California Surveyors Forums

A legal description refers to “the east 10 feet” a rectangular lot (nominal 100’ by 100’) of record i.e. “Lot 1 of Tract XX…” and the lot closes mathematically.
Why is the square footage of the east 10 feet shown as “more or less”? Specifically, “containing 1000 square feet, more or less”.
I would contend the square footage calculated by any surveyor for record “Lot 1 of Tract …” would be the same within the significant figures. Therefore, the use of “more or less” would not be correct, right?

In the event Lot 1 was field surveyed to determine the square footage, wouldn’t it be most appropriate to use “+/-“ and state a quantity i.e. containing 1000 square feet plus or minus 27 square feet at two sigma? The term “plus or minus” is not interchangeable with the term “more or less”. Plus or minus indicates standard deviation.

Lastly, in the event the conveyance was “…the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section X…” and added “containing 40 acres, more or less”. The more or less would be correctly stated in that the 40 acres cited could be substantially different when established on the ground. The same may be true if the descriptions calls for a senior adjoiner. The term “more or less” is a buyer beware notice according to Wattles.

Nearly all financial transactions related to real property i.e. conveyances, eminent domain takings etc. are based on the square footage and/or acreage. Is it not incumbent upon the surveyor to use the knowledge and the skills of the profession to make clear, concise and without ambiguity statements?

I welcome any thoughts.

DWoolley

Practicality

The first time a lot is mapped is the last time the record dimensions will ever measure perfectly on the ground.

Land area is essentially the least important factor in our priority of calls.

Market value (whatever offer is accepted) is the primary component of assessment. Area is secondary. All assessments are general comparisons and estimates of value. If I want to dispute an assessment value I will attack the market value estimate not the area calculation.

While we have the ability to express precise land areas I see no value to it. Land area to the nearest tenth of an acre (more or less) is probably sufficient in 95 percent of my surveys. The larger the parcel the greater the slop in area. If you are measuring a postage stamp for an inverse condemnation lawsuit valuation then I see your point. I never got that call.

I take greater issue with the agencies that require certification of land area to the hundredth or thousandth of an acre in all cases. To me it is giving some future buyer or seller a meaningless artifact to stress over. The 43.560 sq ft in a thousandth of an acre is about enough land for a California King and it is not worth much unless you are downtown. Some surveyors will certify area to hundredths of a square foot.

What is the potential liabilty for being off a hair? Is it mitigated by “more or less”? Has any LS ever been sued for being too specific or too general regarding land area?

I also don’t understand why gasoline is metered to the thousandth of a gallon….

Why complicate the matter?

I tend to agree with Mr. Kendall. "More or less" has always bothered me. I want to ask "Is it more or is it less? You're the professional. Why can't you tell me?"

No parcel has ever been measured "perfectly". we know from measurement science that all measurements carry some inherent error.

Wasn't it Richard Feynman how said that stating any measurement issued without also stating the standard deviation of the measurement should be a federal felony?

A requirement to state a measurement to a certain number of decimal places is prima facie evidence that the entity making the requirement does not understand the requirement or the measurement and should be responsible for review of neither.

I note:

California Code, Code of Civil Procedure - CCP § 2077
Current as of January 01, 2019

The following are the rules for construing the descriptive part of a conveyance of real property, when the construction is doubtful and there are no other sufficient circumstances to determine it:

One--Where there are certain definite and ascertained particulars in the description, the addition of others which are indefinite, unknown, or false, does not frustrate the conveyance, but it is to be construed by the first mentioned particulars.

Two--When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount.

Three--Between different measurements which are inconsistent with each other, that of angles is paramount to that of surfaces, and that of lines paramount to both.

Four--When a road, or stream of water not navigable, is the boundary, the rights of the grantor to the middle of the road or the thread of the stream are included in the conveyance, except where the road or thread of the stream is held under another title.

Five--When tide water is the boundary, the rights of the grantor to ordinary high-water mark are included in the conveyance.  When a navigable lake, where there is no tide, is the boundary, the rights of the grantor to low-water mark are included in the conveyance.

Six--When the description refers to a map, and that reference is inconsistent with other particulars, it controls them if it appear that the parties acted with reference to the map;  otherwise the map is subordinate to other definite and ascertained particulars.
*****************************************************************************

I recently probed this similar topic. Is a "surface" an "area?"

SURFACE
noun


sur·​face | \ ˈsər-fəs \
Definition of surface (Entry 1 of 3)
1: the exterior or upper boundary of an object or body
on the surface of the water
the earth's surface
2: a plane or curved two-dimensional locus of points (such as the boundary of a three-dimensional region)
plane surface
surface of a sphere
3a: the external or superficial aspect of something
trouble lurks below the surface
b: an external part or layer
sanded the rough surfaces

I append "more or less" to area calls in descriptions unless the area is the primary concern, and I can't recall a situation in which that was the case. The phrase underscores the fact that the area value is an ancillary quantity provided for convenience and yields to the measurement information that precedes it. Thus far no one has complained to me about the practice.

state a quantity i.e. containing 1000 square feet plus or minus 27 square feet at two sigma? The term “plus or minus” is not interchangeable with the term “more or less”. Plus or minus indicates standard deviation.

Dave,

This is all well and good for the "expert measurer" . . . but this train of thought . . . to the title people, attorneys and more that half your surveying brotherhood - you'd be speaking in tongues if you're considering codifying such.

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

I appreciate the thoughts.

A subdivision map rightfully shows the square footage and/or acreage of a lot or parcel as a definitive number – there is no “more or less” or "plus or minus". The area is essentially a fixed quantity in the record. There is no contingency, or consideration given for the placement of the monuments or a future retracement survey. The writing of a legal description from the record, presuming there is no ambiguity in the record, applying the same reasoning, the legal description written from the record would be equally fixed. A resurvey/retracement measurement variance is not a consideration in creating the conveyance document – again, presuming there is no ambiguity in the record - unless the conveyance document is based on a field survey.

If the preceding paragraph as accurate, the use of “more or less” in many instances would be incorrect. Written legal descriptions, in many instances, should not be correlated with the prospective future establishment of a boundary. This is out of Wattles in the inverse - he explains the difference in a description writing when a field survey has been completed for the description.

Certainly, the use of "plus or minus" after a stated area, absent a field survey and calculated quantity of the uncertainty, is less than ideal. This past year, for the purposes of manual writing and peer review, I have been studying the evolution of legal description standards in California. There is remarkable consistency in the written standards. Generally stated, the standards are anchored in Wattles publications dating back to early 1943.

The current familiarity with the legal description publications and a recent expert designation on a case involving conflicting areas created a situation for me to rethink the words applied in writing the descriptions.

In the current case, there was a 1,000 square foot delta between two appraisal reports. The delta created a $100k difference in the settlement value. I was tasked with the definitive determination of the area. The antiquated underlying map is over 120 years old and deficient by today’s standards. I explained to the client I could quickly determine the area, but to truly determine the area a field survey would be needed to establish the original subdivision. Once the area was determined by field survey I began thinking about quantifying the numbers – certainly, "more or less" was no longer appropriate.

The aggregate of my current experiences has me thinking about our professional role. For a less than 10% of the area delta, $100k, a dispute was resolved definitively. Think about the many descriptions, resulting in millions of dollars of transactions based on area, that are based on inaccurate data that could be resolved and quantified for the parties.

I am currently of the opinion “more or less” is inappropriate in many circumstances and should not be applied indiscriminately. Equally, when the field survey yields an area the area should be appropriately quantified. Lastly, in the event the area could vary greatly due to antiquated record information, defects, calls to senior descriptions the term “more or less” would be appropriate.

Phil, I am not thinking about new legislation. I am in the process of writing an amendment to a publication and modifying the standards I use for checking purposes. I welcome opinions before I am fully committed to the ideas presented.

I believe there is an opportunity for the land surveying community to educate the legal community on the nuances of area before they negotiate settlement documents.

DWoolley

DWoolley wrote: It appears as though the wildcards are individuals with poor training and/or mentorship. I recently read a quote that may explain the issue "Those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it". Anyone of us could fall into this category on a given topic.

I am currently of the opinion “more or less” is inappropriate in certain circumstances and should not be applied indiscriminately. Equally, when the field survey yields an area the area should be appropriately quantified. Lastly, in the event the area could vary greatly due to antiquated record information, defects, calls to senior descriptions the term “more or less” would be appropriate.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the above points. The OP was not specific regarding "certain circumstances". Certainly there is a time and place for more precise standards.

Thank you for the clarification!

Maybe the scrivener felt that stating more or less showed that the intent was to be construed strongest for the 10 feet and not the area calculation.

Also I would say +/- means more or less to most people, unless it is followed by an integer to indicate the standard deviation. ie: 10.2' +/- .01'

Man of Chain wrote:Maybe the scrivener felt that stating more or less showed that the intent was to be construed strongest for the 10 feet and not the area calculation.

Man of Chain (great name by the way):

Fair enough, maybe the scrivener did believe the stated area would hold over the distance stated i.e. 10 feet. In the unlikely event this became an issue, California law, fortunately, provides clear guidance for the land surveyors, attorneys and others in the professional community. Equally fortunate, we are trained to write descriptions that can make the area called binding if we desire.

Man of Chain wrote:Also I would say +/- means more or less to most people, unless it is followed by an integer to indicate the standard deviation. ie: 10.2' +/- .01'

Agreed, plus or minus “means the same as more or less to most people”. However, the terms are not technically interchangeable. Based on a land surveyor’s background this should be an easy educational obstacle to clear – it only took me thirty years, err, plus or minus 3 years at one sigma, to develop the thought we need to discern the use of these terms more clearly.

Legal descriptions are subject to contract law i.e. the four corners rule in contract interpretation and a word’s literal meaning matters.

I appreciate the comments.

DWoolley