Automatic Record of Survey Trigger - Unmapped Parcels

[jamesh1467]

Can someone please help me out with the history of the automatic record of survey trigger requiring records of surveys when you do a boundary survey in previously unmapped parcels (deed descriptions only).

I believe it's 8762-b-4. But I would also like that confirmed by someone smarter than me. I also see essentially the negative that only exempts records of survey from being done when everything is within a mapped parcel under 8765-d.

I am trying to convince people I am not crazy and I have to do a record of survey in a parcel that has never been mapped. If I am crazy and I don't have to do a record of survey that wouldn't be the first time so tell me that too. All ears. They have been in business a long time and never heard any of this from their old surveyor. Its an uphill battle being new and being young. So it would be great if I could get the history to tell them when it came into effect, why it is a law (i think i know that but I would like to hear others opinions), and consequences for me as the licenced surveyor of not doing a record of survey after I conduct a boundary survey based on deed descriptions.

[Jim Frame]

§8762(b)(4) is correct.

You're not crazy, you have to file a ROS when surveying a deed-cut parcel unless it's already been mapped in the record.

While I don't know the legislative history, I infer that it's required in the interest of keeping the cadastre current, both on the ground and in the records.

[hellsangle]

One of the reason's the "old guys", (me being one of 'em), were told you don't have to file - is because of BORPELS, (now BPELSG), liaison report on Page Three of the attached Cal Surveyor, Issue 10.

Several decades ago . . . it was the spirit of law not letter of the law.

Recently, several surveyors made proposals for topo and graphic boundary on a R/S-triggered parcel. There were conflicting proposals regarding filing/not filing a Record of Survey. I made a call to one of the "old guys" that didn't include filing a Record of Survey on their proposal. That firm is now changing the way they operate and filing Record of Surveys on such parcels. (He incorrectly believed - if he "set" something he had to file.)

Thanks for chiming in, Mr. Frame.

Have a good weekend all.

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

[DWoolley]

One of the reason's the "old guys", (me being one of 'em), were told you don't have to file - is because of BORPELS, (now BPELSG), liaison report on Page Three of the attached Cal Surveyor, Issue 10.

Several decades ago . . . it was the spirit of law not letter of the law.

Recently, several surveyors made proposals for topo and graphic boundary on a R/S-triggered parcel. There were conflicting proposals regarding filing/not filing a Record of Survey. I made a call to one of the "old guys" that didn't include filing a Record of Survey on their proposal. That firm is now changing the way they operate and filing Record of Surveys on such parcels. (He incorrectly believed - if he "set" something he had to file.)

Thanks for chiming in, Mr. Frame.

Have a good weekend all.

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

Horse hockey.

Readers, read the referenced page 3 again - it does not say the surveyor doesn't need to file a map. Also, note this is one persons report for a 1969 industry rag, not meeting minutes or a BPELSG guidance. There is a BPELSG guidance of the era and it does not say land surveyors do not need file maps unless they feel like it. Repeating it over and over again does not make it anymore true.

As to the locals that generated this specific report, their idea of compliance was to carve up the local county into individual profit centers by not filing maps other people could use, create large bodies of private records that could be shared with others that were "permitted" to practice in their county and then, sell the records to someone as part of retirement plan. Does that sound like an upright practice that was misguided as to the map filing laws? Or, in the alternative, not filing maps help keep out interlopers and allow the locals to control who practiced in their area? We had one such similar character in Laguna Beach - excellent record system, no filed maps, kept everyone else out. If it was a common understanding, this was not a nefarious practice, why don't all California counties have vast private record collections?

The laws are intended to mean exactly what is written, no more, no less. There is no mysticism to it. Have you ever known the "spirit of the law" to be more strict? The same law, from 1891 to 1938ish, required all surveys to be filed, no exceptions. When the exceptions were added they were quite clear. Those same triggers and exceptions can be seen in the law today. Read it and decide for yourself. Again, in the alternative, these triggers suddenly took on new meaning thirty years later?

Anyone that states "I didn't file a record of survey because I didn't set monuments" lacks any credibility in 2023. To state their intentions more precisely, it means "I didn't set monuments, therefore, nobody will ever know I was here. Feet don't fail me now!" Browse the this forum and take note the resistance to setting monuments, why is that?

Ask yourself this, why is it land surveyors were required to be licensed in 1891 (a full 40 years before engineers)? The more things change the more they stay the same.

Queue the land surveyors anthem:

They see me rollin'
They hatin'
Patrollin' and tryna catch me ridin' dirty

This thing of ours will come to rest on the bottom soon enough.

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

Then why is it tens of thousands of maps throughout the state were not filed? (Many by our highly esteemed forefathers.)

And be specific as to the facts of Why?

Crazy Phil again . . .

[CBarrett]

Can someone please help me out with the history of the automatic record of survey trigger requiring records of surveys when you do a boundary survey in previously unmapped parcels (deed descriptions only).

I believe it's 8762-b-4. But I would also like that confirmed by someone smarter than me. I also see essentially the negative that only exempts records of survey from being done when everything is within a mapped parcel under 8765-d.

I am trying to convince people I am not crazy and I have to do a record of survey in a parcel that has never been mapped. If I am crazy and I don't have to do a record of survey that wouldn't be the first time so tell me that too. All ears. They have been in business a long time and never heard any of this from their old surveyor. Its an uphill battle being new and being young. So it would be great if I could get the history to tell them when it came into effect, why it is a law (i think i know that but I would like to hear others opinions), and consequences for me as the licenced surveyor of not doing a record of survey after I conduct a boundary survey based on deed descriptions.

There have been people who lost their licenses who claimed "I didn't have to file an RS because it was before the law came into effect" Turns out it's always been in effect, and a lot of people did not enforce it ... thus we have a lot of areas with piles of unrecorded and non existent maps making the area a mess to survey in.

If they resist, ask them to hire an attorney which will issue an opinion on the law which will indemnify you for not filing. Otherwise you are not going to lisk your license and your livelihood over their laymen interpretation of a law.

[CBarrett]

Then why is it tens of thousands of maps throughout the state were not filed? (Many by our highly esteemed forefathers.)

And be specific as to the facts of Why?

Crazy Phil again . . .

To make it harder to retrace their work, and harm the public? Kick the $$$$ can to the next generation - typical of too many boomers.

[Ian Wilson]

The requirement to file a Record of Survey after ESTABLISHING a line not shown on a previous record map has been in the code since the beginning (1891).

The requirement to file after SETTING a new point not previously shown was added by Chapter 943 of the 1983 Statutes.

For 35 years, I have heard the misperceived notion that no RS is needed unless monuments are set. I never understood where that came from. It is not true and is historically disproven.

Interestingly, I am now seeing many maps being file without a single monument being set. Some are claiming filing due to some perceived discrepancy with previous maps but often fail to show the discrepancy or discuss the resolution of the discrepancy. Filing such a map is of little to the client the public, or future surveyors.

[ekparian]

Dave Woolley has an excellent presentation in which he explains LSA 8762 in the CLSA DVD set. I believe it is a two disk presentation. I recommend viewing said presentation if you are confused on ROS triggers and ask questions here.
I often now tell potential clients that it is required by CA State Law to file a ROS (when triggered), also to make my survey retractable and if they want to be cheap they can always find someone who will skirt the law but I propose to do a professional job in boundary resolution and will not risk putting my license on the line by not filing. Most of the time, they respond by saying they don't want me to jeopardize my license and to please proceed.
The longer I practice, the more I learn...
Thanks,
Drexyl Ekparian, PLS

[Ric7308]

Then why is it tens of thousands of maps throughout the state were not filed? (Many by our highly esteemed forefathers.)

And be specific as to the facts of Why?

Crazy Phil again . . .

Facts: Because they didn't think it was required. Because no one filed complaints with the Board on them.

Supposition: Maybe the Board's enforcement program wasn't as active back then? Maybe the Board cared more about civil engineering (predates most of the other engineering practices at that time) than they did land surveying at that time? Maybe communication was such that land surveyors commonly talked amongst themselves far more often than they did with the Board (we're talking much more letter writing in 1969) and they believed their own peers over the facts? (okay this last one is really not supposition and more fact - even today)

[hellsangle]

Ladies 'n gents . . .

Several past presidents of CLSA, one being a member of BPELSG performed surveys that should have been filed but weren't.

I am certain these esteemed leaders did not have any "intent" of breaking the law!

Seems that that was the practice of the era . . . based on what??? It came from somewhere!

"At its meeting held in Sacramento on July, 11, 1969, the Board of Registration for Professional Engineers approved the following recommendations for interpretation of a portion of the Land Surveyor's Act:" blah blah blah "However, it can be stated that recordation of a map is NOT REQUIRED (emphasis added) according to Section 8762a if points were set which do not appear on any map, but which points would not significantly affect the outcome of the survey; and the best interest of the public wont not be significantly enhanced by the recordation." (source: CalSurveyor Issus 10)

This contradicts with 8762 (b) (4). It was the "interpretation" of the era FROM the Board. Was there a "may" in the law, versus a "shall"?

Again - copious private records, throughout the state, did not record. Did they feel there some sort of non sequitur going on at the time?

When I was cutting my teeth we were told the purpose of a Record of Survey was to put the survey community on notice that you found something that, if overlooked, could be an alternate position. i.e. twenty surveyors . . . will all arrive at a similar conclusion. (And most surveyors/engineers shared their records.)

And Wooley is correct. This has been around forever.

Have a good week, all . . .

Crazy Phil again

[jamesh1467]

Dave Woolley has an excellent presentation in which he explains LSA 8762 in the CLSA DVD set. I believe it is a two disk presentation. I recommend viewing said presentation if you are confused on ROS triggers and ask questions here.
I often now tell potential clients that it is required by CA State Law to file a ROS (when triggered), also to make my survey retractable and if they want to be cheap they can always find someone who will skirt the law but I propose to do a professional job in boundary resolution and will not risk putting my license on the line by not filing. Most of the time, they respond by saying they don't want me to jeopardize my license and to please proceed.
The longer I practice, the more I learn...
Thanks,
Drexyl Ekparian, PLS

I'm not at all confused by the ROS triggers. Just having trouble convincing some people that have never heard about it before and have been doing this for 30 years that I know what I am talking about and they or their surveyor have likely been breaking the law for the last 30 years. Its never fun to have those conversations and it makes you second guess what you know to be true yourself. But look at it this way...one more firm out there that is coming into compliance with filing ROS's. (hopefully)

[DWoolley]

Willful Ignorance

Noun. willful ignorance (uncountable) (idiomatic, law) A decision in bad faith to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt.

Most generous reasons for unlawfulness are social proofing and informational casacades.

Nothing more, nothing less.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

Ladies 'n gents . . .

Several past presidents of CLSA, one being a member of BPELSG performed surveys that should have been filed but weren't.

I am certain these esteemed leaders did not have any "intent" of breaking the law!
...

Have a good week, all . . .

Crazy Phil again

Why are you so certain?

I do not believe there is any correlation between the past president leadership in the professional organization and their respective lawful/unlawful practice.

Offhand, I can think of a former Legislative Chairman and two local JPPC Chairman that lost their licenses (did they join the JPPC to direct the work of the committee and keep their names off the list?). I know more than three past presidents that have received citations. It could be argued the grittier folks may have a valued perspective that is not understood or shared by the law abiding folks. In reading those particular citations - it was not a close call on the violations. Frankly, like Marion Barry before them, I do not think their practice impeded their ability to lead the organization.

I have spent the better part of 20 years trying to figure out why land surveying is plagued with scofflaws. I legitimately believe I could write a book on the topic. In sum, very few violations can be attributed to genuine ignorance. I have historical facts coupled with several theories. One theory is the profession is only 2-3 generations from a direct connection to wholesale land surveying fraud. I do not think the folks lacking the technical skills and/or being the direct spawn of fraud in 1890 were going to go straight and learn to survey according the the law - not even in 2-3 generations.

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

Why are you so certain?

Because I own the records of one Past President who happened to have a moral compass that pointed to stellar.

Others reside in a local archives Map Room(s). One of those Past Presidents who also worked for BORPELS. I believe that person was beyond reproach.

Not all of us walk on water - a few think they do.

Crazy Phil

[DWoolley]

Why are you so certain?

Because I own the records of one Past President who happened to have a moral compass that pointed to stellar.

Others reside in a local archives Map Room(s). One of those Past Presidents who also worked for BORPELS. I believe that person was beyond reproach.

Not all of us walk on water - a few think they do.

Crazy Phil

If I am understanding correctly, you know one guy that is the basis of your certainty. Ok, fair enough, I am not as easily convinced.

I am not sure if your walking on water was directed toward me. I have expressed an appreciation for those folks that practice on the grittier side. They are much more interesting with which to carry on a conversation.

You do not find it the least bit curious there are very few private survey collections bought, sold or maintained outside of your immediate geographical location? Surely, you do not believe this is simply a coincidence. Or is it you believe they each read that one paragraph in 1969 and moved there collectively in their way of thinking? Friend, I am not buying what you are selling.

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

What, Dave?

Only Northern California experiences unrecorded plats/surveys? Com'on. It has been a statewide problem for decades.

If you're ever up this way - I'd be happy to show you the unrecorded plats of several of our CLSA forefathers. (It would not be proper to post the evidence you wish - as it would be disparaging of those esteemed leaders.)

In the past we'd pick up the phone and call the surveyor/engineer instead of picking up a complaint form.

And yeah - sometimes your prose comes off as holier-than-thou.

Being the idjut that I am - just trying to do the best I can with what I have . . . without bashing some of those poor souls who didn't have the mentors you and I were so fortunate to have had.

Crazy Phil

[Jim Frame]

How many here are prepared to tell a friend, mentor and colleague of 45 years that you're turning him in to BPELSG for repeatedly failing to file? He has lots of excuses, but no legitimate reasons. We've had the conversation many times, but I've never succeeded in convincing him to see things the way I do.

I simply don't have whatever it takes to file that complaint.

Mea culpa.

[DWoolley]

...
Only Northern California experiences unrecorded plats/surveys? Com'on. It has been a statewide problem for decades.

If you're ever up this way - I'd be happy to show you the unrecorded plats of several of our CLSA forefathers. (It would not be proper to post the evidence you wish - as it would be disparaging of those esteemed leaders.)

In the past we'd pick up the phone and call the surveyor/engineer instead of picking up a complaint form.

....
Crazy Phil

I do not believe the unrecorded surveys, again, bought and sold, are inclusive of all "Northern California". Outside of Marin, Sonoma, a portion of San Joaquin Valley there are only a handful of private collections sprinkled throughout the counties I am familiar with. I do not believe the "everybody does/did it" flies here.

In Orange County, we have two private collections - one nobody knows about. If you are taking an actual headcount, considering there are approximately 9700 licenses issued since the dawn of California survey time, the number of private collections becomes even more insignificant as a bellwether of the ethical practice - certainly not widespread enough to cover all of Northern California or to determine there was any common understanding of the practice throughout the state. This is not to say there isn't a compliance problem in many/most jurisdictions. Again, willful ignorance.

I further believe the "picking up the phone...[rather than] picking up a complaint form" allowed these wayward practices to metastasize. It became a Paul Newman in The Sting thing. A wink and a nod.

As for my holier than thou, nah, not feeling it. I am transitioning to my land surveying DGAF years and ideally, living long enough to witness the land surveying funeral pyre.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

How many here are prepared to tell a friend, mentor and colleague of 45 years that you're turning him in to BPELSG for repeatedly failing to file?
...

FWIW, several of those folks that took the "greater good" step, filed a complaint, waited for several years for results, only to realize the final BPELSG resolution was "compliance achieved" would think you to be a wise man. In fact, some folks on the receiving end are emboldened by the enforcement process - counterintuitively, they see it as BPELSG sanctioning their wayward practices. I have only known a few that went straight.

Historically, the complaint wash rate is approximately 70%. The complaint only resulted in record of survey being filed (maybe), some hard feelings (certainly) and sleepless nights on both sides of the equation (likely).

DWoolley

[Edward M Reading]

How many here are prepared to tell a friend, mentor and colleague of 45 years that you're turning him in to BPELSG for repeatedly failing to file? He has lots of excuses, but no legitimate reasons. We've had the conversation many times, but I've never succeeded in convincing him to see things the way I do.

I simply don't have whatever it takes to file that complaint.

Mea culpa.

Jim,
This is what the PPC is for. Also, I understand that some County Surveyors will file complaints if they are made aware of violations.
Ed

[Jim Frame]

This is what the PPC is for. Also, I understand that some County Surveyors will file complaints if they are made aware of violations.

The respondent would know that only the various clients and I had access to the knowledge and/or records required to support a complaint. Faced with the choice of feeling guilty because I didn't do everything I could to police the profession, and feeling guilty because I burned a friendship of long standing, I'm going to opt for the former. The problem becomes self-correcting upon retirement of the offender, but a friendship lost is a lifelong thing.

All of the above is hypothetical to a certain extent. The offender is actually a composite of several colleagues, and I don't think I have any actual hard evidence of offenses anymore, though at one time I had a bunch. I think the offenses probably continue (most involve ALTAs), but I'm no longer a direct witness to same.

[CBarrett]

"At its meeting held in Sacramento on July, 11, 1969, the Board of Registration for Professional Engineers approved the following recommendations for interpretation of a portion of the Land Surveyor's Act:" blah blah blah "However, it can be stated that recordation of a map is NOT REQUIRED (emphasis added) according to Section 8762a if points were set which do not appear on any map, but which points would not significantly affect the outcome of the survey; and the best interest of the public wont not be significantly enhanced by the recordation." (source: CalSurveyor Issus 10)

Crazy Phil again

That, to me, reads, if you set a pipe or a nail and shiner, or a spike for your construction staking control because you want it to last for most of the life of the project, you don't have to file an RS. From what I've seen practicing from 1987 through today, this practice still exists, and in most cases noone is reporting people for setting construction stakeout control.

Considering large subdivisions may last several years, you're often going to do more than drive a hub in the ground for your control points. Especially in the older days when radial stakeouts were still a "thing".

The minute you set a point (or refuse to set a point) which is to signify a boundary controlling location, (ROW, CL, PL corner, PL offset monument and similar), or any similar points that the public may depend on to locate land boundaries, you are affecting public interest. The whole point of documenting these is to add a level of certainty to geographic location of land title matters.

[hellsangle]

The whole point of documenting these is to add a level of certainty to geographic location of land title matters.

Based upon the attached and redacted record of survey by a late surveyor . . . it would have been a blessing if the points were not set!

The surveyor blew off 2077 CCP (Civil Code of Procedures).

Doesn't one "vet" a survey before accepting it survey blindly?'!

Crazy Phil

[CBarrett]

I can't see enough of the map to be able to judge what is going on, something got scaled down too much to be able to see what is written, nor do I have ny backup documentation or time to "check the map".
I'm not sure where you are going with this? Some maps have problems. Nothing is ever going to be 100%. That's just life, it's not black and white. So yay, you found one with problem, we all find them.
In order to claim something is destructive, you have to show a significantly prevalent pattern of destructive effects.

I'm in charge of mapchecking contracts in my office, we have several. Sure, I see maybe 5% or 10% of the maps with problems. This is why we check maps. Some counties insist on more in depth map reviews than others.

As we are musing here, you are one one that champions surveyor to recorder efforts anyway. If this RS is deficient, we'd have 10-15% more of those without mapchecking, and possibly more as surveyors get less and less careful knowing noone is watching. At 10-15% rate of problematic maps, if you have to pull more than 10 maps to review for your boundary analysis, at least one is going to have oddities. Happens on every project. It's actually a frequent conversation when it comes to budgeting boundary analysis efforts, how to quantify the unpredictability of time spent cleaning up goof ups and oddities when retracing previous work. Everyone who does boundary analysis deals with this daily, it's not just you.

Just the way the threads in this forum go, we can tell how fast things degenerate among our folk even when they merely get lulled into a false sense of security that no-one is watching.