California Surveyors Forums

What would you think if, that when including coordinates in a deed, the requirement to impart constructive notice by referring to data appearing of record were to be deleted?


8814. State plane coordinates may be used for property identification on any map, survey, conveyance, or other instrument which delineates or affects the title to real property or which delineates, describes, or refers to the property, or any part thereof. However, to constitute, when recorded, constructive notice thereof under the recording laws, the delineating, describing, or referring to the property, or part thereof, shall also refer to data appearing of record in any office, the records of which constitute constructive notice under the recording laws. That record data shall be sufficient to identify the property without recourse to those coordinates, and in case of conflict between them, the references to that recorded data shall be controlling for the purpose of determining constructive notice under the recording law.

I think you answered your own question with the pertinent quotation.

Anyone who just wants to use coordinates to describe a parcel, whether they be on an arbitrary system or State Plane system just wants to show their expertise, flaunt their knowledge, or try to hide something.

Thanks David.

This is a real proposal to change the law (not mine).

I am just trying to get input from the community on it.

Steve

And as mentioned above, why add information that is the weakest in determining boundary locations? I was taught to never make a "double call" in a deed, giving two ways to determine a location, since that always creates a conflict. Any deed containing coordinates has a built-in conflict as soon as it is written.

Which coordinate system will be used? Caltrans tried using coordinates for deeds in the 1980's, but stopped because once a system is updated, the control monuments are no longer supported. How would you trace a deed written with NAD27 Coordinates, especially if you didn't know which monuments were used to establish the grid? If anything, NAD83 is worse, since Datum tags and epochs constantly change. The reader may not know if the coordinates were based on CORS monuments, HPGN, or some local network. It won't get better with the newest datums, either. Tying to a local PLSS or record monument is a lot easier than coordinates.

And ya'll think Phil's crazy!?

Paul Cuomo, Roy Minnick and I addressed this topic in our book "Advanced Land Descriptions."

http://www.pallamaryandassociates.com/b ... vLand.html

Here are some thoughts.... I've been mulling this over for few weeks now.

Using bearings and distance is already am implicit form of calling for coordinates, and we know not to use those if at all possible without having additional qualifying calls and sr. rights. In the older days for homeowners with handheld compasses it sort of made sense to tell them what general direction to go in and how far to walk. Today, I suppose the average homeowner wants to key in a gis level coordinate to find their actual corner?

Coordinates are low on the hierarchy of reliable data because of the complications with datums, and also problems with number transposition.

When I went to school in European countries, it was common to record property corner location in cadastral paperwork based on coordinates that you arrived to by field measurements, based off of local plane surveying city maintained control. (after you resolve jr. sr rights etc). We sort of do it today too, when we calc points - then on maps we record bearings and distances, and calculate coordinates when we need them... in europe, we recorded the coordinates and then calculated bearings and distances when we need them. Having worked on both sides of this, it is 'six in one, half a dozen in the other' kind of a thing. In many cases bearings and distance are closer to the actual field measurements (fewer calculation steps, fewer opportunities for errors). Nowadays, with GPS used more often and getting more precise, coordinates are becoming a more direct evidence of your field measurements.

If I understand correctly this proposal is authored by Greg Helmer. I would like to understand his rationale for it first, then see if it makes sense and if it is worded right, and if it is likely to create undesirable unintended consequences.

CB6753 wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:40 pm Which coordinate system will be used? Caltrans tried using coordinates for deeds in the 1980's, but stopped because once a system is updated, the control monuments are no longer supported. How would you trace a deed written with NAD27 Coordinates, especially if you didn't know which monuments were used to establish the grid? If anything, NAD83 is worse, since Datum tags and epochs constantly change. The reader may not know if the coordinates were based on CORS monuments, HPGN, or some local network. It won't get better with the newest datums, either. Tying to a local PLSS or record monument is a lot easier than coordinates.

Good point CB6753. I remember checking a Record of Survey many years ago for a huge parcel described in a Final Order of Condemnation for the Tiajuana River flood plane. I suspect the description was written by the same pre-82 Civil Engineer that submitted the ROS. The description started off "Beginning at a point on the US International border whose NAD27 coordinates are..." and then gave Northing and Easting to 5 decimal places. The ROS showed bearing and distance from two old USC&GS control points, but no information on how the international border was established. In fact, the ROS did not show how any to call, such as "to the centerline of Dairy Mart Road" was retraced.

CBarrett wrote: Fri Jul 22, 2022 2:12 pm Using bearings and distance is already am implicit form of calling for coordinates, and we know not to use those if at all possible without having additional qualifying calls and sr. rights. In the older days for homeowners with handheld compasses it sort of made sense to tell them what general direction to go in and how far to walk. Today, I suppose the average homeowner wants to key in a gis level coordinate to find their actual corner?

Coordinates are low on the hierarchy of reliable data because of the complications with datums, and also problems with number transposition.

I believe the author mentioned the issue Mike Pallamary wrote an article on, where the State Lands Commission wrote a description for offshore state territory based upon GIS coordinates.

The point is not who wrote the proposal. The point is to get input from a good portion of Land Surveyors in the state before changing the law.
I understand that CLSA will be developing a questionnaire about what does the Survey community want to see in future revisions of the PRC. I just want to get the discussion started.

Edit: Pallamary article at: https://archive.amerisurv.com/PDF/TheAm ... ch2015.pdf

mpallamary wrote: Fri Jul 22, 2022 8:20 am Paul Cuomo, Roy Minnick and I addressed this topic in our book "Advanced Land Descriptions."

http://www.pallamaryandassociates.com/b ... vLand.html

This book Mike?

Sweet

I miss them both.