Prorating between street improvements

[aidensanchez0812]

Hi, does anyone know of any court cases or have any insights on the proper procedure for locating boundaries in a simultaneous conveyance where no monuments exist?

I have established all four sides of the block by splitting the existing face of curbs.

However, the block is short on some sides by about 0.60' +/-

What are your takes on prorating between split curbs? I have seen it done, but it is the right way?

I feel as though legally, it would hold up as the most equitable solution, but I am not completely convinced.

Both Browns and Skelton don't touch on it from what I can see.

Thanks!

[LS_8750]

Toss the books aside.
What is occupation telling you?
The older the buildings, fences, improvements, etc., the better the evidence.
Look for old curb cuts, etc.
The working presumption is that the block has been surveyed in the past.

[aidensanchez0812]

Toss the books aside.
What is occupation telling you?
The older the buildings, fences, improvements, etc., the better the evidence.
Look for old curb cuts, etc.
The working presumption is that the block has been surveyed in the past.

Thanks. The occupation matches the curb splits. I located fences and old walls and it all supports the splitting curbs solution. However, my conundrum is what to do with the deficiency from the record measurements.
I am down to my last resort and it seems like prorating the interior lots between curb splits is the best solution with the absence of other monuments.

[LS_8750]

You mean best solution to create the calamity old Justice Cooley wrote of.
One thing you can know for certain is that the original surveyor did not use proration as a method to layout out the lots.

Again:
Toss the books aside.
What is occupation telling you?
The older the buildings, fences, improvements, etc., the better the evidence.
Look for old curb cuts, etc.
The working presumption is that the block has been surveyed in the past.

[hellsangle]

Aiden,

I feel your pain. Wise words from Clark's post. (Curbs get redone. If this is an old area - the old curbs used to be wood or cobblestone.)

How do the old homes/business' structures occupation look? Should adjacent similarly aged/style homes exist - see how the split between them fit the record. Fences like curbs get replaced over time. Like Clark said of Justice Cooley: is there "harmony in the neighborhood?

0.6' is nothing is sectionalized/rural lands . . . but could be substantial in a downtown block. Again - harmony in the neighborhood.

Have a good weekend all . . .

Crazy Phil - Sonoma

[aidensanchez0812]

Thank you! I appreciate the responses. Harmony in the neighborhood is a good rule of thumb. Not to disturb the status quo. The way I have it now based on the curb splits matches the evidence of occupation (fences and walls). The lot is far from downtown. I just wonder if this is what another reasonably prudent surveyor would do.

Thanks guys.

[David Kendall]

Harmony in the neighborhood is a good rule of thumb. Not to disturb the status quo. The way I have it now based on the curb splits matches the evidence of occupation (fences and walls).... I just wonder if this is what another reasonably prudent surveyor would do.

Drawing dark lines in conflict with historic walls and fences is kook surveying. In the event of a discrepancy with the record, hold established occupation unless you have compelling physical evidence to the contrary (rusty pipes of unknown provenance and old parallel or right angle deed calls do not qualify). Be prepared to provide the vintage of each fence and wall that you hold in case someone asks later

Reasonably prudent is subjective... Depends on who you ask.

Equitable solutions are generally defensible

Bottom line is you are asking the right questions and you have a license so you can make that call for yourself!

[DWoolley]

...
Equitable solutions are generally defensible

Bottom line is you are asking the right questions and you have a license so you can make that call for yourself!

Well done to ask. Try to date the curbs. Oftentimes the contractors would stamp the curbs or sidewalks. Also, look for names or foul words written with a stick that often include a year (walk a few blocks in each direction until you find something of use). Original curbs are original monuments in my book. Set monuments to memorialize the block and file a map - it will be highly unlikely anyone will do the work to overturn your map.

I would not place to much stock in being licensed and making to many calls for yourself. See https://forums.californiasurveyors.org/ ... php?t=9624 to see examples of dead survey cowboys "calling it like they see it".

DWoolley

[Jim Frame]

Common practice may also come into play. In downtown and midtown Sacramento -- we're talking hundreds of blocks -- improvement splits are de rigueur for boundary establishment. Record vs. measured is usually less than half a foot, and building lines generally conform closely to the prorated splits.

[PLS7393]

Another issue is which county and County Surveyor you are going to submit a record of survey to.
Some are more reasonable and understanding to what you want to show on your survey..
You may want to reach out and discuss the situation with them as well, to get them on board with your solution.
It sucks when you have a valid solution such as I did using "Remnants Rule", then have the CS file a complaint telling you to "Prorate".
Proration is the "Last Resort", just remember that, but some like to prorate as a "Feel Good" solution, lol.

[Jim Frame]

It sucks when you have a valid solution such as I did using "Remnants Rule", then have the CS file a complaint telling you to "Prorate".

8766(b): "The examination pursuant to this section shall not require the licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer submitting the record of survey to change the methods or procedures utilized or employed in the performance of the survey, nor shall the examination require a field survey to verify the data shown on the record of survey."

[PLS7393]

It sucks when you have a valid solution such as I did using "Remnants Rule", then have the CS file a complaint telling you to "Prorate".

8766(b): "The examination pursuant to this section shall not require the licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer submitting the record of survey to change the methods or procedures utilized or employed in the performance of the survey, nor shall the examination require a field survey to verify the data shown on the record of survey."

Try telling the Board that, as I clearly documented my case, and their "Independent Expert" commented that my resolution may be valid, but they still made me change to proration. The record of survey did not keep the intent of the original map to hold sidelines parallel to the side street of original map. Additionally, the street monuments were not original, but set by the county with a RS map at an offset, in attempt to represent the original centerline. Their requirement for a RS (by Proration) caused the first lot (Not my surveyed lot) to be 0.45' short of the record distance along their rear line.

My note documented Proration was not my original boundary resolution, and the fact that the required method "Proration" caused an alternate resolution which was different from the intent of the original survey. This is par for the course in a certain county for the past five years, which has many maps in conflict with the CS. Many maps on file (with comments) have documented the legacy of the CS, which does not truly protect the public, which we are licensed to do. Hey, but the Board and CS were happy. The next surveyor of the block will definitely (should) have a different boundary resolution, unless they want to take a shortcut and use my secondary resolution, lol.

Happy Holidays to you too ! ! !

[Mike Mueller]

Aidan,

If you do not prorate that 0.60, then you are placing it all in one lot, and then its enough of a distance that a fence can be off the boundary, or a house does not meet setback requirements if someone wants to do an addition. I have seen quite a few maps where all the measurements match record, to a degree that makes me think they just covered up the tenths of difference to make their job easier and to keep the title and neighborhood quiet. The difference you have of 0.60 is just about the worst, since it falls right in the middle of clearly need to do something with the extra foot, and call it close enough and ignore a tenth.

One thing you can know for certain is that the original surveyor did not use proration as a method to layout out the lots.

When it comes to proration, what is the difference (if any) between it and a chain correction factor? I have seen some folks use the phrase chain correction factor to explain why the 100.00' measurement of someone else is shown as 100.10 by my measurement and maybe 99.90 by another surveyors. This chain correction factor is basically proration, since the entire premise of the idea is that you are comparing two apples and adjusting the measurement device. The original surveyors did this every time they checked their chain, or adjusted for someone else's stretched chain.

I would suggest you consider the original map's precision and geometry. In west Sonoma County there are not too many long straight lines due to hills. So we have subdivisions with hundreds of lots that the longest straight line is about 200 feet. ( Rio Nido, Cazadero, Camp Meeker to name a few) Most of the measurements are to the foot. That gives ALOT of room to adjust the length of a lot line to demonstrate that the bonafide lines of occupation and or roads or large redwood trees are actually in harmony, even if they might be 10 feet different over the 1000 foot long canyon.

Personally I consider it part of our job to keep improving the precision of our measurements between monuments and boundaries that were previously measured. That increased precision helps future surveyors identify those monuments or curbs better.

If I measure a line that is shown as 400' and I get 400.48' then I would say measured and record agree and show both. This is why I try to always show the precision of the record measurement on my ros maps. An old map that shows "N88E", I do not show it as (N88-00-00E R1) on my map. I have seen a few maps where a surveyor splits curbs to establish a centerline for a road, then holds the next road parallel to the second on a bearing that is to the nearest degree on the original map and then call the curbs off a by a few tenths creeping to half a foot as the rotational error gets larger farther away.

In your case, if the original block is shown with a total distance rounded to a foot, and the lots are too, there is quite a bit of leeway in the measurement to account for modern precision. Remember that a measurement of 50 is really a range from 49.51 to 50.49'. Some areas of Santa Rosa had the original garages built at zero offsets and can be the best way to get back to old lot lines. If two garages are 50.35 apart, thats pretty good to hold for interior positions and then recheck were the slop is.

Ask the oldest surveyor you know how much inversing they did between measured and record when it was all done by hand? And not just between two monuments that are close to each other, but checking rotational error between 4-8 monuments?. With CAD to make light of coordinate geometry, procedures that were avoided due to complexity are now pretty simple.

As in most things surveying, the contrary can always be proven when the principles in play are understood :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[No_Target]

Subdivisions that were only monumented at the exterior boundaries are considered to be "protracted" as no interior lines would have been monumented originally. As a result in my mind any boundary evidence toward the outside of the subdivision would have a little bit more weight in my mind. This lends itself to proration, but as others said, check with existing interior improvements and make sure exterior evidence is original if possible.

For all of you calling these curbs, fences, and houses monuments, while I agree I think this means that anyone rebuilding a fence, curb, or house in those areas will need to do an 8771 CR to not commit a misdemeanor, right?

I have found that many surveyors like to call proration the "method of last resort", when in reality Evidence and Procedures has several methods of last resort (such as scaling). Which is lastest? In the end I try to hold the best evidence of original location. Then I try to defend it to the CS reviewer. Unfortunately this means that I butt heads with most CS who don't like what I did. All I can say is I am trying my best to learn and grow as a surveyor and that frequently those who are most argumentative with me are those who have no real reason for why they do it one way except "that's what everyone does". The easiest path is to do what the CS wants regardless of the PLS Act or your own professional judgement tells you... even easier just don't record anything and there doesn't seem to be any real punishment. I'm still unwilling to walk the easy path.

Not sure if that's helpful I just needed to vent. Aiden I am only a few LS numbers off of yours, feel free to reach out to chat.

Kyle Brook
PLS 9686
Confluence Land Surveying

[aidensanchez0812]

I agree with proration being the last resort. Unless there is someway I can identify where the error should go it seems most equitable. In simultaneous conveyances the case law from what I can see points to what the entire block has long acquiesced to. In this case it seems the block has obviously settled with the existing curbs and back of sidewalks. Prorating the error between the existing curb splits and distributing it evenly amongst all lots seems more reasonable than trying to hold records measurements and trying to "best fit", especially when I have physical evidence like walls in some areas that match almost dead on the record measurements. If each lot was deeded, I would have junior and senior issues, but since it is simultaneous, it seems more rational to me unless the contrary can be shown. I found an old cut x that's off my solution by 0.30' but who knows where that came from. I don't know of any unrecorded surveys in Contra Costa County like Marin County has. That would be my go to. I would probably hold what the "first surveyor" did. In Marin County it is usually Ogelsby.

[PLS7393]

For all of you calling these curbs, fences, and houses monuments, while I agree I think this means that anyone rebuilding a fence, curb, or house in those areas will need to do an 8771 CR to not commit a misdemeanor, right?

Kyle Brook

Curbs, fences, and houses are accessories, not monuments. Some may be accepted as lines of occupation, but your reference to 8771 CR I do not believe is appropriate. To enable a surveyor to file a CR, Sect. 8765 needs to be satisfied. Sect. 8765 (d) states " . . . and sufficient monumentation is found to establish the precise location of property corners thereon, . . . "

That said, you can use improvements (curb split) around the block, but a Record of Survey would be required. The old days, County Surveyors would allow a CR for this, but in the past 10+ years they have gone away from a CR, and a RS is required if no street monument(s) are found.

[LS_8750]

Again, the working presumption is that the block has been surveyed in the past.
Why?

The LS Act of 1891 at Section 10 states:
"every licensed surveyor is hereby authorized to make surveys relating to the sale or subdivision of lands, the retracing or establishing of property or boundary lines, public roads, streets, alleys, or trails; and it shall be the duty of each surveyor, whenever making any such surveys, except those relating to the retracing or subdivision of cemetery or town lots, whether the survey be made for private persons, corporations, cities, or counties, to set permanent and reliable monuments and such monuments must be permanently marked with the initials of the surveyor setting them."

Countless old subdivision maps in the Bay Area in my experience show no legend indicating monuments were set. But....

Who wants to be the genius to assert that no monuments were ever set because the map qualified as a subdivision of "town lots"?
Or that all monuments are gone or never existed so we must place math on the ground?

How old is the concrete that the curb cuts are carved into? Does the road pre-date the subdivision, or vice versa?

When was each building in the block constructed? The oldest buildings, how far apart are they from one another... 10 feet, 5 feet, 3 feet, 0.0 feet?

Other improvements, the age of fences, walls, walkways, etc. their materials and their locations relative to the block....

"Unfortunately, it is known that surveyors sometimes, in supposed obedience to the State statue, disregard all evidences of occupation and claim of title and plunge whole neighborhoods into quarrels and litigation by assuming to "establish" corners at points with which the previous occupation cannot harmonize. It is often the case that, where one or more corners are found to be extinct, all parties concerned have acquiesced in lines which were traced by the guidance of some other corner or landmark, which may or may not have been trustworthy; but to bring these lines into discredit, when the people concerned do not question them, not only breeds trouble in the neighborhood, but it must often subject the surveyor himself to annoyance and perhaps discredit, since in a legal controversy the law as well as common sense must declare that a supposed boundary long acquiesced in is better evidence of where the real line should be than any survey made after the original monuments have disappeared."
- Justice Thomas M. Cooley, 1881

Say no to Kook surveying......

[LS_8750]

Another thing....
I was sitting down one day about 15 years ago with old LS 3233 when he subtly suggested to me, "Sometimes you should save a little for the next guy."
He was right.

Sometimes you might find that with all the evidence in hand your portion of the block breaks down nice and tidy, and you can see that the excess or deficiency is further down the block. Let the next genius figure out the remainder of the block.

What was the order in which the buildings and other improvements were constructed?

[aidensanchez0812]

I hear you on that. I just find it nerve wrecking to not know what's going on with the block before I establish the boundary and determine the resolution. I like to have the whole picture. I have used Sanborn maps previously to verify positions of buildings in reference to the property lines. It's not like Marin County where Ogelsby has literally been almost everywhere (I would like to know a little about his personal life...) and I can find an unrecorded survey of at least one lot on the block, hoping that is, that I can find any monuments shown on the map. It can be tricky.