California Surveyors Forums

I would like critical opinions. I'm faced with a situation where a map checker approved a Mylar, on submittal of the Mylar it was rejected, without posting the Mylar I will try and be as specific as possible.

The parcel is bound on three sides by streets, locating the center lines (and monuments set presumable pursuant to 8771, provable by filed corner records) provides a fairly reasonable geometric solution (the site is\was vacant, no improvements, adjoiners are more than clear), with the exception of one replacement that simply doesn't fit within any reasonable tolerance under the circumstances. That position was re-established through sound methodology, the re-establishment check between the opposing line intersected, no quarrels so far with mapcheck on that, btw.

The deed of the PIQ and Adjoiner call a particular amount of feet along north line (both agree by deed) to a pivot point that inverses to an additional distance call on the south line. The south line was not monumented, the record course was held, the north side of the property appears to have been monumented with an offset tag (from an engineer, deceased, to have done quite a bit of local subdivision work in the area) knowing this the point was held (rejecting the monument would yield a position the would be 0.05' from the line established by holding the monument), so my question is in two parts, when has section 8766(B) re-written to allow the CS office to submit a redline (after Mylars were requested) to reflect the boundary they want to see by hand typing the courses they want to see. I have no issue with peer review, if it is justified.

Secondly, I honestly would like to know if I have been "doing it wrong", based on the comments it would appear I have it all wrong and the record deed calc should hold. Seeing that a monument long standing on the ground can be found and used by the land owner I don't see how the above should hold, but hell perhaps I've been wrong, which is why I ask.

Thanks in advance.

I would assume this is NOT your last project in that county.
requesting the mylar prematurely is just a mistake on the counties part, its not important here.
any advise your get here would be 10x more valuable if you post the map

I don't know all the particulars of the survey so can only speculate. Sounds like this might fall into the divisive arena separating the two schools of thought over whether a junior monument can bend a senior line. I will offer that this is a subjective decision which includes evaluating the level of reliance, magnitude of descrepancy, and good faith effort by the junior survey to locate the senior line. Many surveyors were taught that junior surveys cannot bend senior lines but this thought process is not as widely shared today as it was a decade or so back. Even the current BLM Manual of Instructions has changed its addressing of closing corner retracements and allows the subjective reasoning process to evaluate bending of senior lines.

If your analysis has made you "happy" with holding that monument, I would suggest a note back to the CS explaining why you held it over the deed call, along with a new mylar and a request to file the map as is with no further changes. The apparent age of the monument would be interesting to know along with knowing if there signs that the owners or adjoining owners used that monument, as a reference for a landscaping limit or something like that.
Based on the info you provided, it seems like that would be a reasonable solution.

Blake,

Feel free to insist on filing the map. The CS can always add his CS Note if he feels strongly enough to warrant one. It is, after all, your ultimate liability for opining a boundary establishment method. It is always prudent to flesh out your narrative to express why you considered alternate methodology, and ruled them out. Welcome to the wonderful world of licensure!

I've seen a CS become what I perceived to be obsessively territorial over a half inch of county ROW easement. I was offended as well but at the end of the day I'm the only one who cares about the half inch so may as well give it up. County wants their perfect easements memorialized, apparently monuments don't hold there sometimes.

Silliness gets expensive though. I printed an RS mylar (which was rejected) for LLA on an easy cut and dried rectangular lot last March. For some odd reason it still has not filed....

Tip your hat and move on to the next one.

A narrative or set of general notes on the RS will often help avoid issues like this. What you did or why you did it may not be totally apparent to the map checker. Some explanation on the face of the map can often make the difference.

I've had situations where there was some manner of monument within a few hundredths of my calculated position and I held the found object. 0.05' would seem to be within a normal error ellipse of positional certainty, so even if math & measurement were the only criteria, it's a good point. On the other hand, there have been times, particularly along RWs where I have held a point like this to control the sideline but not the RW - like how closing corners used to be treated. If this is the situation you're looking at, I would suggest treating the found tag like that. At 0.05', you're still essentially on the edge of the tag, and for lot owner use, it makes no practical difference.

A junior monument can't bend a senior line, obviously. A boundary is presumed to be straight between controlling monuments. But what does straight mean? Straight down to what precision? What is practically possible? There is no precise mathematical answer to these questions. Should property owners who act in good faith by hiring an (unknown to them) imperfect Surveyor be punished? The law is a lot more practical than some Land Surveyors.

This reminds me of the old joke...a men's college had two programs, science and engineering. In order to divide the student body into two programs they would invite the women from the local women's college and have them stand on one end of the football field, the men on the other. The men would be told they could cross the football field by halves to meet the young women. The scientists immediately left knowing this is theoretically impossible, they would never get there. The engineers spent the rest of the day trying to run it through their imperical formulas but the Land Surveyors knew, while theoretically impossible they could get close enough for practical purposes.

The moral of the story is, don't yield on professional boundary decisions (except if you are wrong, any principle can go too far). The CS has a pen, let him use it.

Generally in legal thought, the rule applies unless evidence and circumstances carry you outside the rule. Usually it is easier to show you are in compliance with the rule (which is not a precise mathematical quantity).

Dave,
Love that joke!
Ed

Thank you all for your valued advise, it is appreciated. As much as I wanted to battle principle, doing so for 0.05' in this situation would have been a disservice to the client, their interest in the map recording and validating the one missing monument replaced, it was revised and resubmitted.

Map checking for public agencies has a been a continuing part of my career for over 28 years. As anyone can tell you, the industry has changed on both sides of the public counter. In discussions with my contemporaries we are in mutual agreement the understanding and the quality of mapping has plummeted over the years.

The following are my mapping observations and not related to Blake's original post.

The Beginning of the Mapping Incompetence

In the late 80s most of the maps were still hand drawn. The title pages were created using "sticky back" certificates and we had to get photo duplicates of the signed mylars. There were maps which were still drafted on linen. I am not reminiscing about the bygone era, no, I am detailing our first steps onto the slippery slope which has lead to today's widespread mapping incompetence. At the time, the field work was reduced by hand and adjustments were performed on the measurements. In my region, careful attention was paid to the measurements, monument descriptions and research. An error in the early stages of the survey would be a very costly rework due to the hand drafting and hand calculations - every line would have to be recalculated. Back then, surveys were created in large part without the benefit of CAD programs - there was no capacity to rotate the underlying record map graphics to a field coordinate file. In fact, there was no field coordinate files - hand written angles and distances were still collected by most field crews. Similar to the all technology throughout the ages there was a distrust of the CAD mapping systems and many predictions of fostering a class of "button pushers" rather than methodical analysis. Unlike many predictions of demise this particular one has been realized.

CAD Misuse and Coordinates on Stick

As predicted, we have witnessed a degradation of the professional aspects of land surveying. Today it far to common to see a map with only 2 monuments being shown as "held" and showing the other found monuments -from the same underlying map - as being off of the corner - oftentimes, the same direction and distance. This type of "mapping" and "establishment" is a product of record maps being rotated to a single line between two coordinates rather than reconfiguration of the map/math by holding monuments of record - in accordance with established legal principles. In other jurisdictions I have reviewed several filed maps which consist of only two monuments. It is my understanding that a majority of firms perform no adjustments of their measurements. The land surveyors simply export their coordinates into CAD and rotate them to basis of bearings or alternatively, they set the basis of bearing in the field with their firm back sight - which produces measurement errors with network expansion. The advent of RTK and RTN has added an element of scale to the measurements. We have firms creating "ground" coordinates, a misnomer, which serves no practical purpose other than distorting perfectly good measurements. We are seeing system crutches being developed to assist our mentally undeveloped brethren i.e. low distortion projections. We have fewer and fewer firms with the ability to post process their measurements, performing any analysis and adjustments and ultimately, not producing principle based defensible mapping. Routine questions about establishment are met with a blank stare due to a loss of understanding or alternatively, greeted with ignorant belligerence. Frustration and anger are tools when the dealer has nothing left to offer.

A Mapping Curmudgeon Looking Back at Yesteryear? I am Not

I recently sat down with two other map checking firms to discuss industry wide mapping submittals. Between the three firms we review hundreds of maps as city surveyors and/or to augment County Surveyor map checking staffing. My take away from the meetings is the poor mapping is largely due to a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of mapping. Reoccurring examples of poor mapping which appears to straddle our local jurisdictions:

1.) Monuments hold over math. Holding two monuments and calling all others off is no bueno.

2.) Monument descriptions which are incomplete i.e. "fd. mon." is not a monument description

3.) Location of improvements relative to the established lines not shown - especially important when encroachments are observed.

4.) Not setting of tagged durable monuments when using vicarious methods of boundary establishment. For example, a surveyor incorrectly uses two monuments to establish a boundary and does not set any momuments - is this boundary retraceable? I believe the reason these surveyors do not set any monuments is to avoid their version of mandatory filing. They will tell you they are saving the client money, but are they? Not if it goes to litigation.

5.) Record boundaries. Usually a topographic map with notes explaining the surveyor did not fulfill his obligations. This is partially consistent in the event of a tentative map with the presumption a subdivision map will be filed which will properly establish the boundaries. However, if there is no subdivision map planned a "record boundary" is a disservice and not only violates a land surveyor's duty it is clearly against public policy.

For lack of any other standard, one glance at the ALTA/ACSM Land Title minimum standards (note, these are minimum standards accepted nationally) - how many survey maps do we see that meet these minimum standards of boundary establishment? Few, very few. In fact, I would hazard the statement many of the ALTA/ACSM surveys I see do not meet the standards which is being certified.

The Solution

[To be completed later]

D. Woolley

Your off topic on this thread Mr Wolley, well kind of. I agree with most of your thoughts, myself was one of those draftsman/chainman 30 years ago.
I always looked forward to the Ink to Linen or mylar drafting, myself had had good line and symbols work but poor lettering skills.
Creating a map was a joy that would take a lot of planning due to the extensive redraw time (the Statements were done by hand).

We leave each other in the opinions about boundary resolution. I strongly feel the County/City Surveyor should only check the items listed in 8764. The technically correct portion is where opinions clash, however remember, a dully Licensed Surveyor has indicated that the map is fine.

On a side note I remember years ago being so upset from all those damn redmarks (from an unlicensed anal map checker) on my map, but now must admit I learned a lot from him.

Solution: Use red marks for violations to 8764 and pencil with your opinions/suggestions. If still upset use a note.

Brian

Brian Smith:

Is it your contention the county surveyor is relegated to checking 1" margins on a 18" x 26"mylar, north arrows and other non-substantive information? I know of a couple of county surveyors with similar perspectives - one of which is waiting on the California Attorney General's office to schedule his hearing in which I sincerely believe will result in the revocation of his license.

Arguably, if a map margin was less than 1" or there was no north arrow the public would hardly be damaged. I would go one step further and say such non-substantive information could easily be checked by the county recorder - foregoing the stop at the county surveyor's office all together.

Consider this, why would the law clearly define the process for a county surveyor to place a note on a map - offsetting the office's responsibility of the poor work of another surveyor - by adding an opposing note to map if the review was limited to a ministerial duties? The county surveyor's role is to protect the public from the harm of filing maps produced by the poor practitioners - particularly the adjoining property owners effected by a surveyor's establishment. The county surveyor has a discretionary duty. It is the dereliction of the discretionary duties which cannot be tolerated. The county surveyor's office is the regulating body.

If interested, the suggested keywords for further research: discretionary duty and ministerial duty.

The Bus. & Prof. Code :

§ 8764 The record of survey shall show the applicable provisions of the following consistent with the purpose of the survey:
...
(d) The relationship to those portions of adjacent tracts, streets, or senior conveyances which have common lines with the survey.

Mr. Smith, what do you think is the purpose of showing the relationship of the adjoining senior conveyances?

D. Woolley

Dave,

Your response is appreciated, bullet point number 1 was the primary reason for the initial post.

"The relationship to those portions of adjacent tracts, streets, or senior conveyances which have common lines with the survey."

This is the crux of a proper map review. But, as I've written before, the lurking trouble with this phrase is its brevity, the unfortunate attempt to define a vast concept in a single sentence. It becomes fertile ground for misinterpretation and distortion.

Good morning Mr. Woolley,
I did not mean to lock horns with you, to answer your question YES the ROS should show adjoining relationships to adjoining properties and that falls into the technically correct portion. ROS checking should be a ministerial process and be very affordable because ROS provide a service to the public. Finding and tying monuments together helps those who come behind us. The ROS is not designed to solve all problems therefore a charge over $150 per sheet seems excessive to me. Remember I have a different frame of reference than you do being from cow country and not the zoo.

If you check maps creating parcels then you can put on your “Local Controlling Authority” hat and go over all those check boxes provided in the Conditions of Approval and (because parcel creation is constructive notice) you should hold up the recording of said map due if boundary problems still exist.

Surveyors depend on the County Surveyor (because 70% of surveying is local knowledge) to be the keeper of records and point out (due to the CS experience with local records) the pit falls and problems we can blunder into. The County/City surveyor should work together with the local surveyor who actually digs holes and file maps.

You mention harm to the public? By statute none of us can allow such things and you can address those issues to a higher power. I would suggest a heart to heart with your fellow surveyor first.

My .05

Bri

"The relationship to those portions of adjacent tracts, streets, or senior conveyances which have common lines with the survey."
I have always considered compliance with that as noting on the map 1. Adjoiner Names (with current deed reference) and 2. noting adjoining record maps... and nothing more.
did I miss something else that was intended, but not said?

And there you have it. The use of the word "relationship" is not in the colloquial sense. Should that have been the intent it would have merely said, "list the names and deeds of the adjacent owners."

"Relationship" in surveying (in my humble opinion) is an attempt to summarize the entire process of "resolving" your client's deed with all surrounding deeds. Do the angular relationships match? Do the distance relationships match? Do the relationships of calls match? Is there a common relationship to the POBs? Is the relationship between deeds sequential, simultaneous, or a combination of both?

In short: have you solved the parcel matrix?

Lee,

Nice turn of phrase - matrix over math.

And rusty pipe called for in Deed
better yet.

We all agree when we do a Boundary Survey on a Deed
we also survey the adjoiners line ""in common" as well right?

We also agree sometimes ROS just show what was found
for the record.

The Surveyor need not resolve everything back
to the initial point.

Bri

Good Point

Mr. Smith wrote: <snip>
We all agree when we do a Boundary Survey on a Deed
we also survey the adjoiners lines as well right?
<snip>
Bri

Nope, but we must do whatever it takes to determine the lines in common with the exterior of the subject property.... and document our methodology.
===
"The Surveyor need not resolve everything back to the initial point."

From my perspective and, after testifying more than 100 times across the great state of California on this topic, the last parcel to be surveyed is the one you represent. It is a foregone conclusion that your client's property is the last one to get surveyed. Indeed, it is rather basic. Litigation arises when surveyors forget this basic rule.

This speaks more to the tangent Dave and Brian started going down, but still relevant enough to the OP to be in the same thread.

Many of our statutes regarding the preparation and review of an RS leave quite a bit to interpretation. Relationship to adjoiners being a prime example. Peter mentioned interpreting by noting names, record maps, record docs of adjoining lands, but came back and clarified that when we survey a line of our client's boundary, we are surveying the common boundary shared by our client and the adjoining land, thereby describing (by my interpretation) the broader analysis and resolution that Lee initially described, but wrapped into fewer words. I have seen many maps where adjoining parcels are noted with the latest vesting deed but there has been no resolution between the client's described boundaries and those of adjoining properties. The first clue generally being a lack of on-the-ground evidence shown on the map, and the strongest clue being that the figure on the map exactly matches the geometry described in the deed.

Likewise, the statutes regarding how much authority the CS has in review seems to be open to interpretation. Some CS offices seem to limit their review to ensuring that the statutory notes are included, the presence of north arrow & scale, a mathematical closure, and little else. Others seem to see it as their duty not only to review the methods and conclusions, but to ensure that a map is not filed with methods and conclusions with which they do not agree.

The way I read it, and I think I'm sticking to a pretty literal intent of the statute without reading into it what is not there, nor subtracting what is, is that the CS does have the authority to review methods and conclusions and to comment on them. I believe that since the legislature included that authority, that they intended part of the review to be at least extensive enough to identify methods and/or conclusions which do not seem reasonable.

8766(c) and 8768 speak to how both the surveyor of record and the CS are to express points of disagreement. But 8768 also states that they are first to make an attempt to come to agreement. There is no opportunity for that discussion to take place unless the CS, on his or her review, comments on those matters. There is no opportunity to comment on them without some level of review of the methods and conclusions.

Once that review is made and the discussion to resolve differences occurs, if neither has altered their positions, then the surveyor of record has the right to demand the CS "file as is", and the CS has the right to add notes explaining why he feels that something about the map or survey is lacking or wrong.

I don't believe that those CSs who are not looking at solutions to judge whether or not the solutions seem at least marginally reasonable are not completely fulfilling the responsibilities the legislature intended. But those who refuse to file a map on such grounds are exceeding their authority and specifically violating 8766(b). IMO, the seriousness of that infraction is on par with a failure to file when there is the clear presence of an 8762(b) trigger. In such a case, the failure to file is often an intentional non-compliance. A refusal to file a map which otherwise meets the requirements of the PLSA is, in nearly all cases, an intentional violation.

I usually don't mind comments back from the CS, even comments on methods & conclusions. Often, the CS may have some insight, or perhaps some info that I wasn't able to find in my research or fieldwork, in which case, my conclusions will normally be better having considered that info. In at least one instance, I was able to educate the CS on some obscure (for most surveyors) boundary & title matters that he was not aware of. In cases like this, which most have been in my experience, whether I receive or am able to give some education, the outcome is a net positive for all concerned.

Review problems can occur for several reasons. The one that garners the most and loudest complaints are those where an unlicensed tech is doing the reviewing and neither has as complete an understanding of boundary principles as he or she thinks, and/or lack an understanding of the extent of their responsibility as a reviewer and the extent of their authority as part of the CS Office. The culprit is usually an LSIT or (somewhat less common) a newly licensed LS who is just far enough along in their career to think they know darn near all there is to know, but not far enough to have yet found out that the more you learn, the more you realize how little you actually know.

It can be particularly problematic if the reviewer has limited experience and an even more narrow view of what acceptable survey procedure is. It seems that more and more, and this is not limited to those with only a short period of experience, but can often be found in those with 30 or more years of experience. They may look at a particular set of circumstances and believe that there is only one valid path of reasoning and thus only one supportable conclusion, where a person with more and/or broader experience and a mind which is more adaptable to solving complex puzzles and analyzing complex circumstances can conceive of several valid lines of reasoning and several different supportable conclusions. Thus, a professional should understand that another professional can follow a different line of reasoning, arrive at the same or different conclusions than the first would have, and that reasoning and those conclusions still be valid and reasonable. This problem, like that of the unlicensed reviewer full of his own imagined authority, can usually be solved by going around them to the CS.

In a few instances, that person with narrow vision and an inflated sense of power might be the CS, in which case, you've got problems. I don't know how often the CS is the actual problem, but my impression is that it's not very often.

Unfortunately, almost as, or perhaps just as common are the surveyors who regularly poorly perform surveys and/or poorly prepare maps, yet take great offense when someone suggests that they should consider some info they don't mention, make some measurements that would tie things together better, or show information in a different way to make it more clear. Their defensiveness comes from either a knowledge that they did cut corners and don't want to be called on it, or because they don't really have much confidence in their own knowledge & abilities but don't dare admit any shortcomings which may make them appear incompetent. All professions have these types. If you've worked with one, you'd recognize them by their response when a colleague of a different line of practice asks for some explanation. It may be an engineer who finds that a "resolved" boundary gives less room for a design feature than anticipated, comes and asks "Can you explain why the boundary is here instead of there?" A reasonable surveyor might take a couple minutes, relate what was found in research or in the field to the boundary and the engineer leaves, perhaps not happy, but accepting and a bit better educated. The defensive surveyor lacking confidence would more likely respond: "Are you a licensed surveyor? No! OK then. You worry about your job and I'll worry about mine!!" That engineer walks away having learned that surveyors are jerks and believing that none of them, particularly this one know what they're doing.

Most of the time, I think that there is a bit of both things going on. The reviewer might be reaching a bit beyond their authority or what is reasonable, and the surveyor gets defensive because he knows the reviewer is reaching too far, or perhaps ego gets in the way by creating the self-perception that "I'm not going to miss something important", "I never make stupid mistakes", and "How dare this unlicensed punk have the temerity to tell me how to do my job!"

I know that redmarks on our work and comments requiring or requesting changes to our work naturally make our hackles go up. But a reasonable, non-defensive response will usually be helpful both ways. You may discover that there is info you were not aware of, or may consider a way to show/explain something about your survey more clearly, and the reviewer may learn some aspects of boundary determination they were previously unaware of or learn where the reasonable limits of their review authority are.