California Surveyors Forums

I have replaced a lot of property corner markers with my tag in sidewalks due to repairs by the City.

I came across something unique today.
I found two tags 0.28' apart, showing a gap not an overlap.
I believe only one is correct, the one set by proration throughout the block and shown on a filed Corner Record.
The other was set previous to the "correct" survey and is shown on the filed Corner record as "NO REF."
It is common for this surveyor to not file his surveys, but he's old enough to have set it before 1985.

Now, if I replace both of them with my tag I'm sure I'll make it into the Hall of Shame for pin-cushioning my own corner.

I say replace the "correct" one only and let the Corner Records testify to the location of the unfiled one, both my new CR showing pre-construction ties and my new yet-to-be filed when I replace it, and the current filed CR.

Dave Lindell stated "It is common for this surveyor to not file his surveys, but he's old enough to have set it before 1985."

What happened in 1985 that was not in place between 1939 until 1984? Restated, are you saying the law did not require a land surveyor to file a record, according to 1984 law, for set monuments?

DWoolley

Dave Lindell wrote: I say replace the "correct" one only and let the Corner Records testify to the location of the unfiled one, both my new CR showing pre-construction ties and my new yet-to-be filed when I replace it, and the current filed CR.

This feels to me like the right thing to do. Save the community some confusion going forward. The demonstrated diligence of the surveyor in filing a record carries significant weight for me when i am considering whether to hold a monument. Then I can tell what she did, and when, even if I don’t always understand why.

Resetting two monuments on one corner has no value to this surveyor.

sounds like a trigger for a R/S, alter. positions for points.

I say replace the "correct" one only and let the Corner Records testify to the location of the unfiled one

That's what I've done in similar situations. The idea isn't to re-create the original monument, it's simply to preserve it's position -- either by direct replacement or via reliable measurements -- and to document what was found and what was set.

For what it's worth, in this area, it wasn't until around the early to mid eighties that surveyors began regularly filing maps when monuments were set. We find monuments not of public record all the time but don't go around calling them off just because they are not shown on a recorded map. I see way too much of this happening. Those records are probably out there somewhere, you just don't have them in front of you. Keep in mind, before you easily disregard non-record monuments, that those working before you may very well have had better and more abundant evidence than you do today simply due to the fact that they were working closer to the time of the original creation of the parcel. I've always understood the monument preservation projects as just replacing what was once there not necessarily making any determination of what is correct. I'd say just replace one of them but be sure to give reference to the position of the second.

As I remember the pre 1985 LSA(LSA is what it was called before we added "Professional") there was not requirement to file a map if I set a pipe at a legal corner as long as the survey didn't disclose any problems.

Lets see, I had to file a RS if the survey disclosed:

1; Material evidence or physical change which in whole or part didn't appear on another recorded map.
2. Evidence by reasonable analysis could result in alternate positions of lines or points.
3. points set of a line described in any deed that wasn't reflected on any record map..
4. lines or points or lines set on any parcel described in any deed that could not be determined from an inspection of the previous records without the use of trig.
5. A material discrepancy with the info contained in any other map of record.

That's it. Nothing about setting property corners and having to file a map. Section 8765 had not been revised with the property corner and CR provision

The only time that a surveyor HAD TO FILE was this stuff above. It was common practice in the OC, LA, Riverside and San Diego counties to survey lots, set pipes and tags and not file a thing, unless there was a problem, like the stuff listed above. Everybody was doing this and maybe we were breaking the law, but it must have been an ambiguous one.

In 1982 or 1983 Gary Shelton, the OC Surveyor, made a pitch at The Saddleback Inn at the local oc chapter meeting pushing to get support from us to change the LSA to provide for the mandatory filing of a CR for any property corners that were set. There was a push to get all of the lot surveys, from there on out, on record, so that the other surveyors following in the footsteps, new before hand that Bruce Hall was out there and he set something. It was better for the public and the surveyor.

Gary Shelton said this, " All we want to see is 4 circles and 4 lines with some bearings and distances on them, That's all!" We just want to know who was out there. That was the pitch, I was there. The law was revised to not state than, but something about precise location, whatever that means. The idea was good, but the implementation and interpretation of what should go on this CR has been screwed up, IMO.

He never mentioned, nor did anyone else in the room of 80 surveyors, state that we were breaking the law as it existed with regard to setting monuments at corners of land where everything was okay, no problems, everything fit within reason.

I'm sure that there was a law pre 1985 that mandated the filing of a RS for any property corner set, I just don't know what it was, and I don't think a whole bunch of other surveyors knew it either.

LS 2210, LS 2312, LS 485, LS 369_ (don't know if he's still alive or not) all set pipes, tagged them, didn't file a record cause there wasn't a problem.

.

As a small clarification to the preceeding post, I believe this is what Shelton believed would happen, that the CR for the setting of a monument at property corners would be a simple sketch, just didn't turn out that way. Nuff said..I've gotten away from the OP.

The need to file is one of the oldest law in California, I think going back to 1893 or thereabouts. There is a great article in an old Cal Surveyor. I will see if I can find it. The duty to record has been out there a long time. The contemporary agreement to file originated in San Diego circa 1980 when we started the first JPPC in the state. I was there and I remember intimately how we brought this about.

I hope this helps.

The primary function of a Land Surveyor is to preserve the history of survey monuments and to maintain the fabric of the cadastral network. That does not mean he/she has a duty to resolve every problem they come across. They simply have a duty to preserve what they see and find.

It is rather basic. In simplest terms, we should document and not necessarily decide.

PS, I miss Sheldon!

bruce hall wrote:I'm sure that there was a law pre 1985 that mandated the filing of a RS for any property corner set, I just don't know what it was, and I don't think a whole bunch of other surveyors knew it either.

that's a good read mike. The letter dated February 24, 1969 was of interest to me, along with the march 16, 1973 letter. I didn't get the "memo", but I guess that's my fault. It is apparent, a word used in the 1969 memo, that a whole lot of other surveyors didn't get it either.

on page 3 of the 1969 memo states that "it is apparent..........................." I don't see the "apparentness" , I think that is stuff in the white part of the page and a stretch in my mind. that may be why "physical change" was added to 8762 between 1973 and 1978 when I took the test. I was never able to convince anybody that "physical change" meant the monuments were different. Everyone I talked to said I was wrong, the law isn't talking about monuments.

The handbook for the preparation of RS's and CR's that was published by the county engineers association in the 90's indicated that physical change had to do with topography and not monuments. "Material evidence" wasn't discussed because it evidently was "apparent" as to its meaning. Apparent means obvious, among other things. If it was so obvious why the discussion, and why did so many, many, many, many, many surveyors and engineers not comply?

"There is the world as it is, and then the world as I see it. Unfortunately for me sometimes they are not the same."

So I guess finding of a no ref monument or setting a new no ref monument has always been a RS trigger until the CR portion of the PLSA was revised.

I have had many private discussions with Woolley regarding this issue and I have agreed with him on at least on one occasion that I, and probably a whole bunch of other guys were breaking the law and didn't know it. I certainly didn't.

Anyway, that was then, and this is now. What do I do today? The same thing I have been doing since 1978. set a monument, file a map of some kind.

The entire 1891 LS Act, (also listed as being approved in 1907-for some reason) is attached. It's been posted here before, maybe multiple times during similar discussions.

I took the time to retype Section 9 (from page 2) that discusses filing records of surveys. It's amazingly similar to today's PLS Act in many respects. Even though they knew back in 1891 what was reasonable and logical to include within a record of survey for the benefit of future users, there are those today who go kicking and screaming though the review process, protesting against showing this basic data. But I digress... the point is to show that these laws have not been some mysterious creature of recent history (the 1980's), but have been on the books for a long, long, time. I do believe we need to be cognizant of what surveyors were actually doing in practice, as Bruce educates us on, but let's at least acknowledge the legislative history accurately.

Sec. 9 Within sixty days after a survey relating to the sale or subdivision of lands, the retracing or establishing of property and boundary lines, public roads or trails, original cemetery or town sites, and their subdivision has been made by a licensed surveyor, he shall file with the recorder of the county in which such survey or any portion thereof lies, a record of survey. Such record shall be made in a good draughtsmanlike manner, on one or more sheets of firm paper of the uniform size of twenty-one by thirty inches. This record of survey shall be either an original plat or a copy thereof, and must contain all the data necessary to enable any competent practical surveyor to retrace the survey. The record of survey must show: All permanent monuments set, describing their size, kind and location, with reference to corners which they are intended to perpetuate; all bearing or witness trees marked in the field; complete outlines of the several tracts or parcels of land surveyed within courses, and lengths of boundary lines; the angles, as measured by Vernier readings, which the lines of blocks or lots, if the record relate to an original town-site survey, make with each other and with the center lines
of adjacent streets, alleys, roads, or lanes; the variations of the magnetic needle with which old line have been retraced; the scale of the map, the date of survey, a proper connection with one or more points of an original or larger tract of land, and the name of the same; the name of the grant or grants, or of the township and ranges, within which the survey is located; the signature and seal of the surveyor; provided, that nothing in this section shall require record to be made of surveys of a preliminary nature, where no monuments or corners are established.

I take that back. it wasn't until 1983 or 85 that I filed all my surveys. prior to that I didn't except when there was a problem as I mentioned above.

Hi Bruce,

When you get into it, the filing and recording duties go back many years. When we started the JPPC in 1980, the San Diego Chapter arbitrarily picked the cut off date and the state board agreed. Generally, prior to 1985, 99% of all private surveys were not filed. The only surveys that were filed were subdivision maps. Virtually every practicing surveyor prior to 1985 violated the law.

Bruce. See the attached in two parts.

"Virtually every practicing surveyor prior to 1985 violated the law"

Why was that? All these folks of high moral character, impartial, hopefully smart enough to put the pipes in the correct position, and yet break the law, not just once but many times.

Maybe it was a law that the land surveying community did not agree with, and therefore we ain't doing it. We are talking about pretty much everybody who surveyed. Wonder if Curtis Brown filed all his lot surveys where he set his pipe? Maybe he was in the 1 percent.

Or maybe Probably the reason for the lack of compliance was that the law was written in a such poor manner so as not be specific as to the requirements for compliance. You can think "loopholes" if you will, or not. Or you can think "clear as mud". Doesn't matter.

If finding a tagged pipe of no reference in the proper position or by setting my tagged pipe in the proper position, both of which don't t show up on the existing records indicates "material evidence" or "material discrepency" or "physical change",then how much more material is the situation where the original monument does not exist at the corner. Has anything changed from the record that is "material" or "That matters?"

The answer in my mind is "Yes, there aint nothing there. Yes, Something changed that matters." . the pipe is gone, gone, gone and its supposed to be there according to the records.Therefore I have to file a RS, even if I don't set anything. Remember this when you decide to look for a monument, cause if you don't find it, you may be on the hook. Something changed that is "material". This can be considered a stretch. Really? Wink Wink. I say that just as a thought that may or may not carry any weight. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed. Just a middle of the road surveyor.

But if the laws, as existed pre 1985, were so well written and were of value to the community, then I probably would not be here typing this. Fortunately I don't have deal with " do I file or not?" The law is more specific than it used to be. A lot easier to interpret.

Thank you all for the info attached in this thread. I printed it out and makes for good reading.

mpallamary wrote:PS, I miss Sheldon!

Me too.

Old vs new and of record.
One of the best things told me, and it might have come from Gary Shelton, was that "Centerline mons are just reference points to locate the actual corner." Meaning CL points will get you in the general location. I find this more applicable today. It seems like CL mons and the ties are being reset pretty loosely, I have to wonder if chains or EDMs are even used and they are being reset via RTK. An employee at a CalTrans district office, discussing PCH CL mons and their map, told me "if the point falls anywhere on the spike or washer is close enough", in remonumenting the CL they ignored their own ties from the 50's, same with the I-5 from the Y to Camino Cap, I was on the crew that tied out the CL ~1970. 20 years later I'm setting points for a carpool offramp from the control we were given by CalTrans, yep missed our old L&Ts by ~0.3' LOL I had been told that they remonumented the CL by traverse and finding old construction disturbed mons. LOL

If you want to see a lot of pincushiion CL ints go to old town Huntington Beach.

You would not believe the incredible number of non-record surveys and associated monuments Brown has out there. Bruce, I agree with you and I believe the PLSA is still poorly written. That's why I can't believe there were no recommended revisions last year. It seems the only changes we see are State Board initiated and that's not good.

Mike,

I did recommend one small revision last year and the Leg committee is working on it.

If you have a change you would like to see, submit it to the Leg Committee.

Steve