereof. The agency involved will not accept the description in this format and will only accept a metes and bounds description of the exterior of the strip.

Wattles says “it is not good practice to describe a parallel sided strip of any considerable length or number of courses by metes and bounds method, because of difficulty in selecting some particular course for subsequent recital or tie, and because of bulk and cumbersomeness; nothing is gained by such metes and bounds, and an error in one line will disrupt practically the whole area.”

Land Survey Descriptions By the Late William C. Wattles, revised and published by Gurdon H. Wattles, 10th Edition, 2nd printing, Copyright 1974

As such I have always modeled my strip descriptions using the centerline format. Having said that, and knowing that there really isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to write this description, what are your opinions relating to the REASONABLE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE for these types of descriptions?

Thank You.

A strip description seems reasonable in this case. Did they tell you why they wanted metes and bounds?

Other than "that's the way we do it", they simply said they will not accept the legal unless it is in a metes and bounds format.

What agency Mark?

check your work email Ed.

Ridiculous! Tell 'em it will cost three times as much because now you've got the centerline and 2 sidelines to deal with.

Did you survey the perimeter?

Talk to the principal LS and/or attorney in charge and explain that a metes/bounds in this case will only invite ambiguity, misclosures, encroachment issues, and clouded intent.

Stick with the strip. Insist on it.

Surveyed the exterior of the lot, and yes, I have explained things as you suggested. Believe it or not, this State agency does not have a LS that reviews their legal descriptions as I have already asked to speak with him/her. I'll try again to speak with their attorney and see what happens......and yes, Jonston, ridiculous.

No LS? Call BPELSG. Not to file a formal complaint, but if you speak with Ric, this state agency may need some education as to what only PLS's (or RCE's authorized to practice) are authorized to do.

Refer the person to Professional Land Surveyors Act: Article 3, Section 8726(n). In a professional manner, let them know that they are practicing Land Surveying without a license, then request to speak with their supervisor. You now have two tasks, preparing a plat and legal description and educating a department of a public agency.

What do they require? Are they looking to obtain an area for the strip? According to the Board rules that you are subject to as a licensee, you are responsible as responsible charge for the content of any legal description you prepare. Provide them with a citation from Wattles,indicating that you are providing a legal description that is consistent with generally accepted survey practice and a copy of the board rules related to responsible charge.. Perhaps providing them with a closure calc of the exterior of the strip will satisfy their needs without you having to re do you legal descriptions.

For the purposes of a trail, or any other route of constant width, a strip description is far better. I was going to describe the trouble a M&B invites, but Clark already got there. If after being directed to the Wattles and the PLSA references, the checker doesn't see reason, go over his head to someone with actual authority. If the reason for a M&B is so they can calculate area, do that for them.

Thank you for your replies. I have done most of what has been suggested over the past year, with the exception of talking with Ric, which was next on my list..

This seems to tie in to my post in December 2015 re: "Limitations on Legal Description Checkers". Some of these (I would say the majority) of the "Checkers" working for or sub-contracted out for the municipality, don't have a license, and many times act like the "Wizard" behind the curtain (Wizard of Oz). I see that "WE", as a professional group, need to limit what they can, or cannot do, as we had to do with "final map boundary analysis". It, is being prepared by, the one responsible for preparing it, the "Professional land Surveyor". If they want to check closures and being on a specific form, that's fine. I, like you, use the "Wattles" format whenever I can.

I ran into a similar situation once, and the requirement came from a planner who went to college on the east coast and had never seen legal descriptions any other way. Unlicensed persons shouldn't be telling surveyors how to survey.

FYI also Gentleman, be sure that when you're dealing with whatever Government agency it may be, they need to have filed the "Notice of Department Designation" with the BPELSG per CA B&P Code 6730.2 and 8725.1, which require all governmental agencies to identify and record the professional engineers and land surveyors responsible for performing the respective engineering and land surveying duties for their department or agency.

Thanks again for your responses.

Yes, we should all be able to determine or find out who is in responsible charge for land surveying at any agency.