RS parcel in a legal description

[CBarrett]

If I outline a random parcel on an RS (let's say a future easement, few miles stretch) and tie it to geodetic control so it is locatable on the ground, can I use that RS in a legal description to convey that strip as an easement. For example "That stip of land shows as ..... on a record of survey filed ..... ".

The entire strip is on the interior of a property and is connecting to an already existing easement. No boundary survey of the land has been requested. Land is owned by an environmental protection agency. Easement would be for a public utility pipeline.

I am not a fan of having to write a legal description and then attempt to draft 100 pages of 8.5x11 exhibits for this very curvilinear strip. Showing it on an RS seems like a more elegant and possibly cost effective solution.

Is there any precedent out there doing this, would I be violating any rules?

[Peter Ehlert]

I think not.
I have done the same a number of times, but not very recently.

[CBarrett]

Thanks!

[LS9200]

Don't see how it would be any different than saying "All that portion of Lot A, block B... of Map xyz, filed in book 1, page 2" when referring to a lot within a sub / parcel map.

[Jim Frame]

My take is that a parcel description needs to tie to a distinct point in a recorded document or filed map that imparts constructive notice. Parcel Maps and Final Maps do, Records of Survey don't.

[CBarrett]

Don't see how it would be any different than saying "All that portion of Lot A, block B... of Map xyz, filed in book 1, page 2" when referring to a lot within a sub / parcel map.

a little bit, different, where the RS would document a geometric location of features which do not exist on record yet, and the RS does not legally create the strip. Just describes geometry.

Subsequent description would then formalize nature of title and impart a constructive notice of title transfer, but for the actual geometry of the easement, it would then refer to a recorded document (the RS).

[LA Stevens]

I have placed a "Proposed Easement" on Record of Survey many times and referenced it in the deed. In your case I would also monument portions of the proposed easement and reference it in your description "as shown on that certain Record of Survey entitled _________ and filed in Book ___ or Maps at Page ___". Once the deed records the record of survey becomes part of the chain of title. I've seen attorneys also include the Record of Survey as an exhibit to the deed, but it is not very legible at 8.5 x 11.

[Scott]

Can you reference a future event on a RoS?
I didn't think you could.

I don't think you can show and/or monument Lot Line Adjustment parcels on a RoS until after the LLA is finalized. Even if you get clever and call the monuments "witness corners" and don't even mention the LLA on the RoS.
Although I have seen it done and in that case the LLA parcels' descriptions only refer to the RoS with no other wording. I was wanting to see the before descriptions, but there was nothing left of them in the RoS nor the LLA.

[Mike Mueller]

I don't think you can show and/or monument Lot Line Adjustment parcels on a RoS until after the LLA is finalized.

I think the main difference is that property/boundary lines need to match the AP maps or get the blessing of the CS, whereas the "proposed future easement" would not be triggering that review/consideration. Also just as a matter of caution I would be hesitant to show a boundary line from an in progress LLA due to potential future reliance on it by silly persons if the LLA falls through.

As long as the proposed future easement is clearly stated what and why on the RoS, I can't see how it would be bad. Heck you could even file an amended RoS and update the recordation information on the RoS after the deed is recorded.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Ian Wilson]

"...or get the blessing of the CS..."

We do not "bless" anything. We do not have police powers. We are editors working to make sure that your maps present information sufficiently to be understood in the future.

We cannot refuse to file a map or insist that it be filed as one or the other. If we believe the map is an outrageous violation of the PLS Act, we can place a note on the map to alert future readers or file a complaint with BPELSG.

Having said that, PLS Act §8762.5 indicates that the parcel lines should be based on current configuration as shown on the tax rolls. If the parcel doesn't already exist, I'm not sure how the Record of Survey would not violate this section.

However, one thing this job HAS taught me is to very seldomly engage in uttering absolutes.

[DWoolley]

A land surveyor cannot use a record of survey to create title lines or show lines that do not have title documents. The lines have to exist.

When I have been involved in a process similar to that described above we prepared the deeds or easements and referenced the record of survey on the document and in turn, the record of survey references the deeds or easements on the mylar. When everything was ready, checked and approved we worked with the Recorder to reserve a book and page(s) for the record of survey, filled out the blanks on the easements and recorded them. Same operation we completed the recording information for the deeds on the record of survey.

Subdividing deeds are exclusive to public agencies. Also, besides the state, counties and cities it is good practice to confirm the "public agency". For example, Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric are not public agencies- they are public utilities owned by private investors.

To be clear, non-title lines, as described above, cannot be mapped on a record survey prior to the recording of the title documents. Recommend the process described.

Also, I am pretty sure the current Public Resource Code prohibits using coordinates exclusively to map and/or describe title lines.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

California Code Public Resources Code - PRC
DIVISION 8 - SURVEYING AND MAPPING
CHAPTER 1 - California Coordinate System
Section 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 laws. [emphasis is mine].

(Amended by Stats. 1986, Ch. 611, Sec. 13.)

I would not use "proposed future easement" - even if it could be sneaked past an unsuspecting/unsophisticated county surveyor. Imagine the future easement never came into being but the record of survey filed. The future title report would say "the effects of the XXX shown on record of survey...", clouding the title, creating marketable title issues and/or litigation, with no remedy (How would anyone mitigate the damages outside of a court ruling? There is no easement to extinguish but...). I have been through this title gyration recently with a recorded LLA and no deeds.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

...
We cannot refuse to file a map or insist that it be filed as one or the other. If we believe the map is an outrageous violation of the PLS Act, we can place a note on the map to alert future readers or file a complaint with BPELSG.
...

There is no "outrageous" requirement. I would also offer "a note... or file a complaint..." would be better stated as "place a note on the map...and file a complaint. Failure to place a note on the map in violation may be negligence.

In the simplest form, the surveyor submits a map stating "Found SSM" without describing the monument or the standard being referenced or "spike" is not in compliance with Bus. & Prof. Code 8764 (1):

"All monuments found, set, reset, replaced, or removed, describing their kind, size, and location, and giving other data relating thereto."

There are no less than six types of spikes (kind? fail), disk material include aluminum, brass, bronze, copper, steel (kind? fail), steel pipe are measured and sold by inside diameter (failure to specify size i.e. IDIP or ODIP, fail), no depth noted (location, fail) - plenty more examples to be had. Cut sheets with no signatures and seals? Failure 8761. Hardly outrageous, certainly negligence per se. Throw it in a complaint if you do not want to have the same discussion over and over again.

There is nothing subjective or unclear about 8764 (1) or 8761.

Note: "Negligence per se is a doctrine in US law whereby an act is considered negligent because it violates a statute (or regulation). The doctrine is effectively a form of strict liability". The burden shifts to the defendant/respondent to prove they did not violate the law. Fish in a effing barrel, donk busting rodeo.

DWoolley

[LS9200]

Why not just create the easement parcel on the ROS as "Parcel A" make no mention of what it is, this way title is not clouded. Describe the easement in the description as.... Parcel A, as shown on ROS xyz,......

If everything falls apart and the easement doesn't get recorded, amend the map as a correction, remove the parcel A and re-submit.

By in large a Record of survey has been deemed to not provide constructive notice because it does not establish a link in the recorded chain of title. A disservice to the public in my opinion, and devaluation of our profession. Options like this bring the record of survey into that chain and only strengthen the later understanding and location of the parcel and help the public.

[David Kendall]

Why not just create the easement parcel on the ROS as "Parcel A" make no mention of what it is, this way title is not clouded. Describe the easement in the description as.... Parcel A, as shown on ROS xyz,.....

This is the long and the short answer to the OP. I don’t see any reason to make it more complicated.

My understanding is that I can map a crop circle, zip line route or anything else on a record of survey. The discussion of title lines is mostly irrelevant.

I believe the mechanism to erase an unwanted easement (or proposed future easement that someone never effected) is a quitclaim deed.

[David Kendall]

A land surveyor cannot use a record of survey to create title lines or show lines that do not have title documents. The lines have to exist.

I don't understand this statement. Please explain your reasoning

Farmer Joe just asked me to delineate a 5 acre portion of the North 40 to be seeded with alfalfa and a 7 acre portion to be seeded with bluebonnets. I set pipes to mark where the fence corners go. The note on the record of survey says "not a legal parcel". This is in addition to the boundary survey.

Are you trying to say that this is an illegal action?

[Peter Ehlert]

No "Parcel A"... Seems like a creation attempt. Messy.
Draw the outline of the area, annotated as fits, and simply label it "xxx acres".
Conveyance documents: description is that"xxx acres" shown on ROS zzz.
No clouds.
In my mind that's very clean and easy.

[CBarrett]

When I have been involved in a process similar to that described above we prepared the deeds or easements and referenced the record of survey on the document and in turn, the record of survey references the deeds or easements on the mylar. When everything was ready, checked and approved we worked with the Recorder to reserve a book and page(s) for the record of survey, filled out the blanks on the easements and recorded them. Same operation we completed the recording information for the deeds on the record of survey.

I was just checking some more into the process in last few days, and that's exactly how it is being done (in OC) on other projects.

[CBarrett]

A land surveyor cannot use a record of survey to create title lines or show lines that do not have title documents. The lines have to exist.

I don't understand this statement. Please explain your reasoning

Farmer Joe just asked me to delineate a 5 acre portion of the North 40 to be seeded with alfalfa and a 7 acre portion to be seeded with bluebonnets. I set pipes to mark where the fence corners go. The note on the record of survey says "not a legal parcel". This is in addition to the boundary survey.

Are you trying to say that this is an illegal action?

I think maybe Dave got hung up on a word 'easement' and how it can not be done, rather than thinking of how to do this and satisfy requirements. The minute I call something an "easement", it could have title implications.
If call it a "construction centerline" of a "Trench A" or some sort of a service path, it is much harder to argue that this is a line of title, rather then topographical feature. Concurrently I could have easement documents prepared, which will them formalize said construction centerline as a line controlling the title. If I monument that line is some, (presumably construction-safe fashion) then at the time of recording my construction control monuments would acquire title value as well.

If I am filing a record of survey to set up geodetic control for 12 miles of construction (we did a number of those way back when I worked on toll roads in OC, for example), I don't recall having any trouble showing and adding bearing and distances to a construction centerline, and even setting monuments relative to the construction centerline) as a part of the RS.

In this case I don't have any other reliable "lines of title" if you will to tie into, since we are on an island, which was patented by meandering a mean high tide line, and any previous easements are tied into NGS trig stations, so they could be located on the ground. Existing easements, so far seem to be missing their intended tie ins anywhere from 40 feet to 1500 feet. (and are between 60 and 120 years old)

Plus, we show auxiliary information on RS's all the time. Ties to this or that, including an occasional topo call we thought may have been relevant at one time. Heck, some RS's have entire USGS maps as a backdrop....

No "Parcel A"... Seems like a creation attempt. Messy.
Draw the outline of the area, annotated as fits, and simply label it "xxx acres".
Conveyance documents: description is that"xxx acres" shown on ROS zzz.
No clouds.
In my mind that's very clean and easy.

Yes! I wrote the above post before I saw yours.
Both companies have title and legal people on staff, this will go up the food chain and actual language will change a few times they are all satisfied (most likely).

I don't think you can show and/or monument Lot Line Adjustment parcels on a RoS until after the LLA is finalized.

I think the main difference is that property/boundary lines need to match the AP maps or get the blessing of the CS, whereas the "proposed future easement" would not be triggering that review/consideration. Also just as a matter of caution I would be hesitant to show a boundary line from an in progress LLA due to potential future reliance on it by silly persons if the LLA falls through.

As long as the proposed future easement is clearly stated what and why on the RoS, I can't see how it would be bad. Heck you could even file an amended RoS and update the recordation information on the RoS after the deed is recorded.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Good point about 'in progress' work. I have however monumented several LLA's with concurrent recording of an RS. Exactly the way Dave has described it, where you have a book and page for the RS reserved recording at the same days as the LLA's, and you cross-fill the data (by hand, on each document) with each other's information, as they are getting put into records. OC will extend that courtesy, I don't know if other counties will.

This way the only 'risk' time period of something falling through is maybe 5 minutes between filling out the recorders certificate between the two documents.

[Mike Mueller]

It seems a little silly, but I just wanted to point out how civil and constructive this thread has been. Disagreement has lead to discussion and clarification. I started to respond two or three times and then saw that someone else has already made that point.

I particularly like the examples people have provided because it illustrates the "local flavor" that helps see things from a new perspective.

Not to derail the thread, but...
Ian: What else is 8762.5 if not a blessing? I know my word choice is a little tongue in check, but as the CS is the person who is using judgement to provide that certificate or not, it is functionally a discretionary choice to say in your judgement that the RoS is not violating the ENTIRETY of the SMA. Without the "certificate" by the CS it is very clear that the RoS "shall not be filed".

We have had that pop up in areas of accretion along rivers that the assessor started giving assessment numbers erroneously, since the lots along the river were supposed to be extended. GIS parcel boundaries from old subdivisions (1920's) that didn't match the dry ground lead them to "fill in the gaps" AP map 096-10 attached shows the assessor creating APN 13 and 14. Old map 48M20-21 show the lots touching the Russian River and seem pretty clear the lots should have river access.

Interesting note, this subdivision is on the boundary of Rancho Muniz and Rancho Bodega, and the Russians were claiming those lands, as they are between Sebastopol and Fort Ross, and there was some internal debate about which nations water rights laws were at play as it is on a tidally influenced navigable river with each Rancho only claiming to the shore on their side and the Russian sale of their colony claims was in 1867, after the Ranchos were surveyed. Our clients weren't interested in going that deep, as they just wanted to ensure they had river access, but someday I expect someone will get an awesome job untangling all the bits. I love surveying.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[pls5528]

I have recorded a record of survey through Sacramento County showing the recorded information of the LLA on the face of the plat. It was a coordinated effort with the County Surveyor (at the time) and, in my opinion was a benefit to the future survey surveyors, public and client. In fact, some jurisdictions have required an RS or PM through the LLA process.

[Jim Frame]

In fact, some jurisdictions have required an RS or PM through the LLA process.

Per §66412(d) of the Government Code:

No tentative map, parcel map, or final map shall be required as a condition to the approval of a lot line adjustment. The lot line adjustment shall be reflected in a deed, which shall be recorded. No record of survey shall be required for a lot line adjustment unless required by Section 8762 of the Business and Professions Code.

[DWoolley]

I was thinking about this post over the last couple of weeks. I knew I had seen this situation and it occurred to me where and the circumstances.

In the late 1980s, the Irvine Company, the largest land holder in Orange County, wanted to develop the coastal property between Newport Beach and Laguna Beach. The land consisted of thousands of acres. In order for each of the 8 to 10 large engineering and surveying companies to orderly develop the property there needed to be a common coordinate system and a arterial road from which each company could begin there design. See the attached map. Pelican Hill Road is now Newport Coast Drive.

The second step of the orderly development was a financial parcel map subdividing land into large parcels on each side of Pelican Hills Road. Individual developers bought the parcels and began the A mapping. The county assumed the construction of Pelican Hills Road. Ultimately, the county filed the final record of surveys after the formal right of way was dedicated by separate instrument. In this example, there was no chance of a failure to follow through with the title documents and the California Public Resource Code prohibiting the use of coordinates for title lines had not been written yet.

This is different than a "proposed easement" which would/could cloud the title. There may be a flavor that is acceptable for the situation, but I would be careful as to how it was presented, the order it was filed and a mechanism to complete the title work if the project and/or client failed. I see it as a high liability situation that legally is marginal and more importantly, avoidable.

Side note, crop circles and zip lines are not property or boundary lines and do not the compel the filing of a record of survey. Proposed easements are proposed property lines.

DWoolley

[LA Stevens]

According to the BPELS attorney in 1998 (letter attached), monumenting an easement does not require an R/S.

[Peter Ehlert]

Excellent point Mr. Stevens.

BTW I hope Howard is doing well.