California Surveyors Forums

By law, can attorneys or homeowners prepare legal descriptions in Ca? I know 8726 includes the preparation of legal descriptions to be a part of Land Surveying but does this mean that others cannot write them by law? Is this a correct interpretation?

That has always been my understanding, based on 8726, with the sole exemption being for large utility employees writing easement descriptions per 8730. However, I have encountered much scepticism of this view, with many feeling that attorneys may be permitted. I’m curious as to other’s takes, but just don’t see too much wiggle room in 8726.

Also the wording of 8726 is interesting, with the phrase ‘in connection with...’ following the legal description part of 8726.

We all know that they should never be allowed to write legals!

The practice of land surveying defines determining the information shown in a deed as land surveying, which requires a license to practice.

8726. Land surveying defined A person…practices land surveying…who… does or offers to…[determine] the information shown or to be shown within the description of any deed, trust deed, or other title document prepared for the purpose of describing the limit of real...

The only exception to this is found in §8730 of the PLS Act:

The following persons are not required to be licensed [to practice land surveying]…[a]ny…employee of an electric, gas, or telephone corporation, as defined in Sections 218, 222, and 234, respectively, of the Public Utilities Code, with annual revenues of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) or more, whenever he or she prepares a legal description of an easement for utility distribution lines and service facilities, provided [that]…[e]ach description identifies the corporation that prepared the description and states that it was prepared pursuant to this exemption [, and] each corporation has in its employ, or on contract, an individual authorized to practice land surveying who shall be responsible for establishing criteria for determining the qualifications of technical specialists preparing those legal descriptions, specifying the format and information to be shown on maps or documents containing those descriptions, and capable of answering questions regarding the preparation of those descriptions.

I have been asking people from many years to show me any other exception to §8726 or authorization to provide the same service. I have yet to have a single, concrete example. Many have sworn they saw one somewhere; none have come through with it.

Just as defining the rights conveyed or contained by the described lands falls under the practice of law, something we are not authorized to do, defining the bounds of the described lands falls within the practice of land surveying, something which title people and attorneys are not authorized to do.

Many years ago this topic came up at one of Roy Minnick's presentations.

Roy, being with First American Title corrected us and sent me, the editor at the time, the statute.

See pages 12 & 13 of the CalSurveyor Issue #129. More particularly "SECTION FIVE". Do you think the lawyers would give up that portion of law?
(Roy explained that is the reason title companies have an attorney on staff.)

Surveyor-Recorder Phil - Sonoma

Darn, I missed that meeting.
I worked for Bob Curtis, twice. One of my best mentors, good times.

hellsangle wrote:Many years ago this topic came up at one of Roy Minnick's presentations.

Roy, being with First American Title corrected us and sent me, the editor at the time, the statute.

See pages 12 & 13 of the CalSurveyor Issue #129. More particularly "SECTION FIVE". Do you think the lawyers would give up that portion of law?
(Roy explained that is the reason title companies have an attorney on staff.)

Surveyor-Recorder Phil - Sonoma

My understanding of that, particularly when read subsequent to the note under Section 4, is that it does not authorize either title officers or attorneys to prepare legal descriptions, but only to use them. It's intended to clarify that the intention isn't to stop title officers or attorneys from preparing documents of which legal descriptions are a part, but does not grant them the ability to prepare them any more than Section 4's note grants post-82 Engineers the ability to prepare legal descriptions.

Attorneys and title officers are permitted to insert legals into the documents they use within their areas of practice, but not to prepare or modify them. They may engage in the practice of their profession, but not in the practice of our profession, which includes preparation of legal descriptions.

I always assumed that attorneys and title officers could because the practice is so widespread. I see it every day, completely re-writing, adding-subtracting whatever they feel like. Scanning my dated/signed/seal docs and then adding stuff to them for recording, shrinking my exhibits. Scans are so bad a whole lot of mapping annotation is unreadable or just gone. Yesterday I had a title person (not sure if she was escrow or title officer) telling my client that Section, Township, & Range are antiquated phrasing and no longer needed on his deed to a parcel he is about to acquire. She took that whole paragrapgh of the preamble out of the "new" description. She also wants to add a City to the preamble even though it is in an unincorporated part of the County. I told her that she should be using the legal that the seller acquired the parcel with verbatim, no more, no less. I told my client that if she won't change it to match the previous vesting deed, then he should get another title company (the title company now, is the sellers)

Scott,

Your words should be heard by the California Insurance Commissioner!

I had to take exception to Roy's take on this when he put a seminar on for us up in Humboldt County. I think it's been pretty well settled licensed land surveyors are the only ones legally authorized to prepare legal descriptions. Just to be sure there wasn't some obscure law known only to lawyers, I asked our County Counsel at the time to research it and give me an official opinion on the matter. They concluded neither courts, nor lawyers, title cos. etc. could prepare legal descriptions. Only licensed land surveyors. As I suspected the answer would be.

Dave Ryan,
Arcata

Not to hijack the post. But in 2019, one of the largest Planning Departments in the Country is still relying on the pre-1986 unlicensed public agency employee to review legal descriptions for LLAs and Certificates of Compliance. The person in responsible charge today Is unlicensed and was not in responsible charge in 1986 (he was at staff level). He was promoted to the current position within the last five years. I tried to move the legal description review of these documents to the County land surveyor office, but it fell on deaf ears of the decision makers.

subman wrote:Not to hijack the post. But in 2019, one of the largest Planning Departments in the Country is still relying on the pre-1986 unlicensed public agency employee to review legal descriptions for LLAs and Certificates of Compliance.

Your not the only one that has this problem. I've pointed out and advised different Planning Departments in the Bay Area that when their unlicensed Planning Director signs the LLA, Cert. of Compliance, Lot Mergers, and such, that they are in violation of Sect. 8761(e) of the PLS Act, unless they have a licensed surveyor sign. As you said, it goes to deaf ears and they continue.

This will continue until someone with LOTS of money has issues and the government agency gets sued.

As for preparation of legal descriptions, yes it is best to have land surveyors prepare them. I just had a client finalize his LLA with new deeds, and his lawyer didn't even use the legal attached to the LLA. The lawyer retyped the existing, which is ok if he got it right, lol. That's one way he can charge additional time to the client.
My issue was:
1) New deed had no reference to the recorded Cert. of Compliance - LLA.
2) I had a call "59.00 feet" and the lawyer changed it to "59 feet". I pointed out to my client that without the 59.00' call it is plus or minus and was not the intent.

(Remember all; you can't fix stupid, lol.)

Dennis & Keith,

Have you brought these situations to the attention of BPELSG? If the unlicensed person(s) in charge now were not in responsible charge in 1986 when the exception was enacted, then they don't fall under the exception, even if they were doing the work under someone else's direction at that time.

E_Page wrote: Have you brought these situations to the attention of BPELSG? If the unlicensed person(s) in charge now were not in responsible charge in 1986 when the exception was enacted, then they don't fall under the exception, even if they were doing the work under someone else's direction at that time.

Pick your battles and move one. I no longer am employed by that county, and that's a good thing since I knew more than others.