California Surveyors Forums

Would someone explain what "show relationship to all adjoiners (464(a)(7)(C)" means? I've now gotten this comment now from two counties, directed at the common lot lines. ??? The relationship is our parcel is on one side of the lot line, and the adjoiner is on the other side. What am I missing? THANK YOU

Anthony Maffia wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 9:14 am Would someone explain what "show relationship to all adjoiners (464(a)(7)(C)" means? I've now gotten this comment now from two counties, directed at the common lot lines. ??? The relationship is our parcel is on one side of the lot line, and the adjoiner is on the other side. What am I missing? THANK YOU

Control+F "adjacent" in the following document.

https://www.vcpublicworks.org/wp-conten ... -Guide.pdf

As outlined in the link, the common understanding of the language is based on the Guide to Records of Survey and Corner Records published by CEAC.

It does not mean or is not limited to ghosting in a reference to the adjoining property. A surveyor is charged with protecting the property rights of adjacent owners when establishing a property.

DWoolley

I believe that an acceptable standard of practice for demonstrating this relationship is to review record data and correspondence to physical occupation for all immediate adjoiners to the subject parcel, (lines touching yours) and to ensure that their record dimensions are approximately accounted for. This should be demonstrated on your map and described clearly in corner notes

For example, if the neighbor's corner bears East 100' in the deed then I will go over there and see what I find. If the old fence corner is on the line I am projecting then I will measure the fence and probably show that fenceline on my record of survey or corner record as an adjoiner tie and call it good. If there is a monument at that location then that's even better! I generally avoid incidental establishment of neighbor's property lines as a rule so I will indicate record dimensions for this tie rather than measured and I typically have a note disclaiming intent to establish parcel corners beyond the subject parcel.

In the event that the adjoiner occupation is outside of tolerance then I will proceed to the subsequent property corner to verify occupation. In many events this causes a trip around the block to verify physical occupation.

I can't do much less than that without feeling negligent. If there are large undeveloped parcels with rugged terrain then that would be an exception to the rule. I have to consider budgets and practical application. These conditions can be noted on the survey as well.

I am becoming more liberal in my notes as my boundary experience grows. There seems to be a modern trend encouraging statements of purpose and methodology and I think this is a good thing

It would seem the more relevant code is the PLS Act, Section 8764(a)(4) which requires showing..."The relationship to those portions of adjacent tracts, streets, or senior conveyances that have common lines with the survey."

Any boundary survey requires obtaining and analyzing the deeds for the subject property as well as all adjoiners.

A particular instance quickly comes to mind where a tech. on my staff was reviewing a Record of Survey and the surveyor had not supplied the deed for an adjoining property. The surveyor acted put out that we requested it, but apparently had to order it and sent it over. It cited yet another deed that was needed, so we requested that one. Now even more exasperated, he supplied it. It became evident there was a conflict between calls in the deeds. We asked for an explanation how he handled it since it wasn't addressed on the map. Although a relatively rare experience over my mapchecking years to see this, he needed to change his location/solution for the common boundary. To his credit, he did so, but why did it get this far in the first place?

Not sure if this gets to the original post, or your question, but that appears to be the gist of the question being asked by the mapchecker.

Dave Ryan
Arcata, Ca.

My gut feeling for the "why" . . .

Is to show others, in the case of metes 'n bounds descriptions, that you resolved junior/senior title rights.

My "drafting" technique is to show the current owner and deed together with the formerly deed. i.e. "(formerly 123-DEEDS-456)". Noting all the adjoining "former deeds" so one could, upon facile examination, know who is senior and who is junior.

Crazy Phil's two cents.

Any sequential conveyance requires the establishment of the adjoiners - the very rare exception being a first division of land.

If you establish boundaries by rotating a CAD file to two found monuments...you're doing it wrong and a sitting duck for a negligence claim. Notwithstanding the fact BPELSG has "subject matter experts" that have blessed such procedures in reviewing complaints.

DWoolley

To me "relationship" is taken as a title relationship. Physical occupation is not what is meant by that term in my view. See various other threads about the physical occupation debate :)
D Ryan summarized why its important, and I generally do what Phil does.

Specifically I like to reference the document that created the lot/parcel and use that as my "held per" reference, and then show the other documents that describe that same line as (record info) with a R# reference. Sometimes there are 3-4 record references shown for a line although I generally limit the additional references to those that are pertinent, IE creation, vesting, adjoiner creating and adjoiner vesting. The main benefit of that style IMO is for easy analysis of interior angles since many of the deeds/maps etc have different bearings/distances for the same line. Allows viewers of the map to see that many times the deeds all have the same interior angles, just different BoBs ( cue rant about BoBs being silly). It also allows for easily showing which of the various document's bearings/distances is the correct one to hold, and if I am wrong, its easy to see how/what is wrong.

For what its worth, during my short stint as a CS I required the submittal packet for the RoS to include a copy of all the adjoiner deeds at the minimum, and I requested that all adjoiners record data be shown on the map (requested since I couldn't tell them what to do). Minor push back occured from some folks generally along the "not how it used to be done" but it sure helped keep the county costs down having a complete submittal packet.

I am often reminded of the (probably apocryphal) story about PGE requiring all drivers to put a cone out whenever they parked. It forced the driver to walk about the vehicle to pick up the cone before driving away. Supposedly it cut down on accidents significantly. Same idea on deeds. Having people add them, increased the chance they would read it, which cuts down on silly mistakes. You can lead a Surveyor to the right deed, but you can't make them use it....

Mikey Mueller, PLS
Sonoma County

Anthony Maffia wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 9:14 am Would someone explain what "show relationship to all adjoiners (464(a)(7)(C)" means? I've now gotten this comment now from two counties, directed at the common lot lines. ??? The relationship is our parcel is on one side of the lot line, and the adjoiner is on the other side. What am I missing? THANK YOU

Junior senior rights, and lines of occupation (if any are evidenced by improvements) on all sides of a parcel of land need to be examined and evaluated along with the other boundary evidence you collected, when retracing a boundary line.
When you are retracing a line, you are affecting all properties that line touched, not just that of the person who hired you and/or is inside the lot.

Mike Mueller wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 10:14 am To me "relationship" is taken as a title relationship. Physical occupation is not what is meant by that term in my view.

The tax assessor fulfills the role of illustrating lines of title adequately 99% of the time in the counties where I practice. This is not my brand of boundary establishment.

Failure to consider physical occupation in the course of a boundary survey is called negligence.

CBarrett wrote: Junior senior rights, and lines of occupation (if any are evidenced by improvements) on all sides of a parcel of land need to be examined and evaluated along with the other boundary evidence you collected, when retracing a boundary line.

Amen

David:

I am fully aware of that particular debate. Matter at hand is the meaning of the words in 8764 (a)(4) which specifically states:

"The relationship to those portions of adjacent tracts, streets, or senior conveyances that have common lines with the survey."

Three types of relationships need to be shown.
Tracts= Tract maps or subdivisions is how I generally read that one now, however the 1941 version of 8764 (c) uses "Tract" as the word for both the subject of the survey as well as the word used to describe "adjoining tracts".
Streets= Streets, as they are functionally "senior" in subdivisions.
Senior Conveyances= Senior IE previous, or older, or in terms of surveying having senior rights. Conveyances= below is the copy from Blacks'
Law Dictionary - In pleading. Introduction or inducement. In real property law. In the strict legal sense, a transfer of legal title to land. (bolding mine).

There is no mention, or even implication, of physical occupation, fixed works etc within 8764. By a close reading it could be argued that you do not need to show "junior" conveyances, even if they are adjacent.

The law is dealing with what needs to be shown on the RoS, not how the surveyor determines the correct/best location for a particular boundary. The physical occupation thread has beat that horse to hamburger and came up with a pretty clear axis that people fall out on. It also seems to be a particularly sticky axis, as most people seem pretty stuck on their opinion. The fact that the axis has lots of folks all over, IE a wide range of "standard practice" makes it hard to define "negligent" regarding that issue.

The only argument for a statutory requirement for showing physical occupation in the PLS is 8462(b)(3) coupled with 8764 (b) IE if the fence is a valid alternate option for a boundary resolution which was the trigger for the RoS. Even then a note would satisfy 8764(b)

Mikey Mueller, PLS
Sonoma County

Mike Mueller wrote: Thu May 11, 2023 10:17 am
The law is dealing with what needs to be shown on the RoS, not how the surveyor determines the correct/best location for a particular boundary. The physical occupation thread has beat that horse to hamburger and came up with a pretty clear axis that people fall out on. It also seems to be a particularly sticky axis, as most people seem pretty stuck on their opinion. The fact that the axis has lots of folks all over, IE a wide range of "standard practice" makes it hard to define "negligent" regarding that issue.

Conversely, the fact that opinions are all over the place about this makes it very difficult to consider this as a "standard of practice" too.

Well this whole thread went sideways. Started out with a question about 464(a)(7)(C) - a corner record, and ended with a contentious dialogue about the requirements of 8764 - a record of survey.

LS9200 wrote: Thu May 11, 2023 10:50 am Well this whole thread went sideways. Started out with a question about 464(a)(7)(C) - a corner record, and ended with a contentious dialogue about the requirements of 8764 - a record of survey.

This is a feature not a bug.

Ninety percent sure I have a written BPELSG opinion that states improvements must (or can) be shown on a corner record. I will post it when I can confirm.


DWoolley

Huh, I got distracted by the RoS stuff halfway down.... In regards to a Corner Record....

If a County Surveyor is asking for adjoiners on a CR I would be double checking that I didn't goof on the "alternate solutions" trigger on 8762. Our general rule is that a CR is only allowed to have one (1) reference on it, since otherwise there is a decent chance that there is some alternate solution that triggers 8762 (b)(3).

If I didn't goof, then I would be pushing back that I don't need to show much/any adjoiner info, since by definition I am only doing a CR on a resolved boundary that has no ambiguity, no discrepancy and is shown on a filed map. IE There is nothing to protect or review in regards to neighbor's rights, since that SHOULD have been done already by the original map. Inclusion of adjoiner info would be as a courtesy.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Dave: Still chuckling over the feature :)

LS9200 wrote: Thu May 11, 2023 10:50 am Well this whole thread went sideways.

It's normal, you'll live. I may give you a rash for a week, depending on how hard you resist and itch.

LS9200 wrote: Thu May 11, 2023 10:50 am Well this whole thread went sideways. Started out with a question about 464(a)(7)(C) - a corner record, and ended with a contentious dialogue about the requirements of 8764 - a record of survey.

I'm not making this distinction. My interpretation is that the law reads the same for both documents as far as demonstrating relationship to adjoining tracts.

Regardless, the principles of boundary establishment do not change according to the size of the paper I draft the report on

Lines of occupation in disharmony with your boundary solution are possible:
a) evidence that might result in alternate positions of lines or points, and could be argued to be
b) the absence of points or lines from recorded instruments of title

How does one file a record of survey without showing the information that quite possibly triggered it's filing????
How does one not check lines of occupation when evaluating boundary evidence?

Do we need to change our legislation to clarify this?

Here's an actual situation I came across:
As we check the maps, we notice more and more and more and more that these concepts were not merely omitted from being noted on the RS, they were not even considered during the boundary establishment. This is why us checkers have started asking to either make a statement on the map, or at least indicate to the mapchecker that this was done.

Many times something as simple as reviewing google maps imagery of a particular RS can indicate issues with lines of occupation. I had one somewhat recent case where I knew the RS was in litigation. After reviewing things, I see why, there is a sizeable, easy 3000+ SF house straddling a PL. Not shown, mentioned in any way on the RS. The entire point of boundary dispute was not recorded on a record of survey tied to the litigation.

At first surveyor was worried that since he couldn't access the yard due to aggressive dogs, his measurements were not precise enough to show on the RS, so he decided to omit them. House is so big that if you station / offset it from two sides along the fenced PL, you will get to within a foot or two. With the house splitting the PL 30/30, two feet of error isn't going to be material. Describe what you did, including the rabid dogs if you wish, and document it on the RS. This was the plaintiffs surveyor too, with half of someone else's house sitting on his property and blocking access to the street. I could almost see if it was a defendant's surveyor, and he didn't want to disclose the house matter.

Ultimately the county surveyor strongly advised to locate the house and put it on the RS. Surveyor of record was unsure what to do at first, because someone some years ago who mentored him used to be adamant about how topo features don't belong on RS maps, and he was out of his depth and unsure what to do. He submitted the map and quitely hoped the county would help him out.

Much of mapchecking is remedial boundary surveying class, some remedial drafting lessons, and a bit of remedial grammar.

You forgot to list condescension.

Thank you all for your opinions and guidance.

I have always said map checking is like taking the land surveyor exam with all the answers given.

A Corner Record is for putting something back where you found it, or setting something where there are really no decisions to be made- the surrounding monument control fits so good, essentially fits record within tolerance that a variety of mathematical methods give the same location. If the situation starts triggering boundary resolution decisions, you’ve entered Record of Survey territory.