Lot Line Adjustment

User avatar
laveyb24
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:34 pm

Lot Line Adjustment

Postby laveyb24 » Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:11 pm

I have been asked to provide a proposal for a LLA between 2 parcels already shown on a record map. Part of the City requirements is to locate and plot all structures for both lots. The owners requirement is that the new lot line is clear of an existing overhang by a certain amount of feet which will require a boundary survey to be performed. Records of Survey have been done in the same block and show a few feet of excess. Does this require a Record of Survey after the recordation of the LLA?

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby hellsangle » Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:12 pm

No brainer, Lavey!

Most certainly - YES!

"Surveyor to Recorder Phil" - Sonoma

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2040
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby mpallamary » Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:56 pm

No, with all due respect, relative to the LLA.

You have to decide if the Land Surveyors Act has been invoked.

Here is the applicable excerpt from the State Subdivision Map Act.

66412. This division shall be inapplicable to any of the following:

(a) The financing or leasing of apartments, offices, stores, or similar space within apartment buildings, industrial buildings, commercial buildings, mobilehome parks, or trailer parks.

(b) Mineral, oil, or gas leases.

(c) Land dedicated for cemetery purposes under the Health and Safety Code.

(d) A lot line adjustment between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjoining parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created, if the lot line adjustment is approved by the local agency, or advisory agency. A local agency or advisory agency shall limit its review and approval to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to the local general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances. An advisory agency or local agency shall not impose conditions or exactions on its approval of a lot line adjustment except to conform to the local general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances, to require the prepayment of real property taxes prior to the approval of the lot line adjustment, or to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements. No tentative map, parcel map, or final map shall be required as a condition to the approval of a lot line adjustment. The lot line adjustment shall be reflected in a deed, which shall be recorded. No record of survey shall be required for a lot line adjustment unless required by Section 8762 of the Business and Professions Code. A local agency shall approve or disapprove a lot line adjustment pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 65920) of Division 1).

One could argue the disclosure of the discrepancies has been made:

PLSA 8762.
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), after making a field survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying, the licensed surveyor or licensed civil engineer may file with the county surveyor in the county in which the field survey was made, a record of the survey.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), after making a field survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying, the licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer shall file with the county surveyor in the county in which the field survey was made a record of the survey relating to land boundaries or property lines, if the field survey discloses any of the following:

(1) Material evidence or physical change, which in whole or in part does not appear on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey previously recorded or properly filed in the office of the county recorder or county surveying department, or map or survey record maintained by the Bureau of Land Management of the United States.

(2) A material discrepancy with the information contained in any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey previously recorded or filed in the office of the county recorder or the county surveying department, or any map or survey record maintained by the Bureau of Land Management of the United States. For purposes of this subdivision, a “material discrepancy” is limited to a material discrepancy in the position of points or lines, or in dimensions.

(3) Evidence that, by reasonable analysis, might result in materially alternate positions of lines or points, shown on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey previously recorded or filed in the office of the county recorder or the county surveying department, or any map or survey record maintained by the Bureau of Land Management of the United States.

(4) The location, relocation, establishment, reestablishment, or retracement of one or more points or lines not shown on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey, the positions of which are not ascertainable from an inspection of the subdivision map, official map, or record of survey.

(5) The points or lines set during the performance of a field survey of any parcel described in any deed or other instrument of title recorded in the county recorder’s office are not shown on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey.

(c) The record of survey required to be filed pursuant to this section shall be filed within 90 days after the setting of boundary monuments during the performance of a field survey or within 90 days after completion of a field survey, whichever occurs first.

(d) (1) If the 90-day time limit contained in subdivision (c) cannot be complied with for reasons beyond the control of the licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer, the 90-day time period shall be extended until the time at which the reasons for delay are eliminated. If the licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer cannot comply with the 90-day time limit, he or she shall, prior to the expiration of the 90-day time limit, provide the county surveyor with a letter stating that he or she is unable to comply. The letter shall provide an estimate of the date for completion of the record of survey, the reasons for the delay, and a general statement as to the location of the survey, including the assessor’s parcel number or numbers.

(2) The licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer shall not initially be required to provide specific details of the survey. However, if other surveys at the same location are performed by others which may affect or be affected by the survey, the licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer shall then provide information requested by the county surveyor without unreasonable delay.

(e) Any record of survey filed with the county surveyor shall, after being examined by him or her, be filed with the county recorder.

(f) If the preparer of the record of survey provides a postage-paid, self-addressed envelope or postcard with the filing of the record of survey, the county recorder shall return the postage-paid, self-addressed envelope or postcard to the preparer of the record of survey with the filing data within 10 days of final filing. For the purposes of this subdivision, “filing data” includes the date, the book or volume, and the page at which the record of survey is filed with the county recorder.

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby hellsangle » Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:17 pm

Part of the City requirements is to locate and plot all structures for both lots. The owners requirement is that the new lot line is clear of an existing overhang by a certain amount of feet which will require a boundary survey to be performed.


All due respect . . . locating structures relative to a NEW line not shown upon a previously recorded map . . . seems to me to invoke a Record of Survey. I would suspect Michael is correct if the line has already been surveyed and you're not adjusting an already recorded/mapped line?

More confusion . . . ???

Phil - Sonoma

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2040
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby mpallamary » Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:31 pm

The point I am trying to make is the city cannot require it. If, in the course of a FIELD SURVEY you find something that invokes a ROS requirement, that is your call. Here is San Diego, we have the option of processing lot line adjustments with a simple parcel map. I always use it for a million and one reasons!

Check it out:

https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/ ... manual.pdf

User avatar
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: N31°43', W116°39'
Contact:

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby Peter Ehlert » Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:30 pm

"I have been asked to provide a proposal for a LLA..."
So for this proposal you are anticipating triggers that would require a RoS, but that might not be the case, you don't know yet.

my Fee for LLA including RoS $_____
If no RoS is required my Fee will be $_____
Peter Ehlert

User avatar
laveyb24
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:34 pm

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby laveyb24 » Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:41 pm

mpallamary that is along the lines of my opinion.

Yes structures will be located but in reference to a line that will not exist until recording of the document. No monuments will be set and yes the block descrepency has been shown on a previous Record of Survey.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. From my years of experience almost nothing in surveying is absolute. Many words in the LS act can be taken one way or another to interpret not only a black and white area but a grey as well.

Of coarse I always include a clause in my contracts for Record of Survey triggers.

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2040
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby mpallamary » Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:22 pm

As a standard matter of business, every land surveyor's contract should include a provision for the filing of a Record of Survey or a Corner Record. That is simply good business and is a standard provision in the CLSA contract.

There is a vast difference between a land surveyor who does boundary work and a business person who performs land surveying. Most complaints against land surveyors is due to poor business practices and contract disputes.

https://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/laws/contractlaw.shtml

User avatar
Anthony Maffia
Posts: 494
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 4:52 pm
Location: Contra Costa County, CA

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby Anthony Maffia » Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:29 pm

If you use the location of the house to design the new lot line, but don't disclose that distance to the client, or show it on the plat, then no ROS would be required. However, if the plat shows the measurement from a house corner to a lot line, then the house becomes a monument, triggering a ROS.

P.S.: My opinions are based on what I've learned about our profession and on my experience. I'm always learning. If you think I'm wrong, then please point me in the right direction, hopefully without sarcasm. Thank you.
- Anthony Maffia, LSIT

User avatar
land butcher
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:26 pm
Location: calif

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby land butcher » Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:26 pm

IMO you are locked into doing a field survey, otherwise how can you place new line X distance from a structure?
The city is looking for setback info.
I agree that LLAs are best shown on a PM but they are usually more expensive.
If the RS shows lot size discrepancies and your field work is in agreement with the RS then I don't see where another RS is required unless the city requires you to set the corners.

User avatar
LA Stevens
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:03 am
Location: Marin County, California
Contact:

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby LA Stevens » Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:30 pm

Once the deed is executed that creates the line that was based upon a field survey, you have triggered one of the requirements of a Record of Survey. You have also shown the boundary line, as a proposed boundary to obtain approval of the Lot Line Adjustment. Everyone that was involved with the creation and approval of the boundary line knows what the relationship is to the existing improvements.

If a field survey was not required for the Lot Line Adjustment, no ROS is required.

User avatar
steffan
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: N CA

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby steffan » Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:29 pm

To follow some if the lines of reasoning presented I considered a number of similar situations. Such as Surveyor A surveys the boundaries of a couple of adjoining lots and finds all of the corner monuments and no discrepancy with record. Surveyor A is then also requested to to fly the property and provide that orthorectified imagery with the property lines projected thereon. No ROS trigger.

The owners of the parcels now have a document accurately relating the many physical features of the properties to the existing property lines.
Time passes. Or not. The owners stare for hours and days at the map and develop a vision for the lands. They realize that moving the dividing line east a hundred feet will keep a cedar grove intact and allow access construction for one parcel to stay 50’ from a waterbody.

They hire Surveyor B to draw up the exhibits for a LLA to shift the dividing line east. The LLA application simply shows boundary change. Surveyor B is simply asked to create the LLA descriptions and exhibit.

Surveyor A is unaware the relationships between existing boundaries and land features he developed was to be used for a LLA.

Surveyor B is unaware his LLA descriptions and exhibits were based on a desired shift related to land features.

So this situation presents the same ROS trigger some argue exists, but because of the limited extent of each surveyor’s involvement in developing this LLA, it is possible that neither surveyor is responsible for a ROS.

My point? My point is so what if it is one surveyor who is fully aware of the planning decisions or 2 separate surveyors who aren’t. Are either owners or the public concerned or affected by the LLA only being documented by title recordings. Or is the only harm caused being that to the owner by
the fee for the ROS of questionable value?

If there is no blood is there no foul?
Last edited by steffan on Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2040
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby mpallamary » Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:43 pm

And remember this:

SMA - No survey for a parcel map

66448. In all cases where a parcel map is required, the parcel map shall be based upon a field survey made in conformity with the Land Surveyors Act when required by local ordinance, or, in absence of that requirement, shall be based either upon a field survey made in conformity with the Land Surveyors Act or be compiled from recorded or filed data when sufficient recorded or filed survey monumentation presently exists to enable the retracement of the exterior boundary lines of the parcel map and the establishment of the interior parcel or lot lines of the parcel map.



This whole area of law should be cleaned up and this is something CLSA should focus its resources on.

User avatar
laveyb24
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:34 pm

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby laveyb24 » Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:19 pm

Agreed. This is not as black and white as some seem to believe.

I am hopeful someone from the board can offer an opinion as to this matter.

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2040
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby mpallamary » Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:56 pm

CLSA should form or appoint a committee to discuss and advance a position.

That should be a primary function of the association.

User avatar
marchenko
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:24 pm

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby marchenko » Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:08 am

Why do you need a boundary survey to know you are 12 feet from the overhang of an existing building? I am 2 feet clear of my cubicle wall and all I had to do was pull out my pocket tape to determine this. There is no land boundary or property line (new line) until it all records.

User avatar
subman
Posts: 425
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:22 pm
Location: Ventura County

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby subman » Mon May 13, 2019 9:29 pm

Depending on the vintage of the lots and houses, the Building Official had an option to require a boundary survey to precisely locate the building on the lot, respecting the setbacks. If he didn't, then the inspector used his judgement and signed off. Maybe it is 5.2' or 4.8'. Get a copy of the plot plan approved by the building department and a copy of the building permits.and submit those. Show on the plot plan exhibit for the LLA 5' per building permit #abcde24136. The Assessor may have them or some other county department

User avatar
E_Page
Posts: 2051
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
Location: El Dorado County

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby E_Page » Tue May 14, 2019 10:04 am

Let's go back to 8762...

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), after making a field survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying, the licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer shall file with the county surveyor in the county in which the field survey was made a record of the survey relating to land boundaries or property lines, if the field survey discloses any of the following:

(4) The location, relocation, establishment, reestablishment, or retracement of one or more points or lines not shown on any
[record map].

Even if you are locating the buildings and the overhang that the location of the new line will be based on with aerial mapping, that is still part of a field survey in conformity with the practice of surveying.

You will be establishing a line, the location being determined from elements of your survey, which is not shown on any previous record map.

It won't matter if you disclose the distance from the overhang to the new line because the client directed that criteria to you, therefore the method of establishment is disclosed. If you have a copy of the "Herrick" letter regarding establishment, review it. What you describe fits the Board's answer to Mr. Herrick pretty much right on.

IMO, given the scenario you described in the OP, the law is pretty clear. Fail to file at your own risk.
Evan Page, PLS
A Certain Forum Essayist

William Magee
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby William Magee » Tue May 14, 2019 11:30 am

E_Page wrote:

Even if you are locating the buildings and the overhang that the location of the new line will be based on with aerial mapping, that is still part of a field survey in conformity with the practice of surveying.

You will be establishing a line, the location being determined from elements of your survey, which is not shown on any previous record map.

It won't matter if you disclose the distance from the overhang to the new line because the client directed that criteria to you, therefore the method of establishment is disclosed. If you have a copy of the "Herrick" letter regarding establishment, review it. What you describe fits the Board's answer to Mr. Herrick pretty much right on.

IMO, given the scenario you described in the OP, the law is pretty clear. Fail to file at your own risk.


The following excerpt from the Herrick letter (from BPELSG) regarding LLA's seems contradictory to the above individual's opinion.

"It is also proper to refer to any physical feature located by the field survey in the legal description in the deed as control for the intent of the property owner's desired location of the adjusted lot lines pursuant to the approved lot line adjustment application. The creation of the adjusted lot line as described in the legal description in the recorded deed for the lot line adjustment should not to be confused with the establishment of an existing property, or boundary line described in an existing deed, or as shown on a subdivision map of record during the performance of a field survey. Legal descriptions of the adjusted lot lines are prepared in the office based on the parameters required by the owner's of the property and as approved by the public agency. These lines are not then established in the field.

In these circumstances, a Record of Survey is not required to be prepared and filed with the County Surveyor's Office."

I personally agree with BPELSG's interpretation as quoted hereinbefore from the Herrick letter. However, whether or not the BPELSG's interpretation would keep a filed complaint from ending in an action against a licensee is not a given.
Don't shoot the messenger.

User avatar
E_Page
Posts: 2051
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
Location: El Dorado County

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby E_Page » Tue May 14, 2019 4:50 pm

Also from that letter:

"A licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer establishes, and is subject to the record of survey filing requirements, when he or she represents beyond reasonable doubt or dispute the location, relocation, establishment, reestablishment or retracement of a boundary or property line to another party pursuant to the provisions of Section 8762 of the (PLSA). This representation includes the act of causing a boundary or property line to be accepted or recognized, to prove or demonstrate the location of the boundary or property line, setting, resetting or replacement of corner, reference or witness monuments or the referencing of a boundary or property line by showing dimensional ties to the line in relation to physical features or monuments located on the ground."

The letter goes on to address specific circumstances asked about by Herrick, Stevens and Mays:

1. ALTA Surveys: uses same language as the paragraph above.
2. Topographic Surveys - "Same as Answer 1, above."
3. Lot Line Adjustment Surveys: "It is our opinion that based on B&P, PLSA Section 8762(b)(4) that the individual performing a field survey for a lot line adjustment documenting the establishment of one or more points or lines not shown on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey, the positions of which are not ascertainable from an inspection of the subdivision map, official map, or record of survey is required to prepare and file a Record of Survey. This requirement applies whether monuments were, or were not, set at the corners, or as references to the corners, or as points on the property line."

They go on to address 8762(b)(5) similarly and come to the same conclusion. They then say:

"There is no question that in situations where a property line, or boundary line is established in the field survey performed in conjunction with a lot line adjustment, we agree with your opinion that a Record of Survey is required to be prepared and filed with the County Surveyor's Office."

Magee, you had to ignore all of this and then suggest that the only meat of the letter was contained in the next couple of paragraphs which on the surface, curiously seem to contradict the first 2/3 and overall tone of the letter.

So, trying to read the letter as a whole so that it does not contradict itself, you need to put the "It is proper to refer to..." paragraph in context with the paragraph just preceding it which talks about the use of topographic maps which depict only the "approximate locations of these physical features based on rough field measurements... or from aerial maps of the property containing adequate data for such purposes."

But in the OP, Lavey states that rather than a topo that shows the approximate locations of features and a few rough field measurements, the precision required in this project "will require a boundary survey to be performed."

A few years back, Ric posted a thread on this forum that none of us should distribute or even possess past opinion letters of the Board. His reasoning being that none of us are bright enough to realize that they do not hold the weight of law. So here is the statement of limitations when it comes to our (or at least my) discussion of this letter: The "Herrick" letter represents an interpretation of the law as it existed in December 2006 as applied to the set of facts as described in the letter from Herrick, Stevens and Mays to the Board and more particularly, as described in the response letter from the Board to Herrick, Stevens, and Mays. Differing facts may change the answer. It is also possible that new staff may hold a different interpretation.

However, assuming that the Board and its staff would act with integrity as demonstrated by consistency in its interpretations of law (assuming no precedent setting and contradictory published court rulings have occurred), I reiterate: Fail to file at your own risk. I would also add that following Magee's out of context and IMO, misleading interpretation would be very risky should you obtain and read the full contents of the "Herrick" letter and consider it in context with the references to the PLSA.
Evan Page, PLS
A Certain Forum Essayist

User avatar
laveyb24
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:34 pm

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby laveyb24 » Tue May 14, 2019 5:27 pm

Even this is good information. Thank you.

User avatar
DWoolley
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Orange County
Contact:

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby DWoolley » Wed May 15, 2019 8:56 am

E_Page wrote:...Magee, you had to ignore all of this and then suggest that the only meat of the letter was contained in the next couple of paragraphs which on the surface, curiously seem to contradict the first 2/3 and overall tone of the letter.


Good post, Evan Page. You are entirely correct.

The agency cannot place conditions on a LLA (although many do). However, if the work product trips a trigger in Business and Professions code section 8762 the land surveyor has a legal obligation to file a record of survey. Many local jurisdictions require a "site plan" that shows the relationship of the old line and the new line to the structures and/or improvements. This site plan triggers a record of survey 99.9% of the time. The noted exception is when the LLA is part of a future subdivision mapping project.

This section of this post has been removed because it violates forum rule #4.
4. We encourage lively discussion and debate but remember that disagreeing with an idea is different from attacking an individual. In that spirit, do not post messages that contain personal attacks against other individuals, including CLSA members, officers, or staff. Messages and materials that are defamatory, abusive, profane, threatening, offensive, or illegal are strictly prohibited. Do not post anything on the CLSA Discussion Board that you would not want made public or that you would not want anyone to know came from you.


[Post script: the section that has been deleted was complementary towards Evan Page for having the patience to address Magee's, er, skulduggery towards certain contributors. Magee is a pseudonym - I am not sure that a pseudonym qualifies as an individual in the context above. I am sorry (not sorry) for shaking the very sensibilities of the readership by [it remains unclear to me]. In my 13 year history of forum participation I do not recall ever having had a post removed. There was nothing in the, now deleted, post that constitutes "defamatory, abusive, profane, threatening, offensive, or illegal". I am confident it will be ok for the offended, hold tight your comfort dog, find the nearest safe space, cry if need be, and pray, only if you are the praying type, you do not have any lasting forum PTSD.

Heads up to the readers, over the last week I have been preparing an update to the SB556 thread. In an attempt to save you from me, that update will not be forthcoming. I recommend the licensed community watch this bill very closely. As it reads today, the bill deregulates a large swath of the currently protected practice. Now would be a good time to ask that brother in law about any upcoming openings at Walmart. Best of luck, DW]

DWoolley
Last edited by DWoolley on Thu May 16, 2019 10:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2040
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby mpallamary » Wed May 15, 2019 10:46 am

This comment has been deleted because it violates Forum Rules 4 & 5

Forum Rule 4. We encourage lively discussion and debate but remember that disagreeing with an idea is different from attacking an individual. In that spirit, do not post messages that contain personal attacks against other individuals, including CLSA members, officers, or staff. Messages and materials that are defamatory, abusive, profane, threatening, offensive, or illegal are strictly prohibited. Do not post anything on the CLSA Discussion Board that you would not want made public or that you would not want anyone to know came from you.

Forum Rule 5. When posting, please keep your comments consistent with the subject and purpose of the thread of discussion.

William Magee
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby William Magee » Thu May 16, 2019 8:28 am

I've read and re-read the letter from BPELSG to Northstar Engineering (Herrick letter) many times over the years, and am of the understanding it represents industry practice and the statutes closely. I in no way intended to mislead anyone in my prior post containing the quotation of a portion of said letter, but rather simply intended to bring forward that portion which I felt and still feel is in conflict with Mr. Page's expanded interpretation of limitations applied to topographic surveys beyond the content of the letter. By expanded interpretation I am referring to his assertion that precision of location of features is a controlling aspect of establishment. I do not believe that is the message contained within the 4th paragraph of the 3rd bulleted section of the letter when read in whole. When read in whole, one will note that section does not limit field surveys/topographic surveys to a precision, but rather gives 2 examples, topographic maps with features (of any level precision), and "some site plans which (sic) are even based on contours taken from U.S.G.S, Quad Maps and the approximate location of these physical features..." One might note these are 2 separate examples and not the singular definition of precision of mapping that Mr. Page portrays.

Regardless of disagreement on how the letter, industry practice or the statutes are interpreted, I believe everyone is in agreement that proceeding without filing a R/S is done at one's own risk. Unfortunately there are many LLA situations that the costs associated with filing a R/S are an excessive burden with little to no public benefit. Another good justification for Crazy Phil's rallying cry:

"SURVEYOR TO RECORDER"
Don't shoot the messenger.

User avatar
E_Page
Posts: 2051
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
Location: El Dorado County

Re: Lot Line Adjustment

Postby E_Page » Thu May 16, 2019 8:58 am

I didn't say that I agree with the portion of the letter that suggests that precision or nature of the field survey should be a factor. But I did point out that the interpretation appears to be the only way to reconcile the latter 1/3 of the letter with the 1st 2/3 of the letter.

IMO, if you are performing a field survey for the purpose of defining the new location of an existing property line, the survey should be in conformance with the practice of land surveying. That would make it subject to 8762(b)(4) in all cases except where the line is being moved to a location adequately identified on a previos record map.

Also, IMO, if you are performing a survey for the purpose of an LLA and that survey does not in conformance with the practice of land surveying, you are providing a substandard survey as bad or worse than those performed for a mortgage inspection that some states allow. I can't see how that would not be considered to be negligent practice.

That last 2/3 of the letter would seem to me to apply where it might be adequate to scale a location from a quad map (a specific example they gave) or a previously performed topo of relatively large areas of land.

If you want to cherry pick the parts you like to base your practices on, go ahead. I'll say I think you would be negligent to do so, but I have no authority to tell you that you can't.

A basic rule of interpreting documents is that you need to read it in a way that reconciles all parts which address the same subject, and not ignore the portions you find inconvenient.

I would highly suggest to Lavey and anyone else finding themselves in a similar situation that they read this letter, and any other opinion letter from the board in full context of that document, in context with the applicable laws, and being aware of any differences in specific circumstances identified in the opinion letter and their own project.

I would also highly recommend that Lavey and others ignore or at least consider your opinion on this subject with a high degree of scepticism. When people begin arguing a point by taking portions of cited materials out of context, and especially when they subsequently argue that context is meaningless, I view their arguments as having a much lower degree of credibility than I otherwise might.
Evan Page, PLS
A Certain Forum Essayist


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests