Surveyor to Recorder

Surveyor to Recorder

Poll runs till Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:25 pm

I want Direct to Recorder
24
14%
I want the existing County Surveyor review
33
19%
I am in private practice
42
24%
I am in government
19
11%
I am a member of CLSA
51
29%
I am NOT a member of CLSA
4
2%
 
Total votes: 173

User avatar
PLS7393
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:09 pm
Location: Bay Area (Fremont)
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby PLS7393 » Mon Jan 28, 2019 12:51 pm

Lee Hixson wrote:Sometimes all it takes is a simple red-line comment by the CS alerting the surveyor to a possible oversight, the repercussions of which could cost the public enormous amounts of time and money to deal with later.

Like: "You don't show any evidence of occupation along P/Ls anywhere on your map. Is that because there isn't any?"

Could just be an oversight. Could also be a surveyor with insufficient experience or just plain incompetence. Either way, if the CS doesn't ask the question unnecessary expense and heartache may ensue.


I would like to say it appears there is confusion between "Boundary Lines vs. Fence Lines".
I thought I had a good understanding of the two, especially when homeowners are paying taxes on their boundary lines, not fence (use) lines.
Furthermore, do you know how that fence was constructed (if not close to the P.L.)?
Showing a fence on a R.O.S. can be beneficial as evidence, but I usually don't like to use to establish a boundary.

User avatar
E_Page
Posts: 2010
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
Location: El Dorado County

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby E_Page » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:40 pm

Existence and location of fences are like any other facts. they're simply another piece of potential evidence which may or may not mean something with regard to the original boundary location, and the surveyor needs to make a case-by-case investigation when fences (or other indications of lines of occupation) exist.

Beyond that, even if a fence is not evidence of the original boundary location, it may be or may become a fact which could have an impact on title, and if it is a physical separator of the use by one landowner from the use by an adjoining landowner, should be shown, at the very least as to general location relative to the originally established boundaries/lines of written title.
Evan Page, PLS
A Certain Forum Essayist

User avatar
PLS7393
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:09 pm
Location: Bay Area (Fremont)
Contact:

Re: Surveyor to Recorder

Postby PLS7393 » Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:24 am

Lee Hixson wrote:Sometimes all it takes is a simple red-line comment by the CS alerting the surveyor to a possible oversight, . . .

. . . Could also be a surveyor with insufficient experience or just plain incompetence. Either way, if the CS doesn't ask the question unnecessary expense and heartache may ensue.


Yes Lee some of this is true, and there are new CS who think they are above all with their own agenda. Maybe this is due to their inexperience as a CS and the lack of the true understanding of the position. The map review process is not that difficult and shouldn't take that long to check a map for technicalities, as I have been there.

I have been in support of the review process, but the more I see a CS opinion being forced on my maps makes me think twice about the concept of "Surveyor to Recorder".

It would benefit all if the CS would simplify the review process as some counties already do, and keeping the review fees to a minimum.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests