California Surveyors Forums

See attached subdivision map.

Seems pretty clear they are measuring the street along the bearing of the right of way, and not on a perpendicular, but I am curious to get other's opinions.

Some other observations:

1. I have records from the late 1940s-1960s where the first surveyors are also interpreting this - i.e. one of the "50' wide" roads is measured as 49.8 feet wide when calculating them to the perpendicular distance.

2. I have a file from a retired firm who was working on a parcel map for my subject property a few years back, and the contracted City checker was rejecting their street width and insisting they hold the perpendicular 50' width. This parcel map was never finalized.

3. Recent ROS maps in a couple of areas have made the widths along the perpendicular, to which the checker was referencing when he rejected their street width.

I am having a hard time accepting this, especially since I know the first surveyors broke things down differently, and some buildings are zero lot lines right on the right of way. The building I am surveying would be 0.1' into the right of way if I held 25' off the centerline, rather than 24.9'. Blocks lose 0.2' of their widths, and there already is a small shortage when using the street bearing for the distance measurement.

Opinions welcome, as I am working on a parcel map on this one and I may get some pushback from the City if I continue with the same philosophy.

I notice the map refers to some resolutions and actions of the Board of Supervisors. Do you have those? I see the County Surveyor signed the map. Is that common? Were there dedication standards in effect at the time? Were other maps filed at the same time indicating intent? The key map shows adjacent subdivisions in this area. What did they do? Are there any public improvement plans? Did you search for other surveys? I would think you need to review the entire subdivision to see what was done and how others interpreted the map. Just a few thoughts.

Good luck.

Thanks Mike I will pursue some of the options you mentioned that I need to get to. This area did not have a lot of records, so it is still pretty much stuck in a 1940s-1950s zone of tilt-up buildings and older, small homes.

One of the benefits of this approach involves the forensic side of surveying. If, the methodology that has been adopted in these tracts establishes a pattern one could make the argument that it defined a "standard of care," relative to solving this problem. I also find that by performing extensive research as I have suggested, I will have assessed all of the best information out there. By and large, and this is a sad commentary, most surveyors will not take these extra steps. In the end, you may end up doing a lot more work than you anticipated but you will be right.

Lastly, when I engage on a course of action, my one page survey becomes a 5 or 10 page survey wherein I discuss all of this in detail.

Good luck.

There are very few records in this entire sub, but the few there are all hold to the expected 50/45 perpendicular, so at this point, it seems like I am being contrarian despite what my gut says (and what some surveyors actually did, per my records). I am still going to see what I can find, since it sure seems like the map makes the dimensions along the skew.

Yes, I hear you. If I may I have conducted exhaustive inquiries into a lot of maps and recording schemes across the state. One of the biggest problems I find is a history of laziness and, when interpreting such things, it is sometimes helpful to take off your surveyor's hat and put on the hat of the public or others who would view the map as one of what we call "first impression."

There is nothing wrong with being a contrarian as long as you are financially and mentally suited for the consequences.

Whatever you decide, you are doing the right thing because you are vetting your thoughts.

Tough one- the problem with this old map is that because there are no bearings shown I don't see that there is even a way to calculate the ROW width if these dimensions were indeed intended to be on a skew. As a finer point, I also notice that some of the dimensional arrows are not going exactly to the corners...sloppy drafting? If there were old sidewalks built up to the right of way lines this may also give a clue if their position were to prove out either width. Another approach may be to see if you can work everything out with monumentation in your own block instead of pulling control in from afar and bypass this width question altogether then let the streets be what they may be.

With no bearings labeled anywhere, it's possible that Mr. Kent laid the whole thing out using only a tape and a line rod as his survey instrumentation, not using a transit or compass at all. Even if he had used some manner of directional instrument, the method of layout would still be to get on a line and measure right up the line, setting points on that line as you went. Some would have run the centerlines and used a right angle prism from the centerline where intersected by side lot line projections and measure the half-width. Others would have gotten on the sidelines and went directly up them. In a subdivision where the streets are slightly off right angle, the 2nd approach would minimize calculations and better ensure that the points within a block were more accurately set relative to one another.

If running the edges of the blocks rather than centerlines, it is quite likely that the crew would have measured 50.00' or 45.00' respectively, along those sidelines rather than calculating whatever the slight overage would be to compensate for the skew from right angle. It is a very reasonable alternative theory to the presumption that the streets were established at those widths on the right angle. But that's the rub, you have to establish that the alternative is more likely than the presumption by evidence rather than supposition, no matter how logical or reasonable the supposition.

The statement "we have caused the same to be surveyed laid out and subdivided..." indicates that some manner of point was marked at each block and lot corner. What is the possibility of some redwood hubs still being in place in this subdivision?

Lacking the existence of original hubs, are there enough improvements (buildings, sidewalks, curbs) that are likely to have been placed according to the original stakes that you could locate some of them to show a pattern. If there are several such buildings built at zero setback that would encroach holding perpendicular on the RW widths but be at or clear of the RW line if the widths are held on the skew, that would be plenty sufficient, IMO, to overcome the presumption of perpendicular distances. Even if it was intended by City and subdivider in 1905 that the streets be the perpendicular widths indicated, if they were actually established by measuring those distances along the projected sidelines of the blocks, then the actual right of way widths that exist today are going to be slightly less than those indicated on the map.

Digging up other records might help lead you to the answer, but more likely you'll find more of the same type of imprecise dimensioning as you have on this map. IMO, the answer is going to be in finding patterns among the physical evidence that remains, if possible. If there isn't enough physical evidence remaining, you may be stuck holding the presumption. But if there is one building of sufficient age at zero s/b, I'll bet there are others.

I venture a guess that occupation might be relevant in this scenario...