Practice Inquiry

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Practice Inquiry

Postby mpallamary » Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:44 am

I have been asked to review a survey from another county, not that that should make a difference under state laws. My client hired a surveyor and he/she specifically excluded a Record of Survey from the agreement as noted on the attached. Notwithstanding this disclaimer, he/she showed numerous dimensions from the structure to the property line and right of way line. Does anyone have any thoughts or comments? Does anyone believe you can show measurements of this sort while concurrently evading a duty to file a Record of Survey?

Thanks all.

Be safe.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Lee Hixson
Posts: 575
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 8:03 am
Location: Yuba City, CA
Contact:

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby Lee Hixson » Sat Jun 12, 2021 7:02 am

Looks to me to be a clear evasion of RofS requirements. It's almost a mini-ALTA survey.

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby mpallamary » Sat Jun 12, 2021 7:18 am

Thanks! Hoping to get more comments before responding!

User avatar
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: N31°43', W116°39'
Contact:

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby Peter Ehlert » Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:31 am

for what it's worth, I agree with Lee.

that surveyor needs some re-education.
Perhaps a "gentle" reminder is needed. Jump on it Mike, but keep it private (unless you run into resistance)
Peter Ehlert

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby mpallamary » Sat Jun 12, 2021 1:42 pm

Thanks! That's why I redacted it. I am trying to avoid problems for this individual.

User avatar
Dave Lindell
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 9:17 pm
Location: Pasadena

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby Dave Lindell » Sat Jun 12, 2021 4:20 pm

If that's not a survey requiring a Record of Survey, I've been doing it wrong for fifty years!

User avatar
steffan
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: N CA

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby steffan » Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:03 am

Based on the only partial disclosure of facts provided, I noted that the controlling elements for the boundary are not shown. Without that, I wouldn’t opine whether or not the preparer of the site plan needs to also prepare a ROS. We don’t have all the facts. There is the possibility that the parcel is adequately monumented and there are no discrepancies with record. In other words, a ROS is not triggered as a result of the boundary retracement. This then begs the question as to if a site plan has to depict the boundary controlling elements, or can it simply show relationships between already established boundaries and improvements?
It is not uncommon for site plans and construction plans to show property boundaries and their relationships to improvements without also showing the boundary controlling elements and relationship with record surveys and title. One must look deeper than the site plan to understand if there are discrepancies with record or alternate solutions.
As to the partial extracted contract language, it may or may not be pertinent to the findings of the actual boundary retracement. Again, it may be a moot point if the parcel was already adequately monumented. We don’t know the entire set of facts.
Last edited by steffan on Sun Jun 13, 2021 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: N31°43', W116°39'
Contact:

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby Peter Ehlert » Sun Jun 13, 2021 8:39 am

steffan wrote:Based on the only partial disclosure of facts provided, I noted that the controlling elements for the boundary are not shown. Without that, I wouldn’t opine whether or not the preparer of the site plan needs to also prepare a ROS. We don’t have all the facts. There is the possibility that the parcel is adequately monumented and there are no discrepancies with record. In other words, a ROS is not triggered as a result of the boundary retracement. This then begs the question as to if a site plan has to depict the boundary controlling elements, or can it simply show relationships between already established boundaries and improvements?
It is not uncommon for site plans and construction plans to show property boundaries and their relationships to improvements without also showing the boundary controlling elements and relationship with record surveys and title. One must look deeper than the site plan to understand if there are discrepancies with record or alternate solutions.
As to the partial extracted contract language, it may or may not be pertinent to the findings of the actual boundary retracement. Again, it may be a moor point if the parcel was already adequately monumented. We don’t know the entire set of facts.

+1

PS: in my little world such drawings are provided as separate sheets for planning use, and the Other Sheets provide the boundary resolution and control ties as needed/required
Peter Ehlert

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby mpallamary » Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:24 am

Good points all. There is a six-foot discrepancy in the boundary lines. The land description is a lot and a portion of an adjacent lot described by metes and bounds. There is no evidence the boundary was monumented or based on survey monuments. When the property owner started comparing various records, he/she contacted the surveyor. The surveyor issued a second drawing wherein the lines were adjusted to add the additional six feet. It is my practice, when preparing multiple sheets, as has been suggested, to cross reference the sheets to assure there are no problems. I am still researching this one. The property is in the San Francisco Bay area and I am in San Diego. I was inquiring to see if the custom and practice in situations like this varied across the state. It is my opinion they should not as the laws are statewide.

As always, I appreciate the comments!

User avatar
David Kendall
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: Sonoma

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby David Kendall » Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:46 pm

My understanding of 8762 b 4 is that establishment of a partial lot (with record of previous mapping on whole lots) would trigger a record of survey if the line was not previously mapped by a filed survey or subdivision map. I consider the boundary tied to a building or fence and shown graphically to be a boundary establishment with or without corner monuments. I agree with the disclaimer that states the diagram shown is not a record of survey. It contains elements that are not typical for a boundary survey (spot elevations, gates, decks, planters and utility boxes) If I produced a map like this that established lines which were not previously shown on a filed map then I would probably feel a legal obligation to file a record of survey

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby mpallamary » Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:34 am

Thanks David! I was contacted to look at it because of the six-foot discrepancy. The entire land is described by metes and bounds. There is no evidence that there is a previous survey. In addition, there is no evidence of any monuments. I shall continue probing. Many thanks!

User avatar
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: N31°43', W116°39'
Contact:

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby Peter Ehlert » Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:29 am

Mike: have you contacted the other surveyor yet?
Peter Ehlert

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby hellsangle » Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:46 am

Great point, Peter.

That would be the "civil" and the "professional" thing to do.

What's the purpose of the review? Have you considered Board Rule 475 (c) 10? . . . "or" . . . "or" . . . "or . . .

Crazy Phil again

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby mpallamary » Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:03 am

I have reached out to the other surveyor. The client informed me that she has been calling for three weeks and emailed but the surveyor will not respond. I called and emails this AM.

Many thanks all!

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby mpallamary » Mon Jun 14, 2021 2:40 pm

I had a lengthy conversation with the other surveyor. He/she did not locate any monuments. He/she did a curb survey or what is known as a "curb split." I asked how confident they were showing a dozen building ties to the nearest hundredth in light of no monuments being used. He/she was not able to express an opinion. The first survey was not labeled PRELIMINARY and the second one wherein the boundary line was relocated six-feet, looked identical.

Does anyone believe establishing precise boundary lines splitting curbs warrants an explanation and a Record of Survey? I did some research and there are monuments out there but they were not used. I am certain a monument based survey will produce different results.

Thoughts anyone?

Edward M Reading
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:23 am
Location: San Luis Obispo

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby Edward M Reading » Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:56 pm

Send it to the Board.
Edward M. Reading, PLS (ID, WY, CA)
San Luis Obispo

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby mpallamary » Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:06 pm

Yes, thanks. I am trying to see what they are willing to do. I appreciate your suggestion!

User avatar
TTaylor
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:17 pm

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby TTaylor » Tue Jun 15, 2021 4:35 am

Without all the facts, IMO the structure is now a monument to the property line and Right of Way.

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby hellsangle » Tue Jun 15, 2021 6:53 am

Mr. T . . .

ONLY if those were AGREED boundaries would the house be a monument. Just another opinion, in my mind.

Even If this were a Record of Survey, it still does not make the house a monument. A monument of one surveyor's opinion, yes.

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby mpallamary » Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:12 am

Again, thank you all so very much. It is always enlightening to get the perspective of one's peers.

I had a conversation with another surveyor last week over the use of topographic calls to establish a quarter corner. There were five surveyors who thought it was unsafe and improper to use topo calls because of the history of fraudulent surveys. My topo call was an incredibly steep and incised creek that showed up in 1923 aerials and cleary had not moved. The other surveyors stated the correct method was to prorate the corner back in. Bud Uzes assisted me by providing a lot of cases. $1.5M the court agreed and the topo call prevailed. My point is, once a precise measurement is logged in, such as one to a building location, I believe it becomes a monuments. If the property owner is given a map with half a dozen dimensions to the same line, all to the hundredth, he/she believes the surveyor. Will see what develops.

User avatar
David Kendall
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: Sonoma

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby David Kendall » Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:42 am

hellsangle wrote:A monument of one surveyor's opinion, yes.


I suppose all of them are....

Next question is what is the value of one surveyor's opinion?

My answer lies in the presentation of the supporting evidence

User avatar
Ca.PLS8200
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:19 am
Location: Kerman, California
Contact:

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby Ca.PLS8200 » Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:48 am

TTaylor wrote:Without all the facts, IMO the structure is now a monument to the property line and Right of Way.


Agreed. A monument set at the property corner, an offset monument set online, or an offset monument set offline would all trigger an RS.

Some surveyors use rebar, some use iron pipes, some use buildings. Regardless of the monument used, if it can be used to identify and/or locate the boundary, it's a trigger.

(The next question would be, did the surveyor tag the building?)

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby mpallamary » Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:35 am

Thanks!

Good comments!

User avatar
LS_8750
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Sonoma
Contact:

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby LS_8750 » Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:06 am

Lemme guess, East Bay?

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Practice Inquiry

Postby mpallamary » Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:22 am

Hmm! Hmm! Hmm!

So, I spoke with the surveyor and he/she has agreed to prepare a Record of Survey for me to review and to submit to the county, all at his/her expense. He/she is going to formally rescind the previous surveys, and reissue them as PRELIMINARY and after the ROS is recorded, revise the topo survey/site plan to reflect a final boundary based upon a recorded survey map.

Thank you all for your comments and thoughts. This is a wonderful use of the forum!


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests