California Surveyors Forums

I have a parcel map ready for my signature, however there is a 0.47 ft hiatus and I won't sign. The surveyor is unhappy that I won't sign claiming that on 10 acre parcels the haitus is insignificant. There are two adjacent parcels, one is by metes and bounds the other is by acres. He couldn't talk the title company into insuring the title.

Has anyone had a similar situation and did the County Surveyor sign the map without the ?

Why the heck is he showing a hiatus if it isn't a problem? In all likelihood, the supposed hiatus is the result of viewing an exercise of evidence analysis as an exercise in measurement and math. It sounds like your surveyor is having an identity crisis between his practical good sense and what he thinks is his technical duty to report. His sense tells him that given the different description styles, the size and nature of the parcels (and likely the age and nature of the records that the dimensions and acreages came from), that 0.47' is insignificant, but early on and possibly throughout his career, he has been told that he must report not only his precise measurements, but also that it is not the function of the surveyor to determine the full meaning of the measurements when the puzzle pieces don't seem to match up exactly. The first part of that is true, we do need to report just what we measured. The second part is pure poppycock that crept into surveying during the decades that civil engineering tried to swallow it up.

The reasoning goes that it is the practice of law to try to determine what the parties who first agreed to the description in a deed intended their boundaries to be, that "only a judge" can make that determination. However, when the courts actually address the role of the surveyor in boundary disputes, they keep telling us that they want us to find the original boundary. That requires making that determination.

Further, if the parties to the original conveyances did not intend to create a parcel of land between the two described parcels, then there isn't one. The surveyor just needs to determine how to reconcile his measurements to the one line that those parties each attempted to identify with those descriptions. If there were an even and continual gap that indicated a corridor that was useful for some purpose, then the surveyor needs to investigate whether there was any reason why the parties to the later description would have meant to create the corridor. But 0.47'? That's completely useless on its own. If it went to court, the judge would recognize it as a problem of determining the ONE LOCATION of the common boundary. The idea that there is this mythical separate parcel that is too narrow to even stand on would be a non-starter.

Barring some really odd circumstances, what your surveyor is really saying is that his measurements indicate uncertainty as to where the common boundary lies. He's not sure which side of that 0.47' to put it on, or if he should be apportioning the difference. The answer lies with further investigation and analysis of the circumstances. That's the surveyor's job. Not a lawyer's, and not a judge's... unless the surveyor fails at his.

I'll add the caveat that there is a slim possibility of really odd circumstances that might cause an actual title gap between the parcels, but out of several hundred such "possible gaps" and nearly 36 years of surveying, I've only seen circumstances creating a real gap 3 times, compared to several dozen where the surveyor merely thought there was or might be a gap and didn't know how to or wouldn't seek and consider the facts to resolve it himself.

Isn't that one of the things that clients come to us for? If we present ourselves as boundary surveyors, shouldn't a client be able to expect the level of care, knowledge, and expertise to properly resolve most of these types of issues?

harryverheul: is that 0.47 ft hiatus shown as such on the PM?

(ignore title insurance, they do Insurance, they are not entitled to do boundary determinations)

The title report is not determinative of the boundary analysis, it is merely descriptive.

Of more concern would be the Subdivision Guarantee, to ensure that all the record title parties having an interest in the land being subdivided are consenting to the recordation thereof.

{edit} SMA Section 66465 states that such evidence shall be provided to the county recorder at the time of filing. And local ordinance typically requires it for map review. {edit}

Provided the parcel map conforms with the approved tentative map, and is technically correct, your signature should be good to go. The depiction of the boundary by the submitting surveyor should have been sorted out through your review.

E. Page thanks for saying what I think but have a very hard time arguing among my peers that think differently. I don't have the confidence or quick wit that you expel but every time I read a book, article, or post such as yours it helps to acquire that confidence. Thanks again, Jp

agreed Proud7191

Evan, thanks for your efforts

I'm assuming a chain of title was run to find the original deeds from when the parcels were separated, or created?

Sort of difficult to figure out from afar,but what is the basis of your determination that the map is not technically correct? If the block is long and descriptions are written from opposite ends of the block and those descriptions do not contain the proper qualifying calls then a gap could occur, notwithstanding Evan Page's comments.