I’ll step into this quagmire.
The fundamental principle involved is that the Record of Survey only show the boundaries of legally created lots…or not [§8462.5 PLS Act]. This is one part of the Professional Land Surveyors’ Act (PLS Act) that I have always wondered about.
The Record of Survey does not serve constructive notice. It is not signed by the owner. There is no consent by title holder or beneficiary or trustee. There is no acceptance by the local jurisdiction. In short, it’s just a record of the survey made in the filed by a surveyor who is engaged to perform a service for their client.
So, as the County Surveyor why do I need to ensure that the boundary shown on the map is “…shown on the latest adopted county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units…”? That belongs right up there with “…bequeathal of incorporeal herediments, feeoffments, bails, and profits a pendre…” Look those up in your Funk and Wagnalls (or Black’s Law Dictionary).
And, the answer is that I really have no idea. Perhaps Ric can chime in with the history of PLS Act §8762.5.
I’m not sure if the lot needs to have been legally created for a surveyor to locate the boundary of the parcel. If it does, then Subdivision Map Act (SMA) §66412.6(a) gives legal status to any lot created prior to March 4, 1972. Section 66412.6(b) requires subsequent purchasers of such a parcel to obtain a certificate of compliance prior to obtaining a permit to develop the parcel.
SMA §66499.35 covers most (if not all) of the remaining requirements for deeming a parcel as legal, including, (d), the fact that a subdivision map is deemed as the certificate of compliance for that parcel.
If SMA §66499.35(c) is cited because there is a house on the property, does that imply that the current configuration of the boundary is covered or just the configuration at the time the house was built?
So, why the potential request for a title report?
If easements are shown on the Record of Survey, the title report might offer some information that the easement was created and (or not) subsequently terminated. Which goes back to Jim’s suggested revision to the “check list”. Is there a potential for clouding title if an easement is shown that has been extinguished?
Perhaps we need to revisit this PLS Act §8762.5 and re-write it to better explain the purpose or get rid of it all together if it serves not purpose.
Ian Wilson, P.L.S. (CA / NV / CO)
San Mateo County Surveyor