California Surveyors Forums

I wish to pose a question for discussion purposes.

The PLSA, in part, describes a "material discrepancy" as follows:

***********************************************************************************************
8762. Records of survey

(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), after making a field survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying, the licensed surveyor or licensed civil engineer may file with the county surveyor in the county in which the survey was made, a record of the survey.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), after making a field survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying, the licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer shall file with the county surveyor in the county in which the field survey was made a record of the survey relating to land boundaries or property lines, if the field survey discloses any of the following:

(1) Material evidence or physical change, which in whole or in part does not appear on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey previously recorded or properly filed in the office of the county recorder or county surveying department, or map or survey record maintained by the Bureau of Land Management of the United States.

(2) A material discrepancy with the information contained in any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey previously recorded or filed in the office of the county recorder or the county surveying department, or any map or survey record maintained by the Bureau of Land Management of the United States. For purposes of this subdivision, a “material discrepancy” is limited to a material discrepancy in the position of points or lines, or in dimensions.

(3) Evidence that, by reasonable analysis, might result in materially alternate positions of lines or points, shown on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey previously recorded or filed in the office of the county recorder or the county surveying department, or any map or survey record maintained by the Bureau of Land Management of the United States.

(4) The location, relocation, establishment, reestablishment, or retracement of one or more points or lines not shown on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey, the positions of which are not ascertainable from an inspection of the subdivision map, official map, or record of survey. ..
*****************************************************************************************************

What does it mean to file something with a county surveying department?

Attached is a redfacted site plan prepared by a designer. He had an error with regards to the width of the lot and it has created problems for the buyer who relied on it. The site plan was filed with a city (and not the county) and was accepted and used for the approval of building plans that no longer work.

Would you consider an assessor map as an "official map" in this context?

From the state of California: "The assessor's maps are official records constituting a compilation of land assessment data"
Since the assessor's maps constitute a permanent official record, the maps must be as accurate as possible, considering basic survey data available, and should be neatly and uniformly drawn by an experienced cadastral mapping technician. The maps should be made following certain basic controls such as the U.S. Geological Survey or other controls. This will assist in providing accurate maps and assure that all land area in the county is covered on the maps."

"The maps constitute a permanent official record and a parcel number always indicates a specific parcel of property. If the boundaries of a parcel of property are changed, a new parcel number is assigned to describe the changed parcel."

"325. Official maps. When a map has been adopted as an official map under Division 3 (commencing with Section 66499.50) of Title 7 of the Government Code, land may be described by numbers or letters as shown on the official map."


**************************************************************************************************************************

Given the magnitude of the error, and the information shown (and relied on) was the designer practicing land surveying? He explained that he calculated the area using a drafting program. He based the dimensions on an assessor map and misread the frontage.

The city accepted the site plan. It was not reviewed by a licensed land surveyor.

Do you believe a land surveyor should review a plan like this?

If not, why not?

Thanks everyone for your time.

Be safe!

MP wrote "What does it mean to file something with a county surveying department?"

I am familiar with several counties that had filing systems for maps that were not filed with the county recorder. In Orange County the maps were called Surveyor's Maps. These maps were essentially records of survey without the certificates. These maps are legal under 8765 (a).

MP wrote "Would you consider an assessor map as an "official map" in this context?".

No. An official map is legally defined, together with the filing procedure, under the Government Code (Subdivision Map Act) section 66499.50 through 66499.58. An "official record" is not an official map.

MP wrote "Given the magnitude of the error, and the information shown (and relied on) was the designer practicing land surveying? He explained that he calculated the area using a drafting program. He based the dimensions on an assessor map and misread the frontage.

The city accepted the site plan. It was not reviewed by a licensed land surveyor.

Do you believe a land surveyor should review a plan like this?

If not, why not?"

No, I do not think the designer was practicing land surveying. In my experience, it is not uncommon for architects and/or engineers to use record parcel data for design. The assessor's parcel maps usually have notes concerning the use and accuracy of the information. More importantly, most assessor's maps reflect the same record information shown on the underlying grant document. Misreading a document, as stated, will usually produce an error. As land surveyors, we know not to rely on an assessor's map - the same is usually true with engineers. This particular designer might want to hire a land surveyor in the future. The land surveyors will typically find any two monuments and create their own illegal boundary for the designer (err.).

MP wrote "Do you believe a land surveyor should review a plan like this? If not, why not?"

No. There is nothing for a land surveyor to check on the attached plan. Anyone could have checked the plan against the AP map, but chose not to.

Am I missing something?

DWoolley

If the person that created the site plan and determined the existing conditions relative to the boundary line, it would be practicing land surveying. I can't tell you how many people have impacted by such a practice.

The UBC states that site plans should be based upon an accurate survey.

Assessor's Maps have only one purpose: used as a visual index to Make Sure All Property Gets Taxed (or noted as exempt). That's all.

Good comments all! Thanks!

Will respond if others weigh in.

"What is a Material Discrepancy?"

My best guess as to what a typical trial court judge would consider it to be.

Well said!

Who thinks an APN map should be the sole source to determine a boundary? I have been struggling for several years trying to educate our building department on what is an acceptable site plan. in permit review, i refuse to accept APN maps as the basis of a site plan.

Material Discrepancy is dependent on the circumstances. it could be a positional error of 0.1' or 10' or more dependent the situation. I have retraced GLO and had positional differences of 100' and not called it discrepant, as i was using modern instrumentation and comparing to staff compass and stadia in an area that was topographically challenging. I was impressed they were that close.

also consider the methods, if i close traverse loops, turn multiple angles and measure forward and back and use Least squares to adjust the position of a monument that was run in one direction, it is discrepant? Sometimes maybe not, all dependent on the situation.

Thanks for the comments! Still gathering comments.

MP wrote "Attached is a redfacted site plan prepared by a designer. He had an error with regards to the width of the lot and it has created problems for the buyer who relied on it. The site plan was filed with a city (and not the county) and was accepted and used for the approval of building plans that no longer work."

The problem here is most designers/architects use the fence line as the boundary line. The government agency will approve plans per this site plan not knowing a surveyor was NOT involved. The contractor will take the approved plans and construct foundation forms for the addition per the approved site plan. The issue come up when they build to the minimum setback line and the government agency requires a Setback Certification Letter from a Licensed Land Surveyor before authorizing the project to pour concrete.

I get a last minute panic call from the homeowner/contractor needing a setback certification letter so they can proceed. Upon my survey I find out that the forms are constructed 0.17' within the minimum setbacks and have to inform the contractor he has to adjust the forms 0.17' before I can certify. I have to make an additional site visit to confirm and then I deliver the setback certification letter.

Note: Every time I run into this situation, the additional costs to adjust the forms, rebar, conduit, piping, etc. falls back on the homeowner because the architect did not inform them to have a Site Survey initially, and the contractors are not familiar with how plans are developed. Architects cause the issue, but they have been paid, and the homeowners are stuck. Only recourse is for the homeowner to file a complaint with the Board identifying the architect is practicing land surveying.

No back to my original COVID programming! (aka real work, heheheee)

Every time these sorts of questions and horror stories come up, I always ask myself what would the Rogue Plumber do from "Brazil"? At the end of the day the goal of surveying is to help protect property rights.

To address your original question:
No, it should not be reviewed by an LS.
It is generally not required, nor should it be. More levels of "review" just mean another layer of bureaucracy that will find some sort of "standard" of review that will just add cost and time that make it harder for a landowner to build a home, or a homeowner to add/remodel, but have little to none actual effect on the world, IE who cares if the foundation is 0.17 too close to a setback? Differences in trim choices will change the walls finish face distance to the line more than that, since all the setbacks are to the foundation concrete and not the actual finish face, which also ignores eaves and overhangs....
The shade of gray to that answer is the costs to the homeowners. Personally I would argue for more education of the public about the "schematic(cough crappy) nature of most architectural plans, and urge them to add standard clauses in the contract about having the architect pay for bad consequences. If it became a standard in contracts, then architects would self interestedly get accurate site plans so they could point a finger later.

Mikey Mueller, PLS
Sonoma County, CA

The exhibit I posted is a ten-foot error. That is more than 0.17' A surveyor would have caught this.

I appreciate what you are getting at Mr. Pallamary, the spirit of the overall content. Let's go back to the Site Plan.

Per CBC 2019, Volume 1, Chapter 1, at Section 107.2.6:

[A] 107.2.6 Site Plan

The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied by a site plan showing to scale the size and location of new construction and existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades and the proposed finished grades and, as applicable, flood hazard areas, floodways, and design flood elevations; and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show construction to be demolished and the location and size of existing structures and construction that are to remain on the site or plot. The building official is authorized to waive or modify the requirement for a site plan where the application for permit is for alteration or repair or where otherwise warranted.

[A] 107.2.6.1 Design Flood Elevations

Where design flood elevations are not specified, they shall be established in accordance with Section 1612.3.1.

And diving into the structural design part of the Code:

1612.3.1 Design Flood Elevations

Where design flood elevations are not included in the flood hazard areas established in Section 1612.3, or where floodways are not designated, the building official is authorized to require the applicant to do one of the following:

1. Obtain and reasonably utilize any design flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state or other source.
2. Determine the design flood elevation or floodway in accordance with accepted hydrologic and hydraulic engineering practices used to define special flood hazard areas. Determinations shall be undertaken by a registered design professional who shall document that the technical methods used reflect currently accepted engineering practice.



I've seen too many scenarios like the example you posted to count.
What we have are plans examiners, Building Officials and Public Works Directors not doing their jobs.
We also have engineers, surveyors, architects and every other sort of clown out there not doing their jobs either.

The plans examiner, Building Official, Public Works Director should take one look at that example and kick it back requiring an LS stamp. Period.

And even then, ya better watch out because I've seen plenty of LS stamps on glorified assessor maps, said maps even been stamped by County Surveyor and filed for record.

This taken from a post of mine on the Site Plan thread a while back:

Looking at the other side of this:

When the submitted plans include no site plan, or inadequate site plan, and are approved for construction, and a property line or setback encroachment is discovered in the field following permit approval, and construction halts and litigation ensues as a result, and the public is harmed, and the Building Official / Enforcement Agent (2019 CBC Section 202) shrugs it off, what recourse does the public have?

Who keeps an eye on the Building Official / Enforcement Agent?