California Surveyors Forums

A comment came back on a Corner Record...4,687.12'(M) 4,687.48'(R), this is a material discrepancy and a Record of Survey is required.

I know there is more than one person who reviews maps here, is this a material discrepancy?

I believe that is your call to make. I'm dealing with the same thing right now on a 100 ft line vs your 1 mile line.

I think it's ridiculous. Comments like that make me question the value of County Surveyor review. This mentality is damaging to the professional philosophy. Material discrepancy is not a mathematical determination.

I once had a more open minded County Surveyor ask me in a similar situation to state that there was no material discrepancy on the corner record. I was happy to oblige

At the end of the day they are required to file the corner record. I suggest you politely but firmly assert your position.

khuerth wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 8:10 am A comment came back on a Corner Record...4,687.12'(M) 4,687.48'(R), this is a material discrepancy and a Record of Survey is required.

I know there is more than one person who reviews maps here, is this a material discrepancy?

It is the responsibility of the land surveyor in responsible charge of the survey being documented on the CR to ensure that this topic is addressed appropriately by filing the proper document. The County Surveyor has a responsibility to point out any concerns related to the filing/review of the proper document. Suggest you seek to discuss the concerns with the CS, but know that the CS cannot refuse to file the CR. CS can add a note to the CR stating the reason(s) why he/she believes an RS is required and then file the CR.

If you're ever questioned by the Board on this, be prepared to support your decision. The CS could also be questioned by the Board if he/she failed to properly address any concerns.

Great topic.

If you have two ORIGINAL monuments/pipes/hubs/etc., called for in a deed or map - it seems paramount that the monument controls over anything else. One could have twenty measurements between those ORIGINAL points but the ORIGINAL points are the corner. No discrepancy, save, in measurement!

How is filing a Record of Survey protecting the health/safety/welfare of John Q. Public when the ORIGINALS are the corner?! Each time a surveyor measures that line he/she will be required to file a Record of Survey because of a measurement difference?

Crazy Phil can't keep his trap shut today . . . LOL

Phil,

Not just you, not a RS, and I would bet dollars to donuts (though I think donuts cost more than a dollar nowadays...) that no one thinks its a RS.

I have seen the same sort of comments, and I always assumed they were made in the tone of a double check. As a instructor at the SRJC liked to say, at least half of surveying is double checking the other half :)

Mikey Mueller

Mike Mueller wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 10:33 pm at least half of surveying is double checking the other half

Well said. Yes, I already knew how I was going to handle this.

I had a mentor who always used to say "where's it written" in response to these types of comments and with the material discrepancy, it isn't really written anywhere at least not clearly and map reviewers always seem to have their own idea of what a material discrepancy is.

The term "material discrepancy" should not apply to instances where there is only a minor difference between measured and record data, even though many county surveyors apparently interpret the law that way.
I've attached a definition of the term from USLegal.com
"Material discrepancy occurs when there is such a difference between a thing alleged and a thing offered in evidence, as to show they are not substantially the same."
In my opinion, from a surveying perspective, this would be a alleged boundary that is in conflict with the prior records.

That's crazy. That's not a material discrepancy. I've shown 0.3' difference on Corner Records on distances far less than that.
As others have said, if they are original monuments, then there is no reason to be filing an RS.

I think you and the map checker are both missing the issue here.
Record distance was measured when? What equipment was used?
To only be 0.36' difference (in 4,687') is pretty damn good in my opinion, but then some have other opinions, lol.

OK - here is the real one (not my vacination record)

"a difference between a thing alleged and a thing offered in evidence, as to show they are not substantially the same."

mbstanton wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:45 am OK - here is the real one (not my vacination record)

At least we now know you are safe to participate on this forum, lol. Are you wearing your mask as you type too, heheheeee? Doh ! ! !